breaking news from sky sports news

Right time to wait for the inveitable "management buyout" and "support" from the RFL for the new regime wonder if a points deduction will apply (as it shopuld) or in the interests of expansion its overlooked.

Well done RFL on rushing a franschise that wasnt ready into the superleague.,....

[url=http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/10/11/12/manual_114442.htmlCRUSADERS GO INTO ADMINISTRATION[/url

[i"We are currently pursuing a number of options and are talking to interested parties and the RFL in the hope that a solution can be found to the club's current difficulties which would enable it to go forward and maintain rugby league in Wales."[/i

[url=http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/10/11/12/RUGBYL_Championship.htmlBlackpool go out of business[/url

[i"The League yesterday cancelled Blackpool's membership after they failed to meet an extended deadline to provide a credible plan to come out of administration."[/i
Shame the RFL couldn't save both.....

So does this newly to be formed club inherit the franchise when it emerges from administration? Should this be ignored when it comes to the awarding of the next franchises? Does it even matter as I'm sure the RFL will have a crusaders team awarded a licence anyway. You might be a bit annoyed though if you're a Cas or Wakey fan whos club gets kicked out and crusaders are left in after the failure of the welsh franchise so far.

Don't get me wrong I think a strong welsh team would be good for the game, but maybe the RFL should just come out and say that crusaders (and catalan and quins probably) are exempt from the licencing system. If you agree with that or not is one thing, but at least it would be honest and a level playing field for everyone else.

which I'm not convinced the current system is.

Although to be fair I suppose it could be argued the RFL already have in place the reason for keeping crusaders over 1 of the 2 teams in Wakefield;

[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/licensing/licensing_faqs[/url
[iThe RFL will then allocate the remaining Super League licences to those existing Super League clubs and/or Championship clubs which applied for a licence and met the Championship Club Minimum Criteria. The licenses will be allocated to those clubs that the RFL board believes are the most suitable, taking into account the:

a. Extent to which each club helps meet the SLE Strategy and the strategic aims and objectives of the Licensing process;
b. Historical activity of the clubs under consideration; and
c. RFL’s reasonable opinion as to future performance of the clubs under consideration.[/iMy reading of that is that being an expansion club absolves a lot of other negatives.


Not good news however you look at it.

Given this situation, how then did they manage to sign the likes of Reardon and Johnson? What were these players told when they were convinced to sign as I am pretty sure it was not along the lines of "Come and join us Stuart/Paul. We are actually in very real danger of going out of business which would leave you in limbo and nullify your contracts and put you right up creek."

Not suggesting that they were lied too but I am sure that they (Crusaders) made assurances that they (Crusaders) may not now be able to keep (which they would have known at the time I suspect.) Or, on the flip side, they knew that they could carry on regardless as the RFL would bail them out if needs be.......

I suspect its something along that line, maybe not bail out, but that the RFL will be working closely with crusaders to get them through admin and into 2011. The I guess the club will be confident enough to sign some players. And to be fair, Reardon and Johnson probably didn't have many choices at superleague level I guess so from their point of view its probably worth a punt.

Whichever way you look at it this is not good news especially for the new signings. That’s one team’s SL licence not getting renewed after 2011

maybe we could get witt from them

In VERY basic terms:
The job of the Administrators is primarily to sell the club (company) as a going concern to another company or person(s).
Probably a newly formed one


They will take professional advice on what the market price should be and look for buyers at that price.
They need to assure the court that it is financiallly viable and profitable in the future without its current debts.
When a sale is made to the new company, the latter must take over the employment responsibilities of existing staff under TUPE
"Transfer of undertakings - Protection of Employment"
Thus Reardon and players that are now contracted will have their existing contracts safeguarded

The real question now is - Can the Administrators make a practical case for Crusader's future financial profitability?
This would be impossible without a firm assurance to them that Crusaders would be guaranteed an SL Licence past 2011.

Which considering Widnes were refused admission primarily based on the fact they had recently been in Administration, if the RFL were being consistent, Crusaders should be refused their 2012 license too.

Bloody big IF though isn't it.

But, unless things have changed, all players are free agents if they choose to be.

conveniently however the RFL have quietly removed the rule about insolvency being a reason for automatic expulsion from SL in last month or so.

Not in this case. Its an Administrartion not a Receivership and the contracts are binding on the new employer and the employee.
Unless the employer imposes a fundemental change in terms or conditions the employee will be bound to the contract.

I was not aware of that and it is interesting, I'll have a look at it. Need to know their interpretation of Insolvent
There are 2 scenarios for the generic term "Insolvent"
1. That the company does not have the funds available to pay debts when they fall due. This can merely be cash flow problems at any snapshot in time and discounts future income from Debtors or the like or the capabilty of encashing other assets to pay the debts.
This may not usually a long term problem.
2. That the Balance Sheet shows that there are not sufficient current assets to meet current liabilities.
This is a problem.

I suspect that the RFL interpretation quite simply that the club has been subject to some form of formal insolvency procedure (e.g. Administration, Liquidation, Company Voluntary Arrangement) rather than being insolvent in terms of application of the above "tests" which you quote.

Will the players still be paid. I've come across a lot of instancesd where employees haven't been paid etc when their employers have gone into administration.

Thats true - during the period of Administration as the wages are due from the existing company, and of course they won't pay during that time. When a new company takes over they must pay from the date of their take-over.
Thats if there is a new buyer.
Unfortunately what often happens is that the Administrators cant find a buyer who will pay a reasonable price for the company as a going concern (not least because of the financial onus of taking on the employee contracts which could include humungeous redundancy liabilities) and sit back to buy up only the assets they want. The company has then to go into a CVA (Creditors Voluntary Agreement) or directly into Receivership where the individual assets will be sold off to gain some recompense to the creditors. The employee's contracts would be cancelled and no wages paid.
In this case players, as all other employees, would be able to claim redundancy and pay in lieu of notice, not from the old company then The Insolvency Service - though both would be curtailed to the years of service which means nothing to employees of the short lived Celtic Crusaders.

The Crusader's case is unique in that it appears to have no tangible assets at all. No property, no cash. I discount player contracts as an asset as these are as much a liability as an asset in these times
It has evidently a sh*t load of debts which they cant pay and are trying to renage on by a legal mechanism.

Much will depend on whether a bank or persons hold a fixed charge over their future income.

The Administrators do have a responsibility to the creditors

You "suspect" wrongly as each of terms should not be lumped together as being similar.

Think of it medical terms for your ailing body:
Administration : you go willing to hospital and have your brain and heart removed
you come out looking the same but it's not you.
CVA : You go williingly into hospital and finally accept euthanasia as the only way out
your body parts are caefully disected and sold the highest bidder
Receivership : As above but you are already dead.

Does this mean they'll be moving somewhere else again next year? Even closer to the traditional heartland?

CRUSADERS RELOCATE TO CLECKHEATON
RFL back new owners bold expansion plan

No disrespect here, but you don't really seem to know what you're talking about. I also didn't try and state that those insolvency procedures are the same, simply that each [iis[/i an insolvency procedure.

Anyway, presuming this point has been removed from the RFL's rules, it doesn't really matter, but my comment was accurate.

Your description of the procedures, as well as being condescending, is also wrong. There is a brief summary of the difference between a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) and an Administration on [url=http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/compulsoryliquidation/alternativestocompulsoryliquidation.htmthe Insolvency Service's website[/url which sets things out in fairly simple terms.

It would also appear you are confusing receivership with liquidation. Receivership is an "old" procedure; it wouldn't and couldn't apply to the Crusaders since the current company hasn't been around long enough to have granted security which would allow the holder of the security to appoint a receiver.

You are also confusing a CVA with liquidation.

In respect of employee (or player) wages - whilst an administrator does not adopt the contracts of the company to which he is appointed, he may "hire and fire" employees and salary costs will be met as an expense of the administration where the company, acting by its administrator, has continued to employ staff in order to trade during this period. Any arrears of wages, however, would not be paid (unless they are minimal and the administrator feels that it will help achieve the purpose of the administration if the arrears are brought up to date). The arrears would need to be claimed from the Insolvency Service's Redundancy Payments Office, which the RPO will pay up to the statutory limit which, I think, is currently £380 per week.

I can't be bothered clearing up the other inaccuracies in your posts right now, time for bed.

Yep. Amazing how that happened just before this isn't it? It's almost like they were expecting it and changed the rules so that Crusaders didn't get kicked out. Although they'd never do that obviously.....

You can fool some of the fans all of the time, and all of the fans some of the time, but you can't fool all of the fans all of the time...

According to the Guardian the clubs voted for the rule change last month. I'm just guessing, but I assume that means there are a few clubs with money worries.

I wonder if it was another one of those votes where Lewis threatened to resign if the motion was not supported?

Doubt it. It was voted on by the clubs, that's correct. But I have no doubt that those who voted for the change were doing so in order to help save Crusaders. What their reasons for that are, I wouldn't know. But there's no doubt that's the only reason the change was made.

whilst crusaders maybe the immediate beneficiary there may be a more self interested reason clubs have voted for change. Theres a rumour going round that several clubs maybe considering insolvency and then re-forming as a new company as a way of dodging the image rights issue which is hanging over every SL to a greater or lesser degree.