Jump to content

Talk:Crusaders Rugby League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quality of article

[edit]

I've downgraded the article from "B" quality to "Start". No offence meant, it's just that there is work to be done and compared to the SL clubs articles which are classified as Start this one isn't at the same level. Tim Fellows 04:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnation of Celtic Warriors

[edit]

Celtic Crusaders play at the same ground(s) as the Warriors, the name is one that was considered for the Warriors franchise, the kit I think is similar to the away kit of the Warriors, the owner is the same.

Every effort has been made to appeal to old Warriors fans, the Crusaders are quite blatantly marketed as the Warriors reborn. The major difference is that of course the players are different.

I think it is a quite reasonable claim compared to some other club resurrections that might take place a decade or so later.GordyB 21:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair to say that there are those associated with the Crusaders who Bold textclaimBold text that they are a reincarnation of the Warriors, but that's not the same as a general consideration that this is the case. The Crusaders are owned by the Warriors' former part-owner, and they play from the ground he leases, which is one of the two grounds from which the Warriors played. They also market quite heavily to former Warriors fans. But that's pretty much where the story ends.

The Warriors were a joint venture between two Welsh premiership rugby union clubs - Pontypridd and Bridgend - playing at the top level of professional rugby in Wales, and with responsibilities to develop the game among the junior clubs of the mid Glamorgan/south Powys area. Their colours were blue, black and white - a combination of Bridgend's and Ponty's. Their away kit of green with gold sleeves can be seen here: http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s165/st31294.htm

The Crusaders are a start-up rugby league club, in the third tier of English RL, with no responsibilities to the junior rugby clubs of the area, and who play in black with a gold cross - based on the flag of St David - colours that are closer to Cardiff City FC's badge than the old Warriors away kit.

And more importantly than any of this: they actually play a completely different sport. They more of a resurrection of the old Bridgend Blue Dragons than any rugby union side.

Any number of teams started playing one sport and ended up playing another. Bradford City, for example, played under RFU rules and then Northern Union rules (rugby league) and then became a soccer club as did Bradford Park Avenue. Most existing rugby league teams did play under RFU rules in the past. Some RFU teams went over to league and back again.
You're talking here about the late 19th century, when the different football codes were being established, so naturally there was a state of flux with clubs moving from one code to another. But when was the last time that happened? It's a quite different situation from the Warriors-Crusaders.
It is not true that they only play at one ground, the Crusaders will play at every single ground that the Warriors ever did.
So they say. But has this actually happened?
Have now checked this. The Crusaders have played one game in Maesteg, where the Warriors never played, and one in Aberavon, where the Warriors never played, mainly because it was in the Ospreys' region. No games as yet in Pontypridd.
To my knowledge they plan to play at Sardis, they have only been playing a couple of months.GordyB 20:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The RFL have never claimed to be an English organisation, they claim that they are a British organisation and Welsh teams have played in the 'English' competition in the past just as Cardiff City play in what was intended to be a British soccer league. In recent years the Welsh have established their own governing body in any case.
RL is a predominately English sport in the UK, and the Crusaders play in the same structure as the English teams. This is not the case in RU, and the Warriors played in the Celtic competition. The bit about "a British soccer league" would be news to fans of Scottish football sides.
But not to Gretna who did play in the 'English league' until very recently or to Rangers who took part in the English FA cup albeit a long time ago. The RFL were not intended to be an English organisation.GordyB 20:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is also not true that they have no responsibility to the teams in their area. The majority of their team are drawn from the local rugby league teams, mostly Bridgend Blue Bulls. There is an exchange of coaching between the semi-pro and amateur teams.
Again, this is different from the formalised structure that exists in RU in Wales, where regional teams are responsible for development of the game in defined areas.
Given that the Celtic Crusaders are the only Welsh side their 'defined area' is all of Wales but de facto it is much the same. Most of their Welsh players are from Bridgend.GordyB 20:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To finish with, the article did not say that the Crusaders are the reincarnation of the Warriors, it said that they are considered the reincarnation of the Warriors. The RFL certainly considers them this way as does their owner. The resurrection of sports teams is always controversial, it's largely an opinion to say that one team is the same as another team that disappeared years ago, but compared to Blackpool Panthers I think the Crusaders are fairly straight forward.GordyB 19:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it suits the purposes of the RFL and the Warriors' disaffected former owner to claim the Crusaders are the reincarnation does not make it the case. Nor does it mean that there is a general consideration that this is the case. You seem to have accepted their claims at face value. In reality, the vast majority of fans of rugby and league in south Wales seem able to differentiate the two.
I accepted nothing, I said it was a matter of opinion. It is the opinion of Mr Samuels that the Crusaders and Warriors are much the same, it is the opinion of the RFL and English league fans that the two teams are instrinisically connected. If I had believed the two to be the same I would not have created a separate page for the Crusaders.
Most people believe that Manchester United did not suddenly become a different team just because Malcolm Glazer bought them, but the chaps behind FC United would disagree. Whether the MK Dons or AFC Wimbledon are the real descendents of Joe Kinnear's crazy gang is very debatable.
The two are connected very closely, if the WRU had not had a policy of promoting regional rugby, if Cardiff and Llanelli had accepted the four team deal, if the Welsh public had been more supportive etc then the Crusaders would not exist. GordyB
The original Welsh rugby union team wore black, did not play at the Millenium Stadium (or the Arms Park either), were governed by the South Wales Football Union, played a sport that allowed goals from mark, did not use the Prince of Wales feathers. Is it fair to conclude that it is not the same team as the present Welsh team?GordyB 19:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're seriously comparing a disaffected club owner starting up a new club in a different sport with the evolution of a national team in a sport over 120 years? The WRU succeeded to all the assets of the SWFU. But Leighton Samuel had sold all of the assets of the Warriors to the WRU - the Crusaders were a completely new creation that inherited nothing from the Warriors

.

No, I'm saying that changing the name, shirt colour etc does not necessarily make a different team. Whether people chose to see the Crusaders as the Warriors II is their choice but I'm saying that it is not such a dubious claim - there are far more dubious claims as to the resurrection of club sides. Even if the SWFU had gone bankrupt, Wales would still be Wales.GordyB 14:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gordy, I have altered the words a little - only because when I first read it, it gave me the feeling that it was trying to make an official claim, thats why it was first removed. But I have changed to say how the Crusaders want to appeal to old fans of the Warriors. Using the word reincarnation, despite have considered, is too misleading imo. 02:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Also prefer the new wording.

We do not need to agree or diagree with the idea that they are the reincarnation of the Warriors but the claim that they are needs to be noted. When I initially created the reference to a rugby league team on the Celtic Warriors page, the league team were to be called 'Warriors' and the announcement claimed that they were the same franchise. I suspect that the name change and the fact that the reincarnation claim is no longer made (the Crusaders site makes no reference to the Warriors) had something to do with the threat of legal action. It still deserves some discussion IMO.GordyB 20:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page update

[edit]

I'm going to be updating this page over the next few days, the tenses were all wrong as I wrote most of the text before the Crusaders had played a single game and nobody had updated it since then.

The sections detailing the precise relationship between the Warriors and the Crusaders is going to be fairly difficult work as there are different points of view but for now I'll leave everybody with this which comes from a Celtic Warriors fan site and references the Crusaders briefly. I also came across the comment that 75% of Crusaders fans are also Bridgend Ravens fans on the Crusaders forum, don't know how true that is.GordyB 14:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.celticwarriors.info/wisdom/article_zoom.php?article_id=1066542

Gordy, I don't massively agree with the new format. I just really don't see why there is such a focus of the WRU club, there should be a mention of it, maybe two sentances, half of the history section being dedicated to them makes it seem too official. The current history section would only be appropriate in an article like Rugby in Bridgend or somehting. The only problem I have is that when I came along, I read the article, and went off thinking that ther was an official Warriors link, like it was being overlooked by the WRU or something. I just don't think there needs to be this type of info, as it has the potential to be misleading. Cvene64 16:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is only half because I have not finished writing the rest of the Crusaders bit. I'll cut it back, perhaps it is not really necessary to talk about the colours the Warriors wore. I certainly do not want it to become any longer than it already is, this is an article about a rugby league side. I'll try to clarify that there is no official link between the Warriors and Crusaders (at least none that the WRU would recognise) but it will take some time as I will try to source everything correctly rather than rely on one article.GordyB 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new format is more balanced. This is quite a tricky subject, as will be apparent from the tone of the linked Warriors forum: there are many former Warriors fans who feel betrayed by the WRU and will cling to anything Bridgend-based in an attempt to snub the WRU. Needless to say, their pronouncements are POV, perhaps too much so for Wikipedia.
It is ever thus. When clubs disappear and get 'resurrected' there is a collective desire for the new entity to be seen as identical to the old by fans of the old club and by fans of that sport in general. If a side called 'Celtic Crusaders' wearing black and yellow had somehow been given permission to play the RFU's leagues, I think few people would have seriously questioned whether it really was 'the same club'. The only real difference is the league versus union matter. Not everybody likes league as a sport and many in Wales are bitter about league taking all their players pre-95. These people will never see the Crusaders as 'the Warriors' but may well have seen an RFU based side as such. Those who like league as well as union might well make the connection between the two sides, though I suspect that over time the Crusaders will evolve their own character. A fair number of their fans don't like union and the whole debate is irrelevant to them.GordyB 20:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I use aol, I get IP banned from time to time (due to other people's actions). I can't currently edit this page though bizarrely I can edit lots of other ones. I'm posting this link here so that I do not lose it [1], it contains one of the few claims that the Crusaders are the Warriors that I can find on-line. The article updates will have to wait until I am unbanned.GordyB 21:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cheers. Cvene64 04:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Run On Team

[edit]

What is with the section "possible run on team". I have seen this appear on a number of articles recently, but I am at a loss as to its significance. It is speculative (hence the "possible") and cannot be verified. It adds nothing to the article, as a squad list already appears. The addition of the graphic has been deleted, but is then replaced. Could a consensus be reached as to its use? Nouse4aname 11:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This seems to have been discussed on the rugby league project and a clear consensus reached to remove such info. see here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Discussions forums/Putting up weekly run on sides on team articles. Nouse4aname 12:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was that the best place for them would be the clubs 2007 pages, upon construction move them there. Londo06 17:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SL 2009 and opening paragraph

[edit]

Opening paragraph probably wants attention. I believe their announcement for 2009 should ride up front, with their recent history in national league 2 demoted. I will look through other pages if there is a given standard that is adhered to on all club articles.Londo06 10:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wales, united kingom?

[edit]

Why do we need to explain that Wales is in the united kingdom in the opening paragraph? Surely most people know this already?! Besides, other teams (i.e. Castleford Tigers) don't need to state England is in the united kingdom in their opening paragraph! Unless there are any objections, I'm going to remove this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardeast (talk • contribs) 11:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Many people may not know where Wales is (according to Charlotte Church - this included Bush) but consistancy is the issue and other articles don't state "the UK" or even "England"; if they don't know where Wales is then they can click the link.GordyB (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jace Van Dijk's nationality

[edit]

Could someone confirm Van Dijk's nationality - although he sounds pretty Dutch I always thought he was Australian!! He seems to have the Australian flag next to his name within the 2009 squad section, but a dutch flag within the Infobox. --Richardeast (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a general problem on Wikipedia with people replacing actual nationalities with those of some distant ancestor i.e. Minichello was claimed to be Italian or the fact that they are eligible for selection for a Celtic nation e.g. Duggan was claimed on here to be Welsh (not even sure he is eligible).GordyB (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Utai

[edit]

Several notes have been placed in my edit summaries when removing the afore mentioned Utai from the Crusaders' 2010 squad, mainly stating that he will NOT join the team for 2010. He is retiring from professional football due to a knee injury. Can people please read this and refrain from adding Utai to the list in future.

Thanks,

Ymron (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Crusaders Rugby League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 46 external links on Crusaders Rugby League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Crusaders Rugby League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Crusaders Rugby League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crusaders_Rugby_League&oldid=1201255217"