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.

I'm going to ask for that awful thing that stops every single poster in their tracks.


Can someone provide solid proof that the RFL finance the crusaders?

That would tie in with what has been said in thi article.

[urlhttp://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/dec/14/crusaders-relocate-wales-rfl-leighton-samuel?cat=sport&type=article[/url

Indeed that was my understanding. I recall Lewis being asked a question about lending Crusaders money in a BBC interview - although he didn't confirm that the RFL had done so, he certainly didn't correct the interviewer either.

The RFL were in negotiations with Crusaders regarding the repayment of monies (and services) before the club entered administration and before they confirmed that Crusaders would be readmitted to the league. The RFL wanted all monies to be repaid whilst Moss & co wanted to repay only part - the fact that the club were fined four points rather than six would tend to confirm that Moss & co did repay rather more than just what the administrator allowed (possibly out of their own pockets).

The RFL could have insisted non full repayment or no SL slot but (perhaps wisely) decided not to do so. That's clearly a subsidy that allowed the club to keep running.

which is exactly why saying they were financed by or subsidised by the rfl is crazy

The RFL didnt have the option of forcing payment, they had the option of refusing to admit the to SL. Which still wouldnt have got the RFL their money back.

The RFL admitted the new Crusaders club not as a subsidy to the old one (which would quite clearly be a nonsense assertion in its own right) but to receive payment, even part payment, of the debt of the old club.

The RFLs choice wasnt to subsidise the crusaders or to not. It was to receive part payment and keep the Crusaders in, or kick them out and receive less money back.

No I didn't, 'is' would refer to the recent past, certainly not as far back in the past as 1995. Either way, your mention of PSG was completely and utterly irrelevant and I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve by bringing it up.

Having checked your post I find that tb is even more in need of a grammar book than I had thought as you didn't even say "is" but "has" i.e. present perfect simple. And present perfect simple doesn't necessarily refer to the recent past either.



You referred to Bronquins (I presume) being given a SL franchise in the first SL because of their location and said that this is the only time it has happened. It wasn't 12 years ago but I let that slide. I brought up PSG because they are even a more clear cut case than Bronquins.

If you think it is irrelevant to bring up a case that contradicts what you said then there is no hope for you. It didn't happen once, it happened twice for sure and probably three times if Crusaders are included.

I was referring to Gateshead. London Broncos and Crusaders were already existing clubs who were promoted to Super League, not examples of made-up clubs who were stuck straight in the highest division with no prior basis, which is what you seemed to be basing your argument on. I don't know anything about PSG, and the fact that it is so long ago and relates to a club in a different country means it doesn't have any relevance at all. The 'is' that both myself and tb were referring to was in the second part of my post. HTH.

Can anybody explain to me what kind of ' services ' supplied by the RFL could add up to £ 700K over a few months ?

Over 20 grand a week for 30 odd weeks , please anybody ?

Gateshead were formed and placed into SL before playing in the Lower leagues.

[urlhttp://www.thunderrugby.com/page.php?id=940[/url

It would appear the money was an advancement of central funds rather than for "services". See Derwents post.

So where did the term ' services ' come from ? , anybody know ?

No idea. Im sure TA can make something up though.

One was a made-up club and I'd forgotten about it. So the "only ever happened once" seems to have happened four times....

Broncos were not promoted by winning the league or finishing second. They were awarded a place in SL on the grounds that Murdoch wanted them in - which is exactly what you were arguing had only happened once.

Crusaders got in through a very dodgy process by which the RFL made a statement that they were financially stable despite them already having county court judgements against them. According to the interview in RLW, they were missing pension payments under LS as well.



You couldn't make it up. I'll spell it out for you PSG were in Super League. In fact the very first game of SL was in Paris. It could hardly be more relevant since they had never played a competitive game before that (I'm not even sure that they had played any friendlies).



Indeed, the "is" in "is done" is part of what is known as "present simple passive" which is used to explain regular processes and as such refers to past, present and future.

The RFL sent down a "troubleshooting" team, presumably they want paying.

At 700 k , one thing is for certain , if you're not ' in ' trouble beforehand , you certainly would be after



I am asking were did the term ' services ' in this context first get quoted , then we will know who was lying

700k would probably mostly be advanced TV money but with some wage payments of RFL employees but from a pedantic point of view, loans are "services" from an economic point of view insofar as they are not goods i.e. nothing physical is exchanged except perhaps a cheque.

It's as transparant as a Mississippi mud pie to me.

So a bale out then