every week which i wouldn't be able to do if it was involved.

Interesting to read the thoughts of Richard Lewis here... news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 326322.stm By far the most significant paragraph is the last for me “And our own figures show that, across the country, more people played rugby league in 2010 than ever before, a trend we are sure will continue"

Interesting to read the thoughts of Richard Lewis here... news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 326322.stm By far the most significant paragraph is the last for me “And our own figures show that, across the country, more people played rugby league in 2010 than ever before, a trend we are sure will continue"

Quote ="Dunbar"Interesting to read the thoughts of Richard Lewis here... news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 326322.stm By far the most significant paragraph is the last for me “And our own figures show that, across the country, more people played rugby league in 2010 than ever before, a trend we are sure will continue"'" It's good to hear that RL is progressing across the country,keep up the good work RFL.

Quote ="Dunbar"Interesting to read the thoughts of Richard Lewis here... news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 326322.stm By far the most significant paragraph is the last for me “And our own figures show that, across the country, more people played rugby league in 2010 than ever before, a trend we are sure will continue"'" It's good to hear that RL is progressing across the country,keep up the good work RFL.

I agree completely, I've never once advocated sticking clubs in Super League based on geographic location alone, only a moron would think that to be a sensible approach and it's only ever happened once, 12 years ago. The method you are suggesting is exactly what is done, yet when clubs do start to become successful and look like challenging the status quo it suddenly becomes 'unfair' and 'corrupt'.

If a club is being financed by the RFL , then in my opinion it would have to be excempt from promotion , if it reaches the point where it can stand on it's own two feet without financial or quota help , then fine away they go , but I see it as a more long term plan , rather than a ' get them into SL asap ' situation , as we had with the Celtic Crusaders

Celtic Crusaders were founded and financed by Leighton Samuel, not the RFL. It wasn't an RFL intiative, Bridgend was not a targeted area and they weren't fast tracked, it was a new club that started in NL2 as everyone is suggesting should happen. The fact that they rose up the leagues so quickly was due to the fact that they had a backer and so had far more financial power than the majority of lower league clubs, it was nothing to do with the RFL. Fair enough, Samuel turned out to be a bit of a crook and Crusaders ended up getting into a lot of debt and subsequently administration, which they have just left, but does that mean they were unsustainable? Only a couple of clubs would not encounter similar problems if their backers pulled out or weren't committed. If the criteria is that clubs need to be running at a profit and fielding an entirely home-grown side, then there would only be one or two clubs left in Super League.

Yes I know all about Mr Samuels and his founding of the Celtic Cruaders , the locals of Bridgend were quite vocal in their opinions of him , the fact they rose up the ladder was more to do with quota excemptions and the RFL allowing the players to be paid by Mr Samuels for working in his company , therefore avoiding any salary cap problems

Are you suggesting that we dont have a salary cap in the Championships ?

The discussion was that the RFL should finance the setting up of new clubs in the Championships , then we wouldn't have the problems we have seen with the Crusaders , because just as he was promised a SL spot in relative quick time , the same thing would happen again if an outside investor was to be involved

You say he was a crook , I dont actually believe that , he saw an opportunity to own a successful RL club , but the reccession made it unviable

I have not suggested anything except if a club is not being financed by the RFL it abides by all the rules every other club does

think you will find they were fast tracked, by being allowed to run above the cap in nl2, have more overseas players than what the other teams were allowed and the same again when they came up to nl1 it was not an even contest if they had run to the same rules as the rest in nl2 they would still be there in bridgend playing to gates of 500

More than once. What league were Paris St Germain playing in before joining SL?

obviously the mega-disaster of the century by the RFL - trying to fabricate a team from a non-heartland area was proven to be a pretty meaningless experiment so hopefully the RFL have learned their lesson plus the Charlety is probably the most heartless stadium ever created - I can't recall any sporting venue with less atmosphere,just an unwelcoming concrete jungle - access was easy tho' parking the usual parisian nightmare

most french RL fans I am in contact with are dreading the thought of a return to Parisian RL

There shouldn't be any. Toulouse should be next, and they're not that far off. They've got work to do but then it isn't easy.

Quote ="Dunbar"Interesting to read the thoughts of Richard Lewis here... news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 326322.stm By far the most significant paragraph is the last for me “And our own figures show that, across the country, more people played rugby league in 2010 than ever before, a trend we are sure will continue"'" yes,that is good news and long may it continue - it's great for a carrot-cruncher like me to see the game now being played in Norfolk ! However,more worrying for me is the article in the League Express of 22/11/10 under the heading 'RFL PLANS CHAMPIONSHIP CRACKDOWN' where it states that attendances at 16 of the 22 Championship clubs actually fell in 2010 Interestingly it also states that Championship clubs receive around £120,000 from central distribution compared to £25,000 in 2004 - a considerable increase which doesn't seem to have prevented the likes of Donny, Hornets, Gateshead,Cougars & Whitehaven from going into administration

Quote ="Dunbar"Interesting to read the thoughts of Richard Lewis here... news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 326322.stm By far the most significant paragraph is the last for me “And our own figures show that, across the country, more people played rugby league in 2010 than ever before, a trend we are sure will continue"'" yes,that is good news and long may it continue - it's great for a carrot-cruncher like me to see the game now being played in Norfolk ! However,more worrying for me is the article in the League Express of 22/11/10 under the heading 'RFL PLANS CHAMPIONSHIP CRACKDOWN' where it states that attendances at 16 of the 22 Championship clubs actually fell in 2010 Interestingly it also states that Championship clubs receive around £120,000 from central distribution compared to £25,000 in 2004 - a considerable increase which doesn't seem to have prevented the likes of Donny, Hornets, Gateshead,Cougars & Whitehaven from going into administration

looks likley to happen in the next few years tho' there are still utterings within the french game that the FFR are still talking about another Parisian venture - Mr Larrat,the big cheese in the FFR isn't the most popular man in the french RL set-up with the clubs though.His proposals to drastically reduce the amount of overseas players in the LER in one foul swoop failed miserably,being outvoted by all the club chairmen !

If all that is true, how come they owed the RFL £800K as has been suggested on here recently?

You seem to have problems understanding English. Especially the concept of tenses - ie, how is what happened with PSG in 1995 (the past) covered by the verb "is" (the present)?



The actual figure quoted at length on here is £700k (but hey, what's £100,000 between friends?). For services rendered.

I love it when various flat earthers quote the fact that the RFL [icharged [/iCrusaders for services rendered as evidence of a subsidy, or funding by the RFL. If the RFL had supplied services without charging, you might have a point. But they didn't. They charged for those services. Therefore it wasn't a susbsidy. It's really not that difficult to grasp.

OK £700K, I wasn't too fussed about seeking out the exact figure mentioned on here because:

1. Being posted on RL Fans does not in itself constitute the truth.

2. The principle remains whatever the "exact" amount.

I love it when bigots stare down from their high horse and completely fail to comprehend posts becasue their prejudices blind them to what is actually written.

The phrase is "financed by", not subsidised.

And if there is a charge for services rendered, they're not "financed by" any more than they are "subsidised by". Sophistry does not count as argument



The RFL financing the club would be giving money or services, not charging for them. hth.

Had they not still owed the RFL £700K you might be right. As they apparently do then they have to all intents and purposes been financed (not wholly, but to a significant degree) by the RFL.

You brought the word subsidy into the reply, not me, please don't presume to burden my posts with your prejudices.

"financed by" a third party = "subsidy". hth.

Are you saying the non-payment of a debt is equivalent to financing them?

If the RFL were financing them, they wouldnt have been charged for it in the first place. The RFL like all creditors of a business in administration are unlikely to get their full payment back.

I find it difficult to envisage what ' services ' the RFL provided over the course of a few months that added up to the reported £ 700,000 , that would be over 20 grand a week over course of a full season , expensive advice

You seem to be under the illusion that "is" only ever refers to the present when in fact it can be used to refer to the past and future as well. In the case of headhunter, he clearly used it to talk about the past extending to the present which is something normally covered by the present perfect simple tense but I'll let him off.

I'll send you my copy of Swan's English grammar by post as you seem to need it more than I do. In the meantime stick to your day job as you clearly know less about linguistics than you do about economics or even the nature of proof.



It wouldn't be if Crusaders had settled their bill. However they didn't. They got a freebie.

No, it would be the RFL providing services which Crusaders didn't pay for despite their obligation to do so. The services were valued at £700k by both the RFL and Crusaders (since they agreed to pay). Crusaders have paid less than £700k back to the RFL. The difference between the two figures is called a subsidy. Hope that helps.

no it isnt.

The RFL simply have a debt to a company in administration. As part of that administration the RFL will have to accept an amount of money in payment of that debt. Whether that amount is £700k or £1 the RFL really cant do a lot about it other than force the company in to liquidation and take the amount they are given in the end along with everyone else.

If the company that run the crusaders was the same, operating as normal, and the RFL had simply written of the amount to allow them to carry on trading then you may have something resembling a point.

As pretty much the exact opposite has happened (the previous company being struck off, a new company arising) the RFL actually had no claim, on this new company for the debts of a different. Anything at all the Crusaders have paid off is over and above their obligation to the RFL and as such it would be completely mental to view it as a subsidy or the RFL financing them.

As I understand it, this thing about services provided by the RFL is a complete red-herring. The bulk of the amount owed by Crusaders to the RFL was in the form of a loan, mainly being an advance of future TV money which was granted by the RFL during the back end of the 2009 season (around the time that Samuel began making noises about wanting out). That loan has not been repaid. I also understand that the new company will continue to receive an equal share of the TV contract money as it has been decreed that they were not the beneficiaries of the original loan - this is where the lines between 'club' and 'company' become blurred.