Talk:Oxford Cavaliers

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 sole reason for the lack of RL development for 100 YEARS is to totally ignore many of the parochial failings of RL itself over the years. Either be more thorough and include all the reason or do not include them at all. That is my point, I am not anti-RL.