: Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:50 pm  

In the case of Celtic not being able to fulfil SL duties after this year (hopefully not, and I think it's just a lot of hot air at the moment), would a team that comes up have only a 2-year license? Seems unfair given that they'll have less time to prepare a squad, etc. than the rest, and so might not be able to fulfil their duties as a business as much as the rest (which they would then be at risk of being dropped straight away).

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:51 pm  

Wellsy13 wrote:

In the case of Celtic not being able to fulfil SL duties after this year (hopefully not, and I think it's just a lot of hot air at the moment), would a team that comes up have only a 2-year license? Seems unfair given that they'll have less time to prepare a squad, etc. than the rest, and so might not be able to fulfil their duties as a business as much as the rest (which they would then be at risk of being dropped straight away).

creates all kinds of problems. how would it affect the sky deal?
would SL stick with 13 teams?
how would they decide which club (if any) replaced celtic?

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:18 pm  

Catalancs wrote:

creates all kinds of problems. how would it affect the sky deal?
would SL stick with 13 teams?

Would mean they had to scrap the Magic weekend, or give teams uneven number of home and away fixtures, so think they'd try to find a replacement

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:23 pm  

Alice's Phallus wrote:

Obviously Toulouse has the talent to make the Championship playoffs, and maybe even the Grand Final, this year. Any new acquisitions from the LER will only strengthen them.

With all this talk of Celtic Crusaders being in trouble with their ground there is a possibility that Crusaders will not see out their 3 year franchise license.

I sincerely hope that it is not true. But if the worst scenario regarding CC comes to pass, and the SL is down a side, perhaps it is possible that Toulouse will be elevated early (I say perhaps because I don't know what the rules are regarding licenses being awarded within the three year cycle). However I don't think that Toulouse can have the financial backing (sponsorship) necessary for Super League until we get through this global recession.

If that happens (and I hope it doesn't) then they should go for a safe bet with Widnes (and look at getting Toulouse in in 2012), as if another expansion club come in and go bust next year as replacements then the sport would be a laughing stock

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:21 pm  

bowes wrote:

No ... whereas the RFL wouldn't lift a finger to help the game in the midlands and have actively killed off semi-pro RL in the midlands before

I'm not au fait with this. I started taking an interest in midlands RL the year after Cov-Brum were in the NL3 final, the year during which they both dropped out of NL3 ... Brum's ground is in North Birmingham, not a nice location unless you're into gang violence and the crowd was about 20 strong. Their website was difficult to find and not up to date. Their team was made up of Mosely RU players keeping fit in the summer, they got gutted when Mosely made a concerted effort for NL1.

So, I admit that I know nothing of their history before that - when was the golden age of midlands RL (not being faceatious, I would love to watch rugby in Brum/Cov ... though I'd rather the trip to Cov than the trip to Perry Bar).

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:14 pm  

Alice's Phallus wrote: With all this talk of Celtic Crusaders being in trouble with their ground there is a possibility that Crusaders will not see out their 3 year franchise license. Celtic Crusaders remain central to the re-development of the Brewery Field, despite losing control of the ground. http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/09/04/28/RUGBYL_Crusaders.html

Alice's Phallus wrote: With all this talk of Celtic Crusaders being in trouble with their ground there is a possibility that Crusaders will not see out their 3 year franchise license. Celtic Crusaders remain central to the re-development of the Brewery Field, despite losing control of the ground. http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/09/04/28/RUGBYL_Crusaders.html

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:30 pm  

If I was thr RFL I'd be much more worried about Saints Wakey and Salford's new stadiums ever actually being built. As surely they will all be in breach of their Franchise agreements? Least Hull KR have firm plans to improve Craven Hovell. Too many people are ready to knock the great effort the Crusaders are making in bringing the greatest game to the principality. Sympomatic of the pervading negetive outlook that envelopes our game. Why would the Stadiums owners kick out their major paying tennent?

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:32 pm  

spooneryork wrote:

:( If I was thr RFL I'd be much more worried about Saints Wakey and Salford's new stadiums ever actually being built. As surely they will all be in breach of their Franchise agreements? Least Hull KR have firm plans to improve Craven Hovell. Too many people are ready to knock the great effort the Crusaders are making in bringing the greatest game to the principality. Sympomatic of the pervading negetive outlook that envelopes our game. Why would the Stadiums owners kick out their major paying tennent?

the welsh ru aren't exactly paupers

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:36 pm  

True! They are also biggots and not to be trusted. Crusdaers will prosper even if they move to cardiff neath swansea wherever as long as they can put out a winning team.

: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:37 pm  

Catalancs wrote:

the welsh ru aren't exactly paupers

I thought they were £45 million in debt, and were so broke that they had to axe one of the regions, hence the birth of the Celtic Crusaders.