Comparing us to the Aussies misses the point. An Aussie club would continue after such or greater action with a guaranteed large fan-base attracting advertising and so are less needful of the Sky money.

Without Sky, we would have NO Super League. Wigan/Saints, Leeds/Bradford and the Hulls could continue as they have the fan bases to attract sponsors and advertising but the rest would perish : in the case of Warrington slowly (Moran is not immortal), in our case quickly.
Sky dictate the game: they have intimated that without the game in London and Wales (apparently when Crusaders are on, it is a hit for Sky viewing (and adverts)), the subsidy they pay will be very much reduced. Clubs will not accept this reduction.

Ipso facto Wales and London are safe.

We can argue "should", "the larger game", etc forever but the reality is that SL and (if you look at financial structures) the National Leagues depend on Sky and must obey the financial backer.

I don't like it but it is the reality. One that also worries me as Salford's crowds do nothing for Sky's marketing. Like Sheffield, we are seen as a football area.

I agree - he who pays the piper calls the tune....

It would be so much better though if the RFL just came out and admitted that instead of pretending to punish Crusaders - it's the hypocrisy that annoys me.

But what hypocrisy? The penalty for going into administration is a deduction of up to 6 points. They've been deducted 4. I can't see what's wrong with that.

The hypocrisy is about the pretence that this is a punishment!

The reality, as HBR said is that Sky fund everything and dictate to the RFL who's in and who's out, who plays who and when they play!! You may remember a few years back Widnes weren't even allowed to bid as they had been in administration - they were out, they were solvent, they had a good stadium and a good fan base - but they were further down the pecking order than these "expansion clubs"

The hypocrisy is obvious when you look at what help Blackpool got compared to what is being done for Crusaders

Agreed.


RL have told Wales off and kept to the rules. This should burden them so that they will not get into the next set of SL franchise ... but will not and is irrelevant in that it will only mean that Wigan. Leeds, Saints, and Warrington are more certain to get home advantages in the play-offs: wow, isn't that a suprise.

They are smug in that they have obeyed the rules and also paid Sky off. Pharisees.

At the risk of repeating myself, the penalty for going into administration is a deduction of up to 6 points. Not a deduction of 1,000,000 points and the soles of your feet burnt unless you're Crusaders, but a penalty of up to 6 points for any team. I just don't see where the hypocrisy is.

Widnes were denied access to SL because, at the time the licences were being given out, they were not considered as viable a proposition as Crusaders. That's not to say subsequent events may have proved that wrong (just to prevent any lurking Widnesians logging on to have an e-whinge at that statement). The licences aren't being given out at the moment. That's next year, and at that time the RFL will no doubt take Crusaders' current state of health into account. At the moment, what's being decided is what penalty should be given to a team that has a SL licence (and has it for another year) but has gone into administration. That penalty is a deduction of up to 6 points.

Here's the posting on the RFL website, where it tells you what punishment the RFL can impose.

[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/20669[/url

Red John - I think we agree to differ

You are quite right the letter of the "law" such as it is has been scrupulously applied.

Cheers

Ok , my impartial view [i( trying to look through Red Hall Tinted Spectacles )[/i : -

Red Hall:-SL is a Business first , a sport 2nd they have to answer to their main backers. =Sky , Yes Fans are also the major income of the sport , but SL is showing increasing crowd figures so they could argue franchise decisions have in principle been backed by popular support.

= Sky BSB are the main income and I guess are the main impetus on expansion London / Wales. , a new deal is due ..

= 2013 RLWC -Launched in England & Wales , they need to keep a presence / interest in the province . wales have won through to the group stages

= the previous owner ( Leighton Samuel ) , blamed as the main reason for the perilous financial position of the Crusaders , the 4 pt deduction acknowledges the new owners efforts at the Racecourse ground and may not put off support for the new season .

= They're less corrupt than FIFA ? maybe .. Richard Lewis will invite Sep Blata to open the 2012- 2015 Franchise envelope



[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/community_board/the_big_debatethe big debate[/url

Hello BF,

You seem to be suggesting they've applied the law in such a way that Crusaders have gotten off lightly. They haven't. The RFL have applied the appropriate law to deal with this particular situation. What would you like them to do? The law states that the penalty for going into administration is a deduction of up to 6 points, but you seem to want the RFL to apply a different standard (one that applies when allocating licences). Would you feel the same if it were us and not Crusaders who had gone into administration?

Right they got 2/3rds of the available punishment,which is a lot more harsher than some of the sentences handed out by the Judges in court in comparision, so chaps handbags away and lets look forward to a new brighter season with us in the top 8, let other clubs look after themselves.

Red John, you can repeat the rules as many times as you like the fact of the matter is the rules in this country don't fit the crime in comparison to those dished out in oz! The comparisons I drew were to illustrate the wider view of how the RFL let teams get away with things in this country including the salary cap (which was mentioned by another poster earlier in the thread!)

The goal posts have mysteriously moved since the first round of franchises. Widnes were refused entry on the insolvency basis. This was clearly an excuse to allow the Welsh side in ( I refuse to name them as it would appear they can't decide what they want to be called themselves yet) because once they were in the rules change thus allowing them to have constant membership without fear of relegation to the lower leagues because they are somehow considered more important to our game than any of the founder member clubs who created RL in 1895!

I have no issue with expansion and the inclusion of the Welsh in the league but not at the expense of other clubs who are not given the same help and are infact expelled from the league all together (ie Blackpool) for the self same offence- insolvency! As I said before , (at the risk of repeating myself) this is not expansion by pure definition merely redistribution. The RFL should be honest about it and say that the welsh have a lifelong membership of SL and state their reasons. Of course they can't because that would be illegal and therefore corrupt..... The Defence rests your honour!

There would be nothing "illegal" about it if the RFL (with the agreement of the clubs) were to decide just that. No law has ever been passed saying that sporting bodies have to be fair or consistent in their decisions.