It seems you missed the actual point of the argument. Which wasnt a direct comparison between the two clubs (however much you wished it was) but the differing attitudes to what was essentially the same situation with specific regard to the owners and the fact neither club is self sustaining.



Look at the post again, there is no mention of anything regarding the licensing criteria (probably because any mention of it simply results in you doing what you are trying to do now) Simply and clearly the double standard in some peoples attitudes towards Crusaders only being sustainable because of their owners wealth and Widnes only being sustainable because of their owners wealth, along with Peoples attitudes to the intrinsic viability of the clubs when Leighton Samuel walked away compared to Vaughan walking away.



once again, for clarity, the comparison is the two attitudes expressed towards pretty similar situations, specifically the two owners and their leaving NOT a comparison between the two clubs

Smokey



In a way I salute you. You seem to be the kind of person who, if they had watched the Titanic sink, would have claimed that this enabled them now to become the first Transatlantic submarine cruiseline.



I just wonder what turn of events would cause some people (including the RFL) to finally admit to the farcical situation that has gone on. There will always be some ingenious way of spinning their way out of the situation and saving face.



It reminds me of those hapless Japanese soldiers wandering through the bush 30 years after the war has finished - completely oblivious to reality.



On second thoughts maybe it reminds me of Dads Army..



As I have said on another thread, we have gone so far beyond farce now that the farce is in danger of being lapped..

Smokey does appear to be the most misunderstood contributor on here.

Smokey's right about the inherent double standards some apply to Crusaders (and Quins for that matter for different reasons) on here. Widnes are being touted as being deserving a spot etc yet they went bust what a year or so ago? The apologists for them then say 'ah but its different now'. Hm. Why not give the new Crusaders a chance to turn things around as well?



Crusaders has been a stuff up. But the benefits if it can be made to work would be enormous - in terms of national profile, consequent sponsorship and Sky money they and Quins bring more to SL than any single heartland club.



If you want SL to be a laughing stock, then the actual failure of Crusaders would be all the ammunition anyone outside the game could want. As it stands there is still a chance - however small - of turning things round.

Smokey's just a dick-head.

I'd agree with that , most of the time I havent a clue what the hell he's going on about , and to tell the truth , I dont think he does either

I'm one of the few Widnes fans who was not surprised when we we lost out on a licence last time, the RFL could hardly reward a club who was in administration 10 months previously. I will now move Widnes to one side in this debate and say that to relocate the Crusaders and put them under the stewardship of management that are struggling to run a football club that has been established in the town for nearly 130 years is an act of sheer desperation that will only accelerate the demise of the Crusaders as a SL entity. I do not pretend for one second to be anywhere near an expert on any matters RL but surely the RFL should have funds in place to help development clubs if/when they flounder. The real losers in this are the small but loyal following that Celtic had built up in the last few years that face a 250 mile round trip to watch SL. I hope the Wrexham move works (and I mean it) but whereas you think they have a small chance I think it's microscopic.

and its very sad people arent supporting their attempts to do this

I agree with most of what you have put here



However, in practice, the RFL doesnt have the money to simply fund a club, which is why the move needed to happen.



Unless the RFL can persuade Sky to give them a bit extra, or the SL clubs to accept a bit less, then they will never have enough to do it.



And whilst i would support the RFL doing either of those things, i cant see Sky giving money away, and SL clubs like Wakefield cant afford to give money away

While we're at it then





If you can find my posts going back to 2005, I always expressed doubt as to whether Crusaders' plan of going from NL2 to SL in 3 years was sustainable – it was at best ambitious and possibly over ambitious. And the tragedy at Widnes was undoubtedly a distinct silver lining for them when the licence applications were judged.



Similarly I have grave doubts over Samuels' bailing out and the whether the move to Wrexham will work out, especially after the disappointments, to put it mildly, of their first year.



I don't though see the point in jumping on this 'see, it proved RL will never work in Wales' bandwagon, I don't see it as evidence that 'the RFL lied to us' (frankly that's up there with [url=http://viewtopic.php?f=11&t=439334this thread[/url imo) … ateotd, a rugby league club is having difficulties and deserves the same support as any other club would get (Keighley's current financial difficulties being an interesting case in counterpoint).



And yes, I do think it's hypocritical for some fans to go 'that club relying on one man's money is bad' while 'my club relying on one man's money is good'. Especially after experiencing something even worse themselves – because whatever is going wrong at Crusaders, they still haven't done anything as bad as the owners of Widnes in October 2007

No tb was definitely saying that there was no difference between the two clubs therefore, as an inescapable consequence; he was drawing a direct comparison. With you, the point of an argument is whatever you seem to want it to be.





This is what tb replied to. What "GetThemScallyWags” was clearly saying, was that the RFL are willing to elevate any expansion club purely on the grounds of promises of financial backing – even with a club that is Championship 1 standard with completely unsustainable levels of support and no interest of the game in the area. Instead of building roots in the region, and making the game slowly part of that region, they go for the quick fix every time to disastrous effect.



Unlike Celtic Crusaders, rugby league already has roots within the area in Widnes, it has a history of good support in SL. It is ingrained in the local culture, it is played and promoted in the schools, it has a thriving local amateur scene and the club does its best to promote itself within the community. It has a first class purpose built RL stadium and infrastructure and a full academy set-up. It is all set to go in SL and wouldn’t have folded after one year. Whether or not the club is self-sustainable is irrelevant. Not because being self-sustainable isn’t important but because few, if any, RL clubs are actually self-sustainable.



I’m not moaning about Widnes not getting a licence. Perhaps, under the circumstances, that was the only decision available at the time, but that the RFL should put a lot more work and time into expansion clubs in areas where there is little or no interest in the game. I’m also pointing out that the two clubs (Celtic and Widnes) are in no way like for like, just because they may have rich backers. They are chalk and cheese and should not be regarded as anything else by moderators who have a history of doing just that.

What tb was actually responding to was









I'd suggest an ability to read, as well a some of these







would be a great boon.





I stand by everything I wrote – which was not, however much you froth, a comparison of the two license applications: not having been privy to their contents I'm not, unlike many on here, in a position to comment on, or compare, them.