"Don't believe it, rugby league it!" That is what a friend of mine said to me when the Super League license announcement was made. Most people had predicted the demise of the Wakefield Wildcats as the 14 teams for the next three seasons were determined.

It came as a shock to many people when the Crusaders withdrew their application at the last minute. I didn't see it coming this quickly, but I didn't get the vibe that they would be around in three years' time either.

Wakefield owner Andrew Glover

It is as if they have been dying a slow death since their first home game in Wrexham 17 months ago. They have been on a 'life support system' for some time and the RFL made a huge decision at the start of this year to loan or invest - you decide - some monies to keep them going. This now seems an error. A significant sum of money was given to the Crusaders and six months later the RFL then recognise that they are not viable. A costly mistake.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for expansion where it is sustainable. The most recent experiment to establish professional rugby league in Wales seems to have a catalogue of mistakes. We've been chasing our tails in a costly downward spiral that has finally come to an end. It's sad because we've started to promote the Millennium Magic weekend as a start to the season, and the Welsh Assembly are heavily supportive of the 2013 World Cup, but the other clubs in Super League cannot support a team that continues to lose money, nor should they be asked to.

Some people have said that the end of the Crusaders means an end to rugby league in Wales. They cite the various attempts over the last 100 years as evidence that the 13-man code has no place in the Principality. I don't agree. In my opinion the grass root development of a sport isn't always linked to that of the professional game. In fact I am not convinced that there is a symbiotic relationship.

Let's say for argument's sake that the RFL have given the Crusaders £1million a year. How much development could you do with that much money? Artificially planting a team with virtually no local players into a new area doesn't seem to work, and even then your chance of successfully establishing the team is about 50/50.

If rugby league grew from the local community, over perhaps 10 years, then you might see the potential for a Super League club in the future, but there have to be some roots. This brings me back to the rugby league heartlands and the next big decision.

Sympathy for Halifax

Did Wakefield deserve a licence more than Halifax? In some ways the decision to grant a licence to Wakefield made the whole licence procedure seem farcical.

I am not that bothered that their ground doesn't meet the minimum standards, but what is the point of having some stadia criteria if you choose to ignore the bench mark that has been set?

I have a huge degree of sympathy for the people who work and follow Halifax. On the face of it, they have not gone into administration and have what appears to me a much better stadium that meets the criteria. My mind also goes back three years when I seem to recall that the only reason that Widnes were denied entry was because they had recently gone in administration, even though they were probably a better option that Wakefield are today. It seems inconsistent to me.

Still, I don't know all the facts and haven't seen the applications. I know that Wakefield do very well in the 'rugby' box and hope that they can go from strength to strength under their new owner.

It must be annoying for top clubs like St Helens who have had to spend so much time and money pursuing a new stadium, when they then see that other teams are granted licences in their old stadiums. That would really frustrate me.

There must be a perfectly good reason for not doing it, but I would be interested to see if the RFL independent Board of Directors could summarise their rationale or explain the strength of Wakefield application over Halifax's. In a sport that has both salary caps and a three year licence application system we need to learn where we are going wrong if two out of the 14 clubs can go into administration in the last 12 months.

Sustaining our game

The biggest and most important question to me is about sustainability. Until we get to a stage in which all 14 teams are able to break even each year, we cannot begin to think about strategic growth. There needs to be both a minimum and a maximum salary cap as well.

A friend of mine from the finance world explained that you need to saturate the current market, have it at full capacity and profitable before you begin any expansion.

If this isn't possible with 14 teams then a reduction to 12 or ten should be explored. It is important that it does what it says on the tin so to speak. Let's keep the 'Super' in Super League.

Phil answers your emails...

Got a question for Phil? Email him at skysportsclub@bskyb.com or use the feedback form below...

Where is England's young talent?

Hi Phil, I thought the new England coach was going to bring in young talent into the 4 Nations squad, including players in form? However he has dropped bright young talent like Louie McCarthy Scarsbrook, Tony Clubb and Peter Fox. What is he thinking? He has kept in the likes of Peacock, Morley and Crabtree. Yes they are old hands at the game, but they are too old and are not even in form players. Peacock and Crabtree have had a terrible season. Peacock has not played many games and the ones he has played have been awful, the same goes for Crabtree, big lad, a few off loads but nothing else. Morley is the only one that before injury has played very well. Is it that Steve McNamara is frightened to drop them as they have been in the squad for so long? He has also got players still in the squad that are playing utter rubbish, like the likes of Maguire. He also has Leon Price who has just come back from injury. Not sure what his game plan is, but I can honestly say England Rugby League will not win anything until we get a team with young talent, that are able to mould together. What are your thoughts on leaving the older players in the squad? Should we keep them or make a fresh new start. Macca bangs on about young talent, however he sticks with the old format and never comes up with winning anything.
Mark

PHIL REPLIES: Selecting the England squad is never an easy task, nor one that is possible to do with unanimous support. It would be impossible for Steve McNamara to pick a group of players that every fan would agree with. We all have our own favourites and opinions. Just like coaches, we fall in and out of love with players.

Without going through it player by player I do tend to agree with some of your sentiments. One of the recurring sound bites that came out of the England camp last year was the long-term view to the World Cup in 2013. Everything that we are doing was said to be building to that event. If that is still the case and with the limited number of international games to be played prior to that event, it would seem sensible to pick the players who are most likely to feature in the England team in two years time. However, attempting to guess the England team for 2013 is probably harder than we all imagine. I'd like the coach to select what he thinks are his 40 and stick with them over the next two years.

The starting point would have to be your senior players. Do they still want to play for England in 2013 and do you as a coach think that they'll still be the best players available?

Those are two big questions when you think of players like Morley and Peacock.

Somebody once said "form is temporary, class is permanent". If that's the case then we need to decide which English players have the class to play international rugby league. Were McCarthy-Scarsbrook, Clubb and Fox good enough to be in the England squad last year? If so, would you have stuck with them for another 12 months?

Your point about 'young talent' is interesting, but perhaps not accurate. The average age of the Australian and New Zealand teams isn't younger than the English one, so why do you think that we need younger players?

It is a hard job to select players who are playing well and stick with the ones that you believe are your best chance of success. Let me put this question to you; in what area of the game were we not good enough during last year's Four Nations? Would different players have made a difference? Was it a mental problem or were we just not physically strong enough? Did the opposition have better technical skills or did they employ radically different tactics?

I don't think that there is a massive difference between the top 50 English players available to Steve McNamara. That's not the biggest challenge in my view.

P.S. Message to England RL Media Manager. Little things make a difference in sport. Please update the englandrl.com website so that it has Steve's latest squad on it.

back to top