Maximus Decimus

Some proof would be nice, instead of absolute statements with nothing to back them up. Now you're changing the argument and putting words in my mouth. PSG's average was an amazing average for an expansion team. I'll leave it at that.

A lot of positive plans it seems. I think they should stick to the North, the South shouldn't be given up on yet. SW Scorpions could yet provide a market down there. This is inevitable because of the 3 early large crowds that were due to extreme circumstances. That's why quoting average attendances this year is just setting them up for a fall next year. If they manage to grow their core base next year to something like 4000 then they'll be doing well. If crowds continue to fall again, I fear the last line as RL is notoriously fickle at the best of times.

It's not funky maths at all, it's facts. I purposely didn't include the Neath games because they aren't indicative to their likely crowd levels. You're including artificial crowds that they will find very difficult to recreate. Since the beginning of the year their crowds have clearly dropped to a similar level to Celtic, that's a fact Dally. You're repeating a mantra again without actually backing anything up with facts or reason. Who are you to say that the RFL have learned from the CC/Wrexham thing? If they have a brain all they have really learned is that CC weren't ready in the first place. Do you think Hunslet have a good grounding for Super League 2012? Wrexham could easily still go either way. You've conveniently ignored the fact that we had a top down expansion that averaged far higher than Wrexham in their first year, yet didn't exist by the third. It's far too early to be using Wrexham as conclusive proof that top down expansion works and it's dishonest to suggest that it works better than grassroots expansion. Especially when there are still many remnants of the previous 4 years in place, such as the youth policy which will provide better quality players sooner.

Of course it did. If anybody tells you they thought that they would start off with a 10k sellout they'd be lying. Their inital enthusiasm for RL was refreshing but this has largely died down to be replaced with something similar to what we had before. I was originally replying to the idea that they are proof that top down expansion works better than giving an expansion club time in the Championship because they have done better than Celtic did. This is far from conclusive for a couple of reasons, mainly that Celtic were barely more ready than they were and that once they have settled they are at a similar level of support. I personally think it could go either way and it of course needs to be given the chance to do so over the next licensing period. Next year will be a very important one in my opinion, if they don't build their crowds next year they may struggle to ever do so again.

Fair enough but you'd have to presume that they aren't going to do this very often next season either.

If debate isn't allowed in your world, what makes it exciting?

What exactly do you want from a thread like this? It's a discussion forum ffs and if you had bothered to read it you'd see that it's all been perfectly civil and virtually everybody agrees that they should be persisted with. Without debate all you'd get is about 2 replies of people saying, 'good stuff.'

It's not picking crowds at all. It's showing that since their crowds have settled they are a similar level. They got a 10,300 sellout for Leeds and recently only 5,100 for their nearest Super League club who travel well, how do you want to explain that drop? Bridgend spent 2 of those 3 years in Championship 1 playing in front of literally hundreds of people, yet one year later they had a Super League license. To put it in context it is the same level of 'preparation' as Hunslet being given a SL franchise in 2012. That is hardly preparation for Super League. You repeat this notion that they have done better with 6 weeks like a mantra. If they had stayed in Bridgend how would they have done different on the pitch this year? They would have still had Brian Noble and whoever he signed for them.

I know little about the running of an NL2 club but if the SW Scorpions are doing Ok and not losing money then I think we should aim to put another couple of NL2 clubs in Wales in the next few years.

Agree with all those points. The season ticket one will be especially interesting as Celtic only managed 250 season tickets in their first year in Super League. That will be the true test of how many people they have converted because the drop off has been worrying. This was where Catalans managed to take off. They went from 1500 ST's to something like 5000 in a couple of years if I remember correctly. If they don't get many ST holders I think they'll struggle next year. There could have been enthusiasm in Bridgend, especially if they'd been more competitive on the pitch. The enthusiasm at Wrexham was great but if it's not sustained then it's useless. Let's not forget we had 17,000 in Paris that had dwindled to 500 within a couple of years for whatever reason. I'm sure people at the end of the first year were talking in similar ways to this. They should have tried to get another team going in Bridgend. They had easily enough support for a decent NL2 club.

In what way? I've shown how when their attendances have settled they are no better and their team is essentially the same team they would have been likely to have in Bridgend. They saw growth in the Championship too but were promoted far too early. They still only had a core of around 1000 fans when they came up. They only sold 250 season tickets when they entered Super League, that shows how unprepared they still were. They were still a top down promotion to Super League, no doubt about it.

I would attribute a lot of their success on the pitch to Brian Noble who was already with the Crusaders. Like I said, I originally said that CC weren't ready for Super League and so it proved. So I would dispute the 3 years preparedness argument. They were pretty much top down as well. Top down at Wrexham, which it isn't entirely is yet to be shown to work. As I've shown in my other post, in Wrexham their attendances have declined considerably to a similar level they were in Bridgend. This despite their improvement on the pitch and closer proximity to away followings.

How many seasons in Super League did they have in Bridgend and what exactly is my opinion that I'm basing on one year? I have used attendances actually but the averages alone are worthless here because there is a definite decline in the attendances of the Crusaders in Wrexham. This is due to the excitement they generated when they came into the division. If you want the facts you can have them, just because some of them aren't positive doesn't mean they should be ignored. Crusaders first 5 game average at Wrexham: 6690 Crusaders second 5 game average at Wrexham: 3759 Celtic Crusaders average at Bridgend: 3507 I was originally replying to Dally who was suggesting that they have been successful in comparison to Bridgend, despite Bridgend being given time in the Championship. They've obviously done better on the pitch but off the pitch this isn't quite so straight forward. The most worrying thing about the second 5 games is that they included 2 of their biggest away followings in Warrington and St Helens. The CC average isn't much different despite Crusaders being bottom for all but 3 weeks of last year and having the biggest RL scandal in recent times. The Crusaders have done some good things this year but the jury is certainly still out on their long term viability. Next year they won't have that initial burst of enthusiasm for something new and this will probably result in a lower average overall.

Not necessarily. First of all I think Wrexham should of course be persisted with and should only be judged at the end of the next 3 year period as to their viability. However, things aren't looking all too rosy in my opinion. Even taking out on the on the road games, their crowds have declined markedly and this despite some on the field success. The game against St Helens was a big game for them and yet they managed 1,000 less than the previous year against St Helens in Bridgend. It was also a similar size to a big game at a similar stage in the season against Wigan, however at this stage last year CC were an appalling side who had lost many more games than this year. I think if they were challenging for the playoffs in similar circumstances in Bridgend then they would have got more than 5,300. You could also make a case (as I often did) that CC hadn't made a successful go of it in the Championship. Sure they'd done well on the pitch but there were big questions of it and crowds were one of them.

I was quite young at the time (12) and remember watching on Sky as we beat Hull away I think, which virtually guaranteed that we wouldn't be relegated. There was huge relief all round. Little did we know.

There's no worry, I'd be very surprised if we're not included at the next round of licensing. However that doesn't mean that I suddenly don't care about the system any more. The RFL are still trying to present the facade of a fair system when in reality they don't have one. It seems to me that the RFL created licensing because of a couple of impending problems that were getting worse. The gap between the two divisions had grown to the stage that relegation could prove fatal for a club. Perhaps more importantly, expansion clubs were constantly being threatened with relegation and this could have proved disastrous to those clubs and the game. It also looked farcical when these sides were exempt from relegation and sides above them were being relegated instead. This was only going to get worse as more expansion clubs came into Super League. So the 3 year licensing system came about from a desire to be able to control which teams are in the top league, most importantly to protect the expansion sides from relegation. It also came with some added benefits such as the 3 year building period, but personally I think it was expansion that the main factor behind it. The problem was that the RFL tried to convince the public into thinking they were going to create a fair system whereby the best 12/14 clubs at any one time were included. This hasn't happened. They've created the facade of a fair system which in reality allows them to include whoever they want regardless of the situation and without having to give too much justification. This means that Quins, Catalans and the Crusaders will always be safe. They haven't been stupid and have realised that to stop the clubs below Super League from dying, they need to keep some level of promotion and relegation. Widnes were always going to be a good bet to replace one of the poorer heartland clubs without causing too much hassle. So they have created a list of criteria a few weeks before the end of the season that they expect only Widnes to make. But yet they still go along and release statements and update their website as if it is undecided and as if another Championship club could come up. Nonsense, one team is coming up to replace one other team. The RFL know it and everybody else does, but they will go through a whole rigmarole as if the best 14 clubs at any one time will be picked. This isn't necessarily true either as there is more than just Widnes who could do a better job than some of the current incumbents. As I pointed out in a different thread, Leigh were heavily derided for their brief time in Super League, yet they averaged more than Salford will this year. They also have a nice new stadium and Salford don't yet. However there is zero chance they will replace Salford because of location, which trumps all. The RFL have managed to create a system where they can ensure that a team like Leigh can't replace Salford even if technically they could do a slightly better job than them.

What I don't understand is that a Championship club is to be given a license in March so that they get more time to prepare to make the step up. However another Championship club that is already less prepared (as they lost to a better placed club) could still be included in July and not given this extra time. Smacks of typical RFL to me. They go on about a fair system but in reality they look to have already picked one Championship club to replace one Super League club. The only issue is which clubs, which is most likely Widnes for one of three others. The minimum criteria for the Championship are a nonsense too in my opinion. Mainly because there are about 3/4 Super League clubs who probably wouldn't meet them if they were in the Championship. How fair is that for a system?

Bit disappointed with the crowd for this one. Quite an important game that I'm not sure they wouldn't have got more for down in Bridgend. Hopefully we don't see the usual RL thing of pulling out because it's looking like it might not be as straight forward as they originally hoped.

Pretty sure he means that an average of 11k doesn't mean that the same 11k go every game and in fact the reality might be as many as 30k will go at some point during the year.

I'm the same, it doesn't make any sense to criticise a club for being able to take so many more to a final, especially as this happens in all sports. For instance I remember going the pub for Liverpool's Champions League finals and they were far more packed than for typical league games, these weren't glory hunters. The interest is inevitably higher amongst all types of people. As for your other point, I could use my own experience as a case in point. For me RL is a family thing and there are about 7 who would go during the course of a season. Now it's very rare that all 7 of us would go at once, and sometimes it might even be none of us who would make it. For a final, especially a Challenge Cup final, all of us would go and there would be interest from other family members who nearly never go like my sisters and my mum. There's nothing wrong with this at all. A final is a final and attracts people who only have a minimal interest. If Wire did managed to get 30,000 fans to go games every week, then they would be able to bring 70,000 to a final. It's just the way of the world.

What nonsense. Wakefield and Salford are no more Super League clubs than a few of the Championship clubs. Take one of the most ridiculed Super League teams ever, Leigh, who despite winning 2 games if I remember correctly, got a higher average than Salford will this year. The Championship is a massive come down but there is nothing special about those clubs that they should be saved at the expense of Widnes, Fax, Leigh, Fev or Barrow for instance. Put it this way if Fax had been in Super League the last 3 years and Wakey hadn't, nobody would be saying that Fax have to be replaced by Wakefield. I think Castleford would cope best with demotion as they are the strongest of the 3 who best retained their fans in the Championship last time. The other two could potentially implode and never get back to Super League again. However the same could have happened to the teams I've mentioned above and still might given another 3 years in the Championship. It is also not a reason to demote Castleford purely because they'd cope best. I've said this before, but if Salford are not in their stadium for the 2012 stadium then they should go. If after all the stadium is so certain, then they will be a shoe in for 2015. If they do and the stadium situation is the same then I'm afraid Wakefield should probably go on balance.

They would be more likely to turn out in the Championship if they had the prospect of facing Leeds, Wigan, Saints and Hull.

Of course people are more likely to attend finals. In RL a final is a family day out that everybody wants to get to. No matter what this is great news for the sport and shows that the Challenge Cup still has a great pull. Club Wembley will always be the same problem but a sellout between 2 genuinely big teams should guarantee a good take up.

No wonder they've done so poor on the pitch if they hadn't even realised they were playing on the same field as the other clubs around them.

The only problem with your idea's are that they would require a great deal of organising and there's nothing to stop a rival sport, say Rugby Union from doing exactly the same on a bigger scale. Then we're just in the same boat as we are now.