This is great for the game. If you're going to expand this is the way to start. The four new teams that go into Champ 1 will have to develop from grass roots, and with support from the RFL and meaningful SL club link ups, have every chance of succeeding. Much rather we build community clubs that can grow at their own pace, than fast-track a team of second rate Aussies.

Great tooing and froing from HK and Smokey! Interesting stuff!

The burning question has to be - if people knew Crusaders were struggling and the licence process was duly followed, how the hell were they given a licence in the first place?

I can assure you that it does not.

Any debt even a small one added fuel to the fire. Even if the debt had been "serviceable", all that means is that some of Crusaders SL revenue was set aside to dealing with past debts instead of being spent on their SL costs.



Untrue. It just needs to be higher than zero.



Your concept of "servicing" is nonsense.

You seem to think that anything other than the profit & lost accounts is "speculating". It would probably rock you to know that accountancy isn't an exact science and even the P & L accounts are "speculating" by your standards since they aren't based on "complete evidence". In the real world "complete evidence" doesn't really exist.

We know that Crusaders were breaking the salary cap - this isn't speculating because LS admitted it in an interview to LE. Even if they weren't and merely spent the maximum in NL1 of 300k (a very prudent assumption).

It's pretty clear that they did not spend the full cap in SL, nobody thinks that they did, but lets assume the worst and say that they did. That's 1.6 million. The difference in spending is 1.3 million. Most of the difference in salary caps is made up by Sky finding, we'd need an increase in other revenues to make up the difference but this is likely, we know that Crusaders got more away fans. At the very least, it is a safe bet that the losses in NL1 were not much less than SL.



No, it isn't. I stand by that. Only a nutter would think that accumulated debts prior to SL didn't have any impact.

Yes, it does. That is how debt works, you borrow at one point and pay back at another. Being able to service that debt means you can pay off what you owe on that debt when it is demanded. If you can do that, you dont have a problem. If Crusaders were able to do that, they would have been fine. But they couldnt. They couldnt even service the debt they were accruing whilst in SL, with the money they were making in SL.

No it doesnt. Unless you are making another huge retrenchment from "breaking the NL salary cap caused Crusaders to go bust" to the pointlessly self-evident point that Crusaders lost money in SL, part of this money was from breaking the SC and this meant they had some form of debt attributable to spending over and above the SC whilst in SL.
Can we pin down exactly what you are saying because it seems to be changing?


in what way?

Quote ="Hedgehog King" You seem to think that anything other than the profit & lost accounts is "speculating". It would probably rock you to know that accountancy isn't an exact science and even the P & L accounts are "speculating" by your standards since they aren't based on "complete evidence". In the real world "complete evidence" doesn't really exist. We know that Crusaders were breaking the salary cap - this isn't speculating because LS admitted it in an interview to LE. Even if they weren't and merely spent the maximum in NL1 of 300k (a very prudent assumption). It's pretty clear that they did not spend the full cap in SL, nobody thinks that they did, but lets assume the worst and say that they did. That's 1.6 million. The difference in spending is 1.3 million. Most of the difference in salary caps is made up by Sky finding, we'd need an increase in other revenues to make up the difference but this is likely, we know that Crusaders got more away fans. At the very least, it is a safe bet that the losses in NL1 were not much less than SL.'" Again, we wouldnt need to assume anything if we werent speculating, we wouldnt need to be doing the sums you are doing because the figures would be there. And you wouldnt be making the mistake of speculating the TV payment from sky was £1.3m when in fact it was less than a million. www.people.co.uk/sport/sports-ne ... -23316588/ [iThe Rugby Football League have unveiled a new five-year television deal with Sky Sports that will net Super League clubs £1million a year for the first time.[/i Quote No, it isn't. I stand by that. Only a nutter would think that accumulated debts prior to SL didn't have any impact.'" the debts accumulated prior to SL and the debts accumulated due to paying more than £300k in salaries in NL1 arent the same figure, i dont know why you are pretending they are interchangable.

Quote ="Hedgehog King" You seem to think that anything other than the profit & lost accounts is "speculating". It would probably rock you to know that accountancy isn't an exact science and even the P & L accounts are "speculating" by your standards since they aren't based on "complete evidence". In the real world "complete evidence" doesn't really exist. We know that Crusaders were breaking the salary cap - this isn't speculating because LS admitted it in an interview to LE. Even if they weren't and merely spent the maximum in NL1 of 300k (a very prudent assumption). It's pretty clear that they did not spend the full cap in SL, nobody thinks that they did, but lets assume the worst and say that they did. That's 1.6 million. The difference in spending is 1.3 million. Most of the difference in salary caps is made up by Sky finding, we'd need an increase in other revenues to make up the difference but this is likely, we know that Crusaders got more away fans. At the very least, it is a safe bet that the losses in NL1 were not much less than SL.'" Again, we wouldnt need to assume anything if we werent speculating, we wouldnt need to be doing the sums you are doing because the figures would be there. And you wouldnt be making the mistake of speculating the TV payment from sky was £1.3m when in fact it was less than a million. www.people.co.uk/sport/sports-ne ... -23316588/ [iThe Rugby Football League have unveiled a new five-year television deal with Sky Sports that will net Super League clubs £1million a year for the first time.[/i Quote No, it isn't. I stand by that. Only a nutter would think that accumulated debts prior to SL didn't have any impact.'" the debts accumulated prior to SL and the debts accumulated due to paying more than £300k in salaries in NL1 arent the same figure, i dont know why you are pretending they are interchangable.