: Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:07 pm  

girl power wrote:

Like others this is no suprise, from day 1 the owner was clear that he wanted and got a super league team playing out of Bridgend. The issue of small amount of fans has little to do with the fact it is league being played more to do with the fact folk in Bridgend feeling the owner sacrificed the union club based on talking to folk from there. The critics say the ground is crap but anyone who has been will realise its a massive ground and in my view more than suitable, odsal and belle vue are worse. Now it seems the owner has taken the huff because the club is leaving Bridgend, cannot say I blame him as the rfl agreed to being based there. I assume testing the market and feasibility study was done. Expansion at any cost to save the rfl embarassment is wrong.

I don't for a minute believe that the owner of the club (Leighton Samuels) agreed to allow his employee (Mike Turner) to make this kind of decision if he didn't agree with it.

Would the powers-that-be at Keighley allow a chairman to move the Cougars to Burnley if they felt strongly that this was the wrong thing to do?

Of course not.

Mike Turner seems to have been behind the dropping of "Celtic" and the new badge, reported Samuels didn't like either decision but he made the decision that Turner knew what he was doing and he put his private feelings to one side.

As far as I know, Samuels was not against the move to Newport and even if he was he had the power to stop it.

: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:44 am  

Re Hedgehog post.

Mr Samuels whilst he may have been informed of the decision to drop the name has apparently decided that as he was the main backer financially he does not agree with it and the move away from Bridgend and is on brink of withdrawing his financial support.

If trhe rfl get involved financially with this which appears to be an internal issue then each time a club loses its main backer they will have st the precedent to give financial aid.

Somehow I doubt if clubs outside SL would get the same assistance.

Not sure if by withdrawing his money this would put Celtic into administration or not, will be interesting to see.

: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:33 am  

girl power wrote:

Re Hedgehog post.

Mr Samuels whilst he may have been informed of the decision to drop the name has apparently decided that as he was the main backer financially he does not agree with it and the move away from Bridgend and is on brink of withdrawing his financial support.

I'm not sure where you get that from. The relationship between Brewery Field Limited and Crusaders had already broken down (and it looks like Leighton Samuels is the guy responsible) and there isn't an alternative stadium in Bridgend.

If trhe rfl get involved financially with this which appears to be an internal issue then each time a club loses its main backer they will have st the precedent to give financial aid.

Somehow I doubt if clubs outside SL would get the same assistance.

Not sure if by withdrawing his money this would put Celtic into administration or not, will be interesting to see.

I'm not sure whether it is the SL status that gets Crusaders this treatment; I would thought that geography had a great deal more to do with it.

: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:41 am  

Hedgehog King wrote:

I'm not sure whether it is the SL status that gets Crusaders this treatment; I would thought that geography had a great deal more to do with it.

Hate to be picky but surely their SL status is down to Geography anyway ?

: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:44 pm  

Rach wrote:

Hate to be picky but surely their SL status is down to Geography anyway ?

Indeed but I can't see the RFL doing any particular favours for the likes of Wakey or Hudds if they should run into trouble regardless of whether they are in SL or not.

: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:50 pm  

Hedgehog King wrote:

Indeed but I can't see the RFL doing any particular favours for the likes of Wakey or Hudds if they should run into trouble regardless of whether they are in SL or not.

I think Huddersfield have led a charmed life to be honest, however Castleford or Wakefield would be dropped like a stone given the chance.

: Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:31 pm  

Dreamer wrote:

I think Huddersfield have led a charmed life to be honest, however Castleford or Wakefield would be dropped like a stone given the chance.

Hudds were just lucky in that when they were rubbish, they did so in years when relegation wasn't an option for the RFL and ironically they didn't do that badly in the year when they were finally relegated.

: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:14 pm  

Hedgehog King wrote:

Hudds were just lucky in that when they were rubbish, they did so in years when relegation wasn't an option for the RFL and ironically they didn't do that badly in the year when they were finally relegated.

they have'nt done to badly since they were promoted back have they. makes you wonder about p&r dont it

: Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:35 pm  

j.c wrote:

they have'nt done to badly since they were promoted back have they. makes you wonder about p&r dont it

Having a very rich to back them also helps.

This is from last season.
Huddersfield - Loss £1,377,000 (underwritten by Ken Davy)

: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:02 pm  

guess who wrote:

Having a very rich to back them also helps.

This is from last season.
Huddersfield - Loss £1,377,000 (underwritten by Ken Davy)

think you may have missed my point.huddersfield came back stronger after religation. the first time salford were religated they came back stronger for a season at least.wakefield survived on the last game of the season and got better and better because of the fear of religation.having said all that having that amount of debt shoud'nt be acceptable