Except it probably was after the previous Widnes board gambled the future of their club in 2007 and lost. Without that huge hole, it might not have been. But the fact remains that previous Widnes owners screwed their club.

In honesty based on the criteria set Leigh should of been in ahead of Crusaders... IF they were always going to discount us due to administration (funny they told SO'C was fine to apply yet then afterwards basically said we were never being considered due to it!).

The club that's contantly moaning about 'the RFL won't let us run an U18s' (they will, but you have to obey the actual law of the land on things like minimum wage), or 'the RFL won't let us have scholarships' (they will, so long as you've got a development path for them to enter after 16), who's fans, when questioned about youth development, point to two totally separate clubs entirely, who had had their own financial hiccup a year or so before?

That Leigh?

They were never in with a shout of being in the top 14 applications.

If press reports are to be believed it wasn't your usual 'spend on players what we don't have' type gamble. It was apparently a gamble on 3 consigments of clothing with payments going via a bank in Curacao, a so-called carousel fraud ! Harsh to blame [ithe club [/ifor the actions of one unsavoury character though.

The alleged carousel fraud happened at the start of the 2007 season iirc and the person responsible then left. The board then continued spending money it didn't have on players it couldn't afford, working to the strategy that they'd win the GF (having assured the RFL about their financial soundness as part of qualifying for promotion) and use the 2008 SL TV revenues to pay their 2007 costs. When they didn't, they promptly went into administration on the Monday after the GF.

The board, post Steve Vaughan, gambled the future of the club on winning the 2007 GF and lost. Given the state Vaughan left the club in, particularly after the clothing 'dealings', they may have felt they had no choice, but it doesn't alter the facts of 2007. And it severely weakened their 2008 bid - a bid that without that problem would probably have been much stronger than Crusaders or Salford, imo.

The fact that Widnes screwed their club shouldn't be seen as a reason to let Crusaders do the same. You cannot possibly argue that Widnes were a bigger risk than Crusaders; O'Connor offered to put down a security bond. Crusaders needed one but didn't have one.

You're saying the Crusaders bid submitted in July 2008 should have been judged against actions in 2010?

Be interesting if you said every SL applicant had to put 100k down as a gurantee should they be accepted, how many could come up with it? I bet the RFL could do a lot with the interest made on it too...

do I detect a hint of cynicism ?

Which law is that ? , the one that says you have to pay only some of your staff minimum wage , and the rest you dont ?

Find me a link for that if you can

Find that tb and then you have 'evidence'

I'd want actual evidence that anyone has required Leigh to act legally in regard to some employees and unlawfully in regard to other. Starbug has certainly never provided any to back up his accusation in all the time he's been making it.


edit: of course, he's accurate if he means that you [ican[/i pay some of your staff above the minimum wage. But then, no-one hs ever suggested that the minimum wage is a maximum

But do you pay under 18's players the 16-17 rate of pay, or apprentice rate? Every semi-pro sport in this country would be on it's backside if every player had to be paid minimum wage.

tb............where`s your white charger........clippety clop.

That would depend on whether they're on an apprenticeship



Everybody else bar Leigh seem to be coping. There's no 'if' about obeying the law.

I would have thought that a good youth structure should be able to fulfil the requirements for U18's to qualify as apprentices and hence the apprentice rate.

We'd best prepare for the collapse of semi-pro sport in this country then - hundreds of non-league clubs pay no more than £20/£30 a week to players who will do at least 4 hours training and then another 5 hours on a matchday (not to mention midweek games) - are you saying they should be in effect pay almost double those wages for each player, each week?

Feel free to check the minimum wage law. In particular, you might want to look up the difference between wages and fees.

Is there any reason why they "have" to be paid? If lads are happy to play for a club for no money, but they may have the chance of earning a professional contract?

Ask the RFL that one

Yes. It's illegal for them not to be paid, even if they agree to it.

Or just check employment law. Takes 10 minutes.

Why do they have to be classed as employed?

Because they have contracts.