I'm going to ask for that awful thing that stops every single poster in their tracks.


Can someone provide solid proof that the RFL finance the crusaders?

That would tie in with what has been said in thi article.

[urlhttp://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/dec/14/crusaders-relocate-wales-rfl-leighton-samuel?cat=sport&type=article[/url

Indeed that was my understanding. I recall Lewis being asked a question about lending Crusaders money in a BBC interview - although he didn't confirm that the RFL had done so, he certainly didn't correct the interviewer either.

The RFL were in negotiations with Crusaders regarding the repayment of monies (and services) before the club entered administration and before they confirmed that Crusaders would be readmitted to the league. The RFL wanted all monies to be repaid whilst Moss & co wanted to repay only part - the fact that the club were fined four points rather than six would tend to confirm that Moss & co did repay rather more than just what the administrator allowed (possibly out of their own pockets).

The RFL could have insisted non full repayment or no SL slot but (perhaps wisely) decided not to do so. That's clearly a subsidy that allowed the club to keep running.

which is exactly why saying they were financed by or subsidised by the rfl is crazy

The RFL didnt have the option of forcing payment, they had the option of refusing to admit the to SL. Which still wouldnt have got the RFL their money back.

The RFL admitted the new Crusaders club not as a subsidy to the old one (which would quite clearly be a nonsense assertion in its own right) but to receive payment, even part payment, of the debt of the old club.

The RFLs choice wasnt to subsidise the crusaders or to not. It was to receive part payment and keep the Crusaders in, or kick them out and receive less money back.

No I didn't, 'is' would refer to the recent past, certainly not as far back in the past as 1995. Either way, your mention of PSG was completely and utterly irrelevant and I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve by bringing it up.

Having checked your post I find that tb is even more in need of a grammar book than I had thought as you didn't even say "is" but "has" i.e. present perfect simple. And present perfect simple doesn't necessarily refer to the recent past either.



You referred to Bronquins (I presume) being given a SL franchise in the first SL because of their location and said that this is the only time it has happened. It wasn't 12 years ago but I let that slide. I brought up PSG because they are even a more clear cut case than Bronquins.

If you think it is irrelevant to bring up a case that contradicts what you said then there is no hope for you. It didn't happen once, it happened twice for sure and probably three times if Crusaders are included.

I was referring to Gateshead. London Broncos and Crusaders were already existing clubs who were promoted to Super League, not examples of made-up clubs who were stuck straight in the highest division with no prior basis, which is what you seemed to be basing your argument on. I don't know anything about PSG, and the fact that it is so long ago and relates to a club in a different country means it doesn't have any relevance at all. The 'is' that both myself and tb were referring to was in the second part of my post. HTH.

Can anybody explain to me what kind of ' services ' supplied by the RFL could add up to £ 700K over a few months ?

Over 20 grand a week for 30 odd weeks , please anybody ?

Gateshead were formed and placed into SL before playing in the Lower leagues.

[urlhttp://www.thunderrugby.com/page.php?id=940[/url

It would appear the money was an advancement of central funds rather than for "services". See Derwents post.

So where did the term ' services ' come from ? , anybody know ?

No idea. Im sure TA can make something up though.

One was a made-up club and I'd forgotten about it. So the "only ever happened once" seems to have happened four times....

Broncos were not promoted by winning the league or finishing second. They were awarded a place in SL on the grounds that Murdoch wanted them in - which is exactly what you were arguing had only happened once.

Crusaders got in through a very dodgy process by which the RFL made a statement that they were financially stable despite them already having county court judgements against them. According to the interview in RLW, they were missing pension payments under LS as well.



You couldn't make it up. I'll spell it out for you PSG were in Super League. In fact the very first game of SL was in Paris. It could hardly be more relevant since they had never played a competitive game before that (I'm not even sure that they had played any friendlies).



Indeed, the "is" in "is done" is part of what is known as "present simple passive" which is used to explain regular processes and as such refers to past, present and future.

The RFL sent down a "troubleshooting" team, presumably they want paying.

At 700 k , one thing is for certain , if you're not ' in ' trouble beforehand , you certainly would be after



I am asking were did the term ' services ' in this context first get quoted , then we will know who was lying

700k would probably mostly be advanced TV money but with some wage payments of RFL employees but from a pedantic point of view, loans are "services" from an economic point of view insofar as they are not goods i.e. nothing physical is exchanged except perhaps a cheque.

It's as transparant as a Mississippi mud pie to me.

So a bale out then

It's a bail out if there is the expectation that they monies will be repaid and a subsidy if there is not.

No, I'm not arguing that at all. London Broncos/Quins/whoever were formed in 1980, therefore had been playing RL for 15 years prior to entry into Super League. I'm not interested in the manner of their promotion, they were already an established club, which is exactly what you were arguing for.

Again, irrelevant. We could debate for days the circumstances behind Crusaders entry into Super League. The fact is that the club was founded in 2005, they were not created specifically for a Super League berth.

Why do you think I, or anyone else, should have any interest in something that happened in 1995? Do you think that the PSG case is somehow equitable to the current day, and is indicative of how the current administration go about things? You're completely deluded if so.

Very nice. It's quite clear that the 'past' element only refers to the recent past and not irrelevant examples from 15 years ago. What you are doing is akin to blaming the RFL for mergers and the failure of the 2000 World Cup. It doesn't make any sense, and certainly doesn't constitute a good argument. In fact I think you have lost track of what you are actually arguing about. We agreed on the initial point.

Does this apply when reference is made to ' 100 years to make something of your club ' that we frequently see posted ?

It would appear in this interview Samuels was approached to create a team that was capable to entering SL in 2009

[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/celtic_crusaders/8134656.stm[/url

Which he obviously did.

Can't recall the number of times I have posted that little nugget Mr Other

Err no, it wasn't. I certainly don't recall arguing that struggling lower division sides should be promoted to SL if they just happen to be expansion clubs.



See post above. This simply isn't true.



I think before you go down the tb line of implying that anyone who disagrees with you is merely ignorant, you ought to know a few basic things the history of RL. Unfortunately that you know very little is evident. You clearly hadn't heard of PSG which is no crime but absurd given the tone of your posts.



It might be if you hadn't included the "12 years ago" reference. I don't know why you think 15 years ago is irrelevant but 15 years is relevant.



No, it is not. You argued that the RFL only ever put a side in SL on the basis of geography once. We've counted four (PSG, Bronquins, Crusaders, Gateshead). It would be five if you include Catalans but I will be generous and say that they alone probably deserved their chance.

Mergers and the rest have absolutely nothing to do with RFL policy on licence decisions.