Just so we can be quite clear on the matter, of the 2 paragraphs above which one do you hold accountable for our problems, is it the fans who are as clueless as you but prefer not to speculate as to the reasons, or the board who simply refuse to give their reasons? and just further out of interest is the underlined correct or is it a typo what should have read Imagine my delight?

It does, Wakey have been slowly going down the pan for years now. Best thing for them and their long suffering suporters is to go into administation, regroup in national league 1 and come back stronger like Widnes

At the moment Wakey bring nothing to Super League.

Does it not mean that the RFL did not trust the 2 individuals and rather than take a charge on the properties owned by the 2 individuals as security took a charge on a sports stadium in a move likely to cause anxiety to the soccer fans who have been down this way before.
It seems a little strange as to why they didn't allow Leighton Samuels to take Crusaders into administration at Bridgend and take a charge on the Brewery Field.

Still it's nice to know that if Wakefield did have something to secure a loan then the RFL would oblige.Are there any other clubs in a similar situation to Crusaders ?

you expect the RFL to lend on trust







Might see if they will give me £700k with no collateral.

I was under the impression that this cosy arrangement was intended for the purpose of the RFL being reimbursed for what they had effectively lost.
All I expect from the RFL is amateurism,favouritism and light entertainment.
I have huge sympathy for any set of sports supporters who are marginalised and put into a club huge amounts of disposable income while the 'suits' appear to involve themselves in smoke and mirrors and never seem to be out of pocket despite their failings.
I have sympathy for the rugby league followers in Bridgend and Wakefield and soccer followers in Wrexham.

Aaaah, so your issue is, as usual, your paranoid delusions of the RFL have been proven to be as such, and you are now complaining about it. Fair enough

Anyone who has been to brewery field would find the idea of £700K being secured against the facilities laughable.

Would you loan substantial amounts of money to a company that had a CVA and paid creditors pennies in the pound / has faced winding up orders / has no suitable SL ground / a chairman in an iva / promotes some get funds quick scheme?

However maybe things are going very smoothly. The wakey 'ceo' has assured fans that the town shop that is being closed will be replaced by a brand new one on trinity walk in April. To make such an assertion he must know there is plenty of money in the bag and he has the job security and £ to see it through. OR it is a bit of spin for the gullible?

Tell that to Cas - we gave them their highest home crowd last season!

He didn't own Brewery field , he held the lease

He did own the Brewery field at one point, didn't he? He just sold it less than two months into the his club's first SL season!

Fairly sure he had a long lease , which he sold , the council actually own the stadium if I remember correctly

If you look on ' wiki ' it first states that the stadium was ' owned ' and then later it mentions the lease , so not sure

You could be right, but still not sure.

Either way, would the lease not be worth anything collateral-wise?

Yes as long as you have tenants willing to pay some rent , or somebody want to buy the place to build on it , but compared to ownership not a lot

I think he obtained the lease partway into his tenure at Celtic, this resulted in Celtic paying him for the use of Brewery Field. Not much different to Messrs Moss and Roberts at Wrexham who will be redirecting the rent straight back out of the Sky monies into another one of their companies

If you have been a few times you will know there is plenty of brown field land around Bridgend and the 'stadium' is a wreck. securing £700k against it - especially if it is leased - is a joke.

Richardson is in an iva not a cva. there appear to be no assets at wakey to secure a loan. i will leave you to work out why. Crusaders do have assets so a loan is possible.

Not sure what rod findlay has to do with the c*cksure predictions by Elston about a new shop when the club is begging for money! Has he lost the plot. if RF has shares in another club (evidence?) that is for Crusaders to come to terms with. If wakey are such a sure thing I assume Elston will publicly put many thousands into the new pot



The reality is that bellyaching about the welsh is mere impotent rage. Wakey's problems are closer to home. The welsh are hardly to blame for a historic club not being able to pay a few hundred pound advertising bill to League Weekly.

He has shares in Thunder Rugby Ltd according to companies house.

The RFL owned the brewery field many years ago.

couldn;t organise a pi55 up in a Brewery field?

[url=http://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/97669/what-s-going-on-at-wrexham-s-racecourse-ground-.aspxNot Everyone Seems Happy[/url

Yes some football fans are unhappy that a multi millionaire took the soccer club out of administration and has sought to make the the whole complex more viable. Like many people they are great at telling others who have earned their money how they should spend it...they are like children.

Looks like Ralph Rimmer has done some smart work and protected RFL / SLE interests. The Crusaders will pay back out of Sky money for 4 years (they must be getting a licence!

). Also there is a precedent there for clubs, inc wakey, re advances of Sky money.

So Crusaders have a much sounder financial base + they have a decent stadium + multi millionaire backing + a play off year + good links with South Wales.

Perhaps I've not been paying attention, but - aside from things bandied about on message boards - I've not seen a source for

a) the sum owed to the RFL being £700k
b) the debt being a loan, per se - the RFL/Crusaders statements before Christmas intimated that most if not all of it was owed as a result of the secondment of RFL personnel etc
c) that it's to be repaid over four years
d) that it's to be repaid over 10 years (another 'fact' cited in posts on these boards)
e) that only half of it is to be repaid (another 'fact' cited in posts on these boards)

What I have seen is supposition, guesswork and hearsay (from a 'reliable' source who can't be named for their own good) posted and then repeated as fact: in much the say way that Ted Richardson's statement that Wakefield had lost out of £350k due to be paid to the club by the Newmarket developer on receipt of outline planning permission + WTWRLFC's satement that they need to raise £500k via shares by the end of this month to secure the immediate future of the club became an 'established fact' that Wakey owe HMRC £350k and the taxman will close the club down if he doesn't get that sum by 1 February.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying the sum owed to the RLFC by Crusaders i[isn't[/i £700k or that the repayment terms [i aren't[/i X, Y or Z - I'm saying that the only statements from the RFL or Crusaders are that the club owed the RFL a sum of money and reached agreement on repayment with the RFL as a condition of competing in SL this year, but I've not seen any details of sums or what the repayment terms are.

I see the document MG01 (particulars of a mortgage or charge) published on RedPassion Forums doesn't actually mention the figure. What it does mention is ANY liablity expressed to be due to or owing to the RFL as per the Loan agreement (which isn't published)

One more thing, how can the charge for the Crusaders debt be on something which ISN'T actually owned by the Crusaders.

So they folding for good?