I said the same things myself at the time, but so many people on the VT thought that they knew better. If you go and look back at the posts at that time I said that the Celtic Crusaders were clearly not ready for Super League and would be a disaster which would set back RL in Wales for a long time, if not for good.

In my opinion Sky are behind this. I think they only agreed to pay for a league expansion to 14 clubs provided the Celtic Crusaders were included. I also think that they insist that every penny in TV money goes to SL clubs only, in order to strengthen that competition for their own purposes.

If the Crusaders go bust and fold, the RFL should stick Toulouse in and let us wait until 2012. It may well be what Sky demand anyway.

I've never really got the Sky argument personally.

I just can't imagine what benefits Sky would get from the introduction of a club from a South Wales backwater that had averaged maybe a 1,000 or so spectators at best in seasons prior to its elevation.

Smacks more like the work of the RFL to me.

Richard Lewis said in an interview that the TV companies would like to see a Welsh team in SL.

It’s all about advertising, the game having a national profile and demographics, &c. That’s what TV execs are interested in. So they give Dickie a few more bob to add a couple more clubs to SL – one heartland and one expansion – to soften the blow. This is why the RFL are so desperate to keep the Crusaders in SL. Sky may not be willing to fund a 14 club Super League without them.

TBF I can understand the SKY argument for Crusaders (south Wales mainly)! How many people in London have SKY just for RL? Hardly any if any (prob not that different in the NW). Though at least with Wales (regions) there is no top flight sport whatsoever so maybe they have a slight argument there.

Not saying it's right. Just where the SKY / RFL argument comes into it.

It’s not about how many people have Sky for RL in any given place, it’s about the demographic of the viewers that they regard as important, because that’s what makes them desirable to advertisers and hikes up the costs of the ads, and thus Sky make more money and RL attracts top brand sponsors.

It’s not even about how many people watch RL. If 300,000, working class, northerners watch RL every week, it wouldn’t be as attractive to advertisers as 100,000 viewers of a sport with national profile and a range of both middle class and working class people, and races, &c.

This is why RU (spit) receives more money from their Sky deal, despite not having a weekly audience as large as SL.

This is why a Welsh club and a club in London is just a start. When the RFL regard them as established, more heartland clubs will be making way for further expansion clubs – or that’s the master plan.

If Tricky Dicky told me today was Friday I'd check the calendar.

TBH I still find it difficult to believe Sky are calling the shots.

I seriously doubt they have concerns about RL lacking a national profile, they have plenty of other sport that does that.

Sky are interested in Sky, they sell advertising and subscriptions.

Rugby league is little more than a filler to them.

They pay a small price and get a reasonable return viewer wise.

They are not going to get a return on subscriptions viewer wise for RL in South Wales, I wouldn't be shocked if they've actually had more cancellations than new subscriptions with the way the RL handled the situation.

And seeing as the whole circus has now decamped 30 miles from the M62 the national profile is unlikely to be enhanced moving forward anyway.

As for the demographics, I can't believe branching into a small South Wales town as in the original plan would have made any differance.

If anything, the area is certainly no wealthier than the North of England, the viewing figures for games would probably be a lot less and the classification of viewer would probably be the same so I'd suspect the advertising would have to be cheaper.

To me it doesn't add up.

Reckon this is all the RFL's doing.

Went to a meeting a few weeks ago where Ralph Rimmer when asked why the RFL persists in helping London when they have had 30yrs to get things sorted ."He stated that without the London team in Super League Sky would not be interested"

So really the game's flagship competition is built on foundations of sand. One day Sky will pull the plug.

If they do do you think the Championship clubs would fare better than the Super League ones ? We have been used to not having much money from the RFL or do you think they would just ditch us alltogether.

Quite the opposite. The SL clubs would collapse en masse and the plebs (Championship clubs) will rise. Mind you, we'd have to go through a franchising process to let SL clubs into our competition. The criteria would be on-field performances. Widnes would struggle

They want more than just viewers, they want to be able to screw more money out of advertisers. I also disagree about RL being just a filler, it’s one of their flagship sports.



In isolation no but, as part of the bigger picture of further expansion, it is. I've always thought that they would have moved the Bridgend club to Cardiff at some point, and that Bridgend was merely a primer that was chosen because of a sudden opportunity there at the time.


They are certainly responsible for the whole mess, but so are the Super League chairmen and, imo opinion there was, and continues to be, pressure from Sky Sports to further expansion too.

How much of an endless pot do the RFL have left?Bailing out teams all the time, and it is obvious they pumped money into london aswell.Give Widnes a chance now.

Nigel's given up the biscuits.

United Biscuits Plc's loss is Harlequins gain.

I like that one Rich.

www.crusadersrfl.com/article.php?id=3131 The RFL are in for one though 6 months!

www.crusadersrfl.com/article.php?id=3131 The RFL are in for one though 6 months!