Don't worry, they will.

So effectively they bought points off the RFL, as they owed a lot to them but by paying more lose less points, smashing that!

Ooh, that's scary because that's [iexactly[/i what happened.

Mystic tb. He sees the future.

Would it be churlish to ask why this news was found in LE and not direct from the RFL?

I wasn't aware the RFL was the only creditor Crusaders had.

Do you work for the administrators by any chance?

Don't recall saying they were? But they have been in talks with them for the past few weeks. And is this at best another new rule based on administration & points deductions then?

It is?

What was previous rule then?

You ever seen this mentioned before? A majority of clubs have paid off a % of debt to exit administration (otherwise would go to liquidation?) yet never mention of this part of the rulings before?

So that's a "it existed in my head then"? OK.

so its always been rfl policy to reduce the number of point deducted from any team thats goes bust as long as that club says it will pay some of the debt off ?.

I said it never did exist! No point checking RFL rules anyway as they change by the minute!

Er. No. You stated that the rule had changed: Therefore, logically, that some other rule had previously existed.

Correct the original rule re: administration points deductions.

Right. So "I said it never did exist!" was a mistruth. How do you seriously expect to argue whatever point you have when you don't even know what you're saying?

But all you've done is take us back to [url=http://viewtopic.php?p=15717613#p15717613here[/url and the unanswered question of what this previous rule was.

What are you banging on about? I said the rule stating points deduction was relevant to debt paid didn't exist, not the rule on administration / deduction as a whole. Maybe you need a lie down?

They've stated it through a RL paper, was you expecting a personal e mail



VAT is going up to 20% i believe, you wont be surprised to find out that i read that somewhere too as opposed to receiving a letter from the PM

i wonder if you could have read it on the govenment web site first.

Not a place i frequent, who knows

I'd hazard a guess i wouldnt have done the day the decision was made, probably more so the days after it being decided

Wouldn't that be the chancellor of the exchequers job?

There's no rule on stating points deduction is relative to debt paid. There is and always has been a rule stating that the punishment for going into administration is a points deduction of up to a maximum. Taking account of mitigating circumstances, whatever they were, has always been part of implementing the rule. There has never been a rule stating that the maximum points deduction is the also the minimum, nor that it is mandatory.

So, in response to your claim that there's been a rule change, based - [ike so much else you've posted on these thread – on 'facts' that only exist inside your own head:

"What are you banging on about?"



Honest. If I were you, I'd give it a rest. You're not only making yourself look a fool, but severely undermining any case that might exist to criticise either the Crusaders or the RFL.

It shouldn't be too much to ask for the game's ruling body to publish such decisions and a brief explanation on their official website, but apparently it is.

Legally, the management of Crusaders could not agree to do that.

When a company goes into administration all control of the business is relinquished to the administrator, and only he has the power to decide who gets paid and in what ratio based on the sale price of the assets less the costs of administration. The debts of the old company can not be transferred to the new company either, unless the business is sold as a 'going concern' which in this case it wasn't.

If that is the case then that is excellent news , hopefully we wont be in this situation again

I thank you - clearly not every poster here is a dyed in the wool apologist for the RFL. After all, don't they go into a lot of detail on their site to explain the penalty for player disciplinary?

For example, looking back through the archives:

Sean Long was given a 150 pound fine and banned for the second half of the game after next. His arm only made brief but intentional contact with the 30 longest hairs on the left eyebrow of Lee Briers. In the context of his previously disciplinary record and the fact we think he is a complete to$$er, we feel a significant deterrent is appropriate for this class 2 grade 3 offence.

Yet they cannot bring themselves to be transparent about a much more serious threat to the credibility of the sport!

Quote ="ExiledTiger"It shouldn't be too much to ask for the game's ruling body to publish such decisions and a brief explanation on their official website, but apparently it is.'" Been on 4 days www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/20669

Quote ="ExiledTiger"It shouldn't be too much to ask for the game's ruling body to publish such decisions and a brief explanation on their official website, but apparently it is.'" Been on 4 days www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/20669