Crusaders players 'could be sacked today'

[StuckinNewport]

The majority of posters on this site appear to believe that the RFL is poorly run rather than anti-Widnes.

You will always get a few who are paranoid, but you cannot ignore the inconsistencies in the application of the rules by the guys at the top.

[rayvon]

I would have no problem with ozviking's version of events, if the RFL were transparent about it, the issue that gets most people annoyed is the blatant lies the RFL spout (as pointed out by Beano) to justify themselves

[GSF]

The RFL are as bent as a nine bob note if you cannot see that then you must br blinkered.

How can one club have diffrent rules that the rest ?

Why have they got a reduced points punishment

Why where they allowed to have more overseas players than anyone else ?

Why will they be allowed to apply for SL when they have gone into administration ?

Why was they not punished for playing illegal players ?

Why was they allowed to move to Wrexham when they won their franchise as a South Wales expansion club ?


Thats my evidence Ged do you have any of your own to say otherwise  ?

According to last Monday's League Express,because they have agreed with the RL to pay back some money they owe.However,a contributor on TotalRL,Derwent,who seems to talk a lot of sense,reckons this is just more smoke and mirrors.He says that any company in administration  has no such right to negotiate repayments with anyone.It is the administrator who decides which creditors get paid,how much,when and in what order of priority.Sounds logical to me.The question is also asked are the club yet out of administration?

[rayvon]

According to last Monday's League Express,because they have agreed with the RL to pay back some money they owe.However,a contributor on TotalRL,Derwent,who seems to talk a lot of sense,reckons this is just more smoke and mirrors.He says that any company in administration  has no such right to negotiate repayments with anyone.It is the administrator who decides which creditors get paid,how much,when and in what order of priority.Sounds logical to me.The question is also asked are the club yet out of administration?

But I thought the once the "new,new,new" Crusaders are formed, then surely the previous companies debts are nothing to do with them, so the administrator would have no say in who the new people decided to pay off?
All depends on your last point Id guess

[John]

According to last Monday's League Express,because they have agreed with the RL to pay back some money they owe.However,a contributor on TotalRL,Derwent,who seems to talk a lot of sense,reckons this is just more smoke and mirrors.He says that any company in administration  has no such right to negotiate repayments with anyone.It is the administrator who decides which creditors get paid,how much,when and in what order of priority.Sounds logical to me.The question is also asked are the club yet out of administration?

That is correct for most company circumstances, however the RFL can bar some individuals being directors of a club if they have previously been associated with a bankrupt club.  Presumably they are willing to accept payments from the 2 Directors involved to wave this rule.

[BEANO]

.The question is also asked are the club yet out of administration?

They were due out of administration by the End of November

Then it was last Friday

Then it was Monday of this week

Then it was imminent.

But I thought the once the "new,new,new" Crusaders are formed, then surely the previous companies debts are nothing to do with them, so the administrator would
have no say in who the new people decided to pay off?
All depends on your last point Id guess

I think the RFL have insisted that " most" of the debts have to be repaid in order for them to play in SL in 2011.

[Peter]

They were due out of administration by the End of November
Then it was last Friday
Then it was Monday of this week
Then it was imminent.
I think the RFL have insisted that " most" of the debts have to be repaid in order for them to play in SL in 2011.

I wonder what the RFL consider to be "most".

Did they not say that the new Stadium plans for several clubs were well advanced.  Maybe they will accept an artists impression of a large cheque?

[John]

I wonder what the RFL consider to be "most".

Did they not say that the new Stadium plans for several clubs were well advanced.  Maybe they will accept and artists impression of a large cheque?

 

[StuckinNewport]

But I thought the once the "new,new,new" Crusaders are formed, then surely the previous companies debts are nothing to do with them, so the administrator would have no say in who the new people decided to pay off?
All depends on your last point Id guess

Not quite true Rayvon as the administrators would only sell if they believed the new owners deal to be 'appropriate', ie. the level of debt paid is satisfactory to the existing creditors. If htis was not the case, then the company would be wound up.

[GSF]

Maybe they will accept an artists impression of a large cheque?

Very good Peter.

[RB]

Now THAT is a great question. One that the RFL will be struggling with I'm sure. But the RFL thinks, and I agree, that Wales is so far a worthy cause.
I do draw the analogy between RL expansion in England and Aussie Rules expansion in Australia. Sydney entered the Aussie Rules comp in 1981(I think) only recently did they stop receiving special treatment as an expansion club. 25 years seems a long time but it was necessary. There's now a second team in Sydney. In Australia RL expands in its heartland - successfully these days - but Aussie Rules has been recognised as the country's no.1 football code and people in Melbourne / Adelaide / Perth know little or nothing about RL. The Aussie Rules TV Income dwarfs Rugby Leagues. That could change with the RL Commission over time but... we will see.

Personally - I think 25 years is too long for Wales, but 10 years is necessary to support.
London... well it should be standing on its own two feet by now... We should be exploring why it isn't and fixing that. They should be reducing the reliance now on overseas players and have an expectation of crowds in excess of 5000.

Again, that's my opinion.

That is your opinion and your opinion does have merit but that is absolutely not what the RFL is doing in practice.

Gateshead a geniune expansion was given one year in Super League with average crowds of over 4000 had the rug pulled from under them to save Hull FC and to give more funds to other SL teams.
Sheffield a genuine expansion had the rug pulled from under them 2 years after winning the Challange Cup at Wembley to save Huddersfield Giants and to give more funds to other SL teams
Paris was tried but the RFL pulled out after 2 years becuase it was losing money
South Wales were given 1 year in SL  , Leighton Samuel stated at the time he wanted to continue but that all the RFL were interested in talking about was getting their money back.

The AFL expand to Sydney 12 hours by coach from the heatlands population 4 Million
The NRL expand to Melbourne 12 hours by coach from the heartlands popultion 3 Million

The RFL expand to Wrexham 25 minutes from the heartlands population 40,000

The NRL knew that Melbourne would lose money and stated they were willing to help fund them for as long as it takes
The RFL wanted their money back after 12 months and pulled the plug on South Wales moving them 150 Miles North to virtually the end of the M62 Corridor.
The RFL pulled the plug on Gateshead after 12 Months.

Once you start a team and pull out , the ARL / NRL mucked up in Adelaide and Perth you upset your potential support and it makes it more difficult.
It is better not to bother than to do this.

The Charge against the RFL is not that they are Anti - Widnes ( I don't believe this is true) it is that they are incompetent, not-transparent and dishonest.