rather cynical Starbug but difficult to disagree with much of our post

I say again, two wrongs don't make a right.

The question posed and the answer given was not whether expansion clubs will or won't fail or whether heartland clubs have any more right to exist than new clubs.

The above is not at issue. What is at issue is whether the RFL has a good record on expanding the game or not. The resounding answer has to be no. What compounds it IMO is that they don't even have a very good record of looking after their existing clubs. Sure it's not all down to them, RL clubs throughout history have proved to be some of the most selfish, incompetant and self serving organisations on the planet.

Yet rather than man up and take on the games self interest the RFL usually goes for the big expansionist gesture and usually fails.

Stop being defensive and trying to defend the indefencible. RL is a great game, with a great tradition but as yet after a 130 odd years it's governing body has still not been able to expand the game to a level that registers with the press and public alike.

Let's not kid ourselves, Catalan already existed, London has been an ongoing project since the 1920's and is yet to really yield an audience and for me the Crusaders are 20 years too late.

RL has had it's moments, but as yet breaking into the rest of the UK in a meaningful way is not one - the execution has been woeful and remains so, and the end result is patchy at best - fact.

There are two things needed to expand any sport. One is gaining popularity through the media and success on the pitch and attracting new and enthusiastic supporters. We have had some success there through the SL play offs, but sadly lack of international success has blunted the impact of the sport. On the back of that you need to throw bucket loads of cash at it to make it work. That cash can only come from the existing game. And at the moment that game does not generate the cash required. That is why the heartland clubs need to be strong and supported, something the expansionists choose to forget. Remember ALL the RFL's money is generated by the "heartland clubs". They produce the product SKY pay for, they produce the product the fans pay to see and they produce the raw material (players) that create the product. The RFL's job is to direct those products wisely as representatives of the clubs and to govern the game effectively. Until those goals are met and the cash flows expansion will remain an expensive dream and occasional nightmare - it's called reality.

RU and Soccer cream us at the moment because they have the cash and the profile. When they start a new venture they can afford to bankroll it, it's expected. Any one with a brain could see Crusaders would need to be subsidised for years. Yet we as a game and as fans seem shocked that they do, this despite endless previous example to the contrary. Why do we as a game do it, why do we lie to ourselves and pretend that Crusaders would ever be able to stand alone after a few years. This crisis/rescue plan shouldn't even be an issue, it should have been pre planned and budgeted for. Hence the RFL's reputation for incompetency in these matters continues and they rightly get flak. They need to stop bullsh*tting and tell the truth rather than trying to plaster over the cracks. Jeez if they had really tried with Fulham and put a plan in place they would be a giant by now, instead we have lost generations of London fans and players and lost all credibility in the city as one incarnation of London failed and was followed by another - makes you weep.

Maybe one day it will happen, but not one day very soon I fear.

According to the latest Sport England survey results (recently published) RL is shrinking, not exanding.

Their survey from July 2008 estimated that 77,000 people were actively participating in the game at different levels. The latest one says that figure is now 51,000 people. So a 30% decrease despite receiving £30m of funding to develop the grass roots - I reckon Sport England won't be falling over themselves to give us much funding next time around with that kind of return on investment.

no, you have made the exact same mistake in when you say 'the whole sport' you mean 'the championships'. Look at the fantastic results at youth and amateur level that has stemmed from having a professional visibility and the work Quins have done in the community there.

yet relative to the struggles of the heartland games it isnt quite so bad. And the past ten - fifteen years of expansion on the game has been infinitely more successful than it was for the 90 years preceeding it.

For a long time the game wasnt failing at expansion, its attempts were almost actively counter-productive, the last decade or so has shown we are moving in the right direction.

Im not saying we are there, im saying after 100 years we have finally got on the right track.

Catalans didnt exist, they literally didnt exist. Why we need this revisionism i dont know.

Catalans are an unarguable success story, why need to find mitigation for success is beyond me. Two very small semi-pro french clubs have merged to form a large, strong fully pro RL club, it is great news.

London is an on-going project, but to pretend we were doing anything worhtwhile there in anything other than the last 20 years or so is ridiculous.

Crusaders, we will see. There are encouraging signs, some struggles but as many other clubs have proved, it is difficult to run an RL club.

what is so woeful? are our attempts to crack london any worse than RU's attempts to crack Leeds?

, you think Wakefield Trinity are generating the RFL's money? rubbish. There are unfortunately very few clubs, even in the heartlands that do this. It sounds harsh but from a financial point of view, and Sky's point of view, outside maybe 6 or 7 clubs, everyone else is simply making up the numbers.

christ what more do you want, how many cockney internationals do you want before you admit the youth systems and player pathways put in place a generation ago are working. We didnt lose a generation of players, we gained them.

And soccer and RU do cream us at the moment ecause of the cash and profile they have, but they got that cash and profile by investing in expansion and the international game. Not by contracting to the heartlands.

We have turned a profit year on year on year on year, crowds are rising, we get more money from Sky, The heartland game has never been stronger.

Wouldn't it be easier for us to expand the game if the heartlands clubs were crap? They could catch us up quicker then and be competitive

Well if he did that's not the specific point you were making.

erm, yes it was, however you chose one example took it out of context, then pretended something else. Which for you is exactly as expected

except you didnt disagree with anything, you agreed with me, and go on to agree with me below. its very odd, but entirely in character.

people have suggested, many a time, that the problems the heartlands face are down to expansion. I have pointed out a couple of specific problems the heartlands face, and pointed out the absurdity of blaming expansion for it.

You agree, its probably the first logical thought that has hit you for months, but its good for you, at least you arent pointing out to me how few games Lee Smith is playing for Leeds, or how Luke Burgess, Jay Pitts and Chris Clarkson never get a game. An improvement.

Except he has since explained to you that it was not the point he was making at all.



I do not agree that Quins are responsible for debts incurred by Hull KR. Who would? It is an absurd argument you made up solely so you could refute it. Well done.

Exactly, an absurd argument which, if anyone other than you is claiming with any sincerity, I have yet to see.



I disagree with absurd statements generally, you know things like "At Leeds the only reason a young English player will not get games is if there is a better young English player in their position". Who would possibly be so self righteous and pompous as to claim such a thing and then immediately defend the signing of aging Aussie has beens like Cross and New Zealand never was's like Hauraki? Crazy eh?

He, like you, have failed to see the two sides of the same coin. My argument, made time and time again here, which you still seem to be struggling to understand is that the struggles of the heartlands, and the struggles of expansion are different. I thought it obvious, maybe you needed it spelling out for you. But similarly the strengths of the heartlands, and the strengths of expansion are also different.


And the premise that that was an example of, do you agree or disagree? Or you can sit here and debate with yourself about the strengths of an example taken out of context ignoring the underlying point. I imagine you would be good at that 5.04931640625:5