Just a small point - the BBC didn't lead with a headline saying that throughout Tuesday - the headline in place for most of the day was rl'Crusaders withdraw application for Super League place'rl.

The only place they make mention of the reason for Wakefield's inclusion was at the bottom of the article: "However, their survival in the top flight was assured by the withdrawal of the Crusaders and Halifax's failure to make the grade."

George Riley only seems to be posing a few questions based on the "anticipation" of Wakefield's bid failing. Now we know theirs was apparently not the weakest of the applicants.

BBC radio 5 live most certainly headlined wakefield saved by crusaders withdrawal all day and riley goes as far as saying that its a blow to RFL that wkefiled are awarded a licence!

Irrespective of this, still 3 days later there is nothing in the public domain that supports this. Were the BBC making it up? guessing? recycling received wisdom as fact? Or do they know something that the rest of us don't?

Again my query is one of the quality of RL journalism.

I'm not sure what you're expecting them to do here. Firstly you are simplifying things immensely. Every expansion club has different issues and different problems and there is no one size fits all solution.

Every expansion club that is a constituent member of the RFL has the right to an equal share of the resources (and many would argue should receive more due to the difficulties of running a club in new territories). As such complaining about them receiving resources they have a right to is daft. Why is there a difference between Quins wasting resources by having financial troubles and employing too many antipodeans and, for example, Wakefield having financial troubles and employing too many antipodeans?

In fact in some ways some expansion clubs have shown good management of resources. Out of the present CC1, if one excludes Scorpions, during the eight years Skolars have been in the league only one of those clubs has not gone into a form of administration and that is Skolars. They haven't wasted resources by needing to involve lawyers and insolvency practitioners. I believe the RFL has had to divert resources to save one of those heartland clubs' ground. Unlike Crusaders' ground, this is rarely mentioned because it does not suit the line of argument that expansion clubs are a waste of money whereas heartlands clubs are shining examples of corporate governance.

To use a scattergun approach based on supposition and myth will hardly put anyone on the spot. To suggest
it has been going on for 50 years is laughable. The Fallowfield "tumbleweed" era was a period of retraction not expansion. It also shows a misunderstanding of the governance of the game. While in the super league era, decision making has moved for good reason to an independent board of directors, for most of those 50 years it was in the hands of the RL Council, which only comprised representatives of the clubs. It always used to bemuse me how the RFL would get blamed for everything when it was actually the clubs making the decisions.

Not for the first time, somebody confuses the success of Rugby league with the success of Super League in our nation’s capital

Over the 40 year period you mention, RL in London has changed dramatically with vastly increased playing numbers in both amateur clubs and schools

On this I generally agree with you. I don't think the RL public has been served well by its media of late. I don't believe they should be putting forward the partisan points you want made (they are not an absolute truth) but they should be putting pertinent questions to get through the flim flam that has been presented in recent days.

In particular I thought the questioning of Nigel Wood on Boots'n'All on Wednesday was dreadful. He was allowed to say what he wanted (even though he didn't even appear convinced by it) and analysis that you might expect from a pub bore but not from professionals who make their livings from the game. Instead of asking how this week's disaster was allowed to happen, we had Stevo repeatedly saying it's all about the wonga innit. I was particularly irritated that there was no follow up over what will happen to the game in Wales when Wood was just allowed to say he is sure it will be alright (ie we've not thought about this and have no plans so we're just hoping for the best).

With the press I have a bit more sympathy. They have a balancing act. The game is relatively small and the press corps relatively small. Unfortunately dumping on your sources may not lead to a good future working relationship. Sky don't have that threat as they hold the purse strings

There would be no full time game in the UK without Sky. If Sky want any / all of those for wider business purposes / the good of elite RL then they ARE good. You do not need to go beyond that.

What's the alternative? We go semi-pro. Well good to a point but now that RU is pro all the elite players would go there / Australia and the semi-pro game here would be of an historically low standard and would die through lack of paying spectators.

Live in the real world as it is please.

... and in lots of traditional old RL towns the game has all but died.

Primarily because the clubs in those towns are no longer able to convince enough people they have a product worth watching.

Quite what that has to do with the RL media or Harlequins RL though, only you know.

Has anyone on this thread suggested doing without Sky? I know I didn't. I suggested that the game could do with Sky taking a more quizzical and analytical approach in its magazine programme's dealing with the governing body. Due to its financial input, they have the possibility to do so and quite frankly you would think they would want to in order to protect the product.

(and this is the case in all areas of their coverage - the inane witterings whenever England's present "coach" announces a squad are just as bad: is he ever asked to justify why he has picked certain players in his "squad to beat the Aussies"icon_wink.gif

I hardly think that Boots'n'All is pretty rubbish is that controversial a viewpoint.

Which journos fawn and what have they said??

On Twitter Martyn Sadler has said that "the RFL must reveal the full story" about Cru and also called for an independent inquiry.

I can't imagine the next editions of League Express and Rugby League World are going to be cheery reads.

We do need investigative journalism.
Cru have been going down the pan almost from the day they started.
This was never covered.
Their predecessors at Celtic in Bridgend were the same. That was not covered!

Next scandal will be the court case v HMRC which if the RL clubs lose they could be looking to find £ms in payment to the Revenue for overclaiming on ebt's image rights etc.
Who gave the advice to clubs to claim all this? What tax advice did the clubs themselves seek?
This should have been gone into by the RL journos but hardly a word has been written.

With 'phone hacking or not?

My take on journo's fawing to the establishment is really about their failure to quiz the games sacred cows i) the need / wisdon and practicality of geographical expansion of super league ii) the value of licencing and the competence of the games higher ups to operate the licence system.

These are the issues that do the rounds in the pubs and on the forums but where do they feature in the work of the RL media? The first one in particular is conspicuous by its absence in the critical rhetoric (sport the irony there) of RL journos. Ignore the issues that I think are important and need questioning and consider this;

Name me a journalist who rocks the establishments boat?

Perhaps they feel they have got better things to do than peddling myths put around by pub bores?

And which myth are you referring to?