Talk:Oxford Cavaliers

Comments
It is clear the offical amateurism of rugby union restricted rugby league in the south. That there has been considerable growth in rugby league in the south since 1996 demonstrates this. A fledgling rugby league team would have to recruit a team who were not interested in rugby union, yet were in rugby league as they would have to be willing to risk never playing any form of rugby again should the team not survive. This is because playing rugby league was to earn a ban from playing rugby union.

A ground would have to be obtained. This could not be from a school, as that would jepordise help from the RFU, so it would have to be a council that had a rugby ground, but would not listen to the objections from rugby union. It happened on a handful of occasions (eg Hemel Hempstead), but when the council were actively attempting to undermine rugby league (eg Cheltenham) this was not possible.

This is well worn stuff. Please continue this debate on the shamateurism page. This is an attempt at a reasonable entry for the team and the reason as to why several teams suddenly emerged in the south in 1996 is relevent to the history of the team.

I concur. Although the RFU's policies were not the sole reason for the failure of rugby league to expand in the South they were the primary one. The fact that you could be 'professionalised' for playing rugby league even at an amateur level was key.GordyB 09:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The way that this entry is presented is akin to a bear faced lie. That is why I simply take it out. Mention the history of RU by all means but to present the amateur status of RU as the soul reason for the lack of RL develpment for 100 YEARS is to totaly ignore many of the parachial failings of RL itself over the years that has failings. Either be more through and include all the reason or don't include them at all. That is my point, I am not anti-RL, just that rl fans cannot put this properly.

New: It is not stated that it is the sole reason, but it is clearly the major one as we can see by the huge numbers of rugby league clubs in the south of England after 1996 as compared to before professionalism.

I play rugby league and rugby union and was involved in rugby union in the south when the rule changes came about. I assure you that at the time it was seen as a major reason. If you wish a fuller discussion, perhaps you would like to suggest what else has changed since 1995?

"You infer that RU actively stopped RL from setting up clubs in the south of England when it did not. You also imply that the only people who could possibly play RL in the south were RU players"

Where rugby union was the dominant code, it was in a position to prevent rugby league developing. The sports are similar and the idea that there would be many people in the south who would strongly dislike rugby union, but fancy getting invovled in starting up a rugby league club. Secondly thtey would need somewhere to play and they would need someone to paly against. It happened, but until 1996 it was rare.

"You quite wrongly imply that RU was solely responsible for the lack of RL spread in the south pre-96. It was not. List other causes to give balance" Other significant reasons for the sudden increase rugby league in teh south of England since 1995 would be of interest, but I struggle to think of other significant events.

So you are implying that the only way that RL can expand is to piggyback onto RU clubs and use RU players? This is an extraordinary claim and a fairly big indictment of how attractive RL is as a game and of what RL did to promote and expand itself for 100 years. How many new RL clubs are there in the south of England that play RL in the season Sept-April? Has RL really expanded or are RU clubs merely sweating their assets for 12 months of the year? I find it ironic that a RL fan can complain of vandalism when all I want you to do is to be honest and to give some balance to the reasons why RL was so parochial from 1895-1995. Sure, RU players were banned from playing the code of rugby that was administered by the "open" RFL and under the rules of RL but it is stretching the truth to place all of the reasons for RLs lack of expansion down to just this reason. Your entry suggests this. Either be thorough and go into more depth or don't mention any reasons at all. That is my point. Hardly vandalism.

StevenDavy: This is an article on one club. These reasons are highly significant for why it founded in 1996. If preferable I could compare to the University rugby league club that survived in 1995? The passage "Has RL really expanded or are RU clubs merely sweating their assets for 12 months of the year? I find it ironic that a RL fan can complain of vandalism when all I want you to do is to be honest and to give some balance to the reasons why RL was so parochial from 1895-1995." hardly reeks of balance.

I have not discussed the attractiveness of the sport or otherwise, this is subjective and not relevent. That some sports are associated with particular regions and locales is seen throughout the world. When Hemel Hempstaed started they piggy backed on the back of association football, and managed to find rugby players who were happy never to play rugby union again. This will inevitably be rare.

You seem to suggest that it is likely that two areas of land be purchased and converted for the use solely of rugby league in areas with no tradition in the sport and two pools of players found who are looking for a contact sport, but have no interest in rugby union. As a man from the south of England I assure you this is unlikely.

If you are going to cite specific reasons then you should qualify them properly instead of leaving them open to the wrong interpretations. I have not changed the entry at all to include subjective reasoning and I would not do this. You mention Hemel Hempstead and then move on quickly. Perhaps if more people had the foresight of HH then more sides would have existed prior to 1995. I put it to you that RL did not do much ouside of the heartland areas because any expansion was poorly planned and executed (if at all). You seem to think that RU clubs start up and get going as a matter of right rather than hard work, application and lots of community liaison.

StevenDavy: I hope I do not give the wrong impression, I play for a rugby union club and have been involved in the running of a rugby league club, so I know the amount of effort that is involved. Hemel Hempstead were in the fortunate position of having a favourable council that went out of their way to prevent the club being undermined. In Cheltenham, the council underminded the club.

I assume you are not familiar with the sporting scene in England? Have you visited England pre-1995?

Councils undermine sports clubs all the time, they are self-serving and duplicitous bodies that are largely run by people with an agenda that extends to little more than worrying about re-election. I am not familiar with Cheltenham but I am certainly familiar with other councils who block RU clubs from developing their facilities or even getting a facility in the first place. Why are you connecting Cheltenham with RU?

It is this sort of victim culture that blights much of RL development and your rendition of the history between the two codes. Did anyone try to start a RL club in Oxford before 1995? Rugby union was treated badly and given no better treatment then other spotrs in some areas and survived.

OK - explain why Rugby League has taken off in non-traditional areas since 1995. Clubs can now be formed with some level of stability and can start to develop players who want to play Rugby League first and foremost. Or they can play both. Or they can play only Union. It cuts both ways - league trained players and coaches can now switch to Union or play Union as a way of keeping fit in the winter. Clubs like the London Skolars, Hemel and St. Albans are moving up the leagues. Gloucestershire Warriors have a development officer and are developing a schools outreach program - unthinkable pre-1995. I am all for a positive future bewteen the two codes, but don't deny the past. Tim Fellows 19:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

StevenDavy: The article now misleadingly gives an impression that there is widespread, rather than extremely isolated, debate about the effects of the Amateur rules. As 'Attributed' suggests an element of subjectivity it seems reasonable to write major. I think the history is being brushed over here.

Fair use rationale for Image:Oxford Cavaliers Flag.gif
Image:Oxford Cavaliers Flag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Animated Flag
The animated flag may distract people. What if we make it static? Aronthehood (talk) 09:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)