, Bridgend RFC, Celtic Warriors, Celtic Crusaders) that club disappeared or fell down the league and yet he still had enough cash to contemplate doing exactly the same again.

Id say clearly so, considering they spent MORE money after accumulating those CCJs than prior to it.

But now you are speculating an entire profit and loss account. The cap difference isnt £700k, it is £1.3m It is massively different. And that is the basis of the problem. You dont know that if Crusaders P+L had been better in the NL's it would have made their P+L viable in SL. That was the issue, the breaking of the cap is irrelevant. If the club wasnt viable in SL, then even if it had made profit in the NLs, it wasnt viable in SL.

Thats just incorrect, most of Crusaders squad was signed for SL, it was no where near 'pretty much the same' nor did they only add 'a handful of queensland league players'. A handful of queensland league players is what they had in the NL's. Their signings in 2009 included O'hara, Withers, Bryant, Peek, Chalk, Smith, Lupton, Chan, Tyrer. Mark Bryant had won the Grand Final the previous year, Withers, O'hara, Peek and chalk were all NRL first graders at the time, Lupton had played 25 SL games for Cas the year before, and Smith and Tyrer (at the time) were banging on the door for St Helens.

As a Leigh fan you arent on particularly solid ground criticising another RL club for using the owners money to paper over the cracks in the business, nor to criticise them for breaking in the SC in a way which made them unsustainable.

Still not a million quids worth there though , Is there ?

Banging on about costs is a spokescreen to hide the fact that you can't explain how you can accumulate CCJs but go on trading indefinitely. If you can't pay for your debts then you can be bankrupted.

And you ignored revenue again.



1.3 million but you suggested that Crusaders were nowhere near the max cap and that £1 million was more likely.

If you read the public statement about Crusaders first bankruptcy then you'd know that "historic debts accumulated before SL" was cited at the time. Even if they had been making a profit in SL (unlikely), they would have had to cover their past debts or run the risk of being bankrupted. So it's not speculation on my part.



They were not first graders. They may have played one or two NRL games but most were not regular players. And 8 new players is hardly a new squad. It's not even half a match squad.

I don't think any of these players became first grade NRL players after the whole thing fell through and if any did then it was an isolated example. They were not good enough for SL let alone the NRL.

I have always been critical of the way Leigh operated recently , as for the SC indiscrestion , that was a combination of clerical error and the owners business suffering a huge loss because of a customer going bust on him

But then again I am not suggesting Leigh were or are ready to enter SL under a licence system ? are you bringing Leigh up to try to change the subject because it is plain once again you are losing the argument ?

No there isnt. Crusaders spent nowhere near the SL cap yet in 2011 they went bust.

So you admit that with the additional revenue (inclusing funding), the loss made in SL might actually have been lower than that made it the previous year.

Remember profit or loss = revenue - costs (though I'm predicting that you'll ignore this once again)

And still no explanation for how CCJs can be ignored indefinitely.

Yes , because as HK has pointed out , they were massively in debt through just playing in in the NL 's , this despite recieving money from the RFL for Welsh development , that they paid players with

A CCJ is a CCJ, it isnt a bankruptcy order. It is clear that
Because we dont know what it is. Which is why I am saying you are speculating. You are guessing, you dont know if revenue was relatively much higher compared to cost than it had been in the NL's it is just convenenient for your argument for it to be so.

It is speculation, it is pure speculation because you dont know the P+L for the two years they were in SL before they went bankrupt. What you are saying is that the debt they incurred during their years in the NL's, which we can directly attribute to their spend on salary over and above £300k whilst they were in the NL's put them in to a position where their debts werent servicable, and you know as well as i do that this is a complete guess on your part. They could have been making a loss and they could have 'accumulated historic debts before SL' even if they had only spent the SC, or even less than the SC. The club could very well not have been profitable even if run at the £300k salary cap. And it is you who are ignoring the increase in revenue, you havent a clue how much extra revenue was brought in by Crusaders putting out a squad which played at the top end of the NL's rather than at the bottom end. You are making a guess when you have no way of knowing enough of the pertinent information to make that guess anything more than pure speculation.



Are you kidding? Mark Bryant had just won an NRL grand final? Did you think this was some kind of 'rocky' scenario and they found him playing out in the bush somewhere and just gave him a gig in the Grand Final? It was his 2nd GF as well. He had 99 NRL appearances, and was an Aussie Schoolboy international. Withers has over 150 NRL appearances and had played 80 games over the preceeding 4 seasons, O'hara had over 120 NRL games to his name, played for both Country and NSW in rep games, and played in the 06 WCC. Also there are 9 players there, that is more than half the match day squad

No, ill readily admit the loss made in SL might have been lower, Ill also admit it may have been higher, unlike you Im also happy to admit that if i stated either were true it would be pure speculation on my part, because we dont have the necessary information to go on.

They did it, why do you need me to explain how for you?

Or, they spend more than they could afford whilst in SL aswell and the business became unsustainable.

It seems very strange that both of you expect that the club ran up bigger debts from a lower cost base. Especially as the continuation of that argument would be Crusaders were sustainable in SL, it was solely the debts run up (and that is solely the debts run up because of the players salary costs over and above the £300k SC in NL1) in the NLs that caused them to fail, therefore Crusaders were a viable SL entity simply hamstrung by debts run up competing in a league they only competed in to access SL. So had we simply put Crusaders in SL they would have been a roaring success.

Nobody said "expect" merely that the debts that Crusaders were already carrying had an impact. Had Crusaders entered SL debt free then they might have succeeded and they might not but it is hardly speculation to conclude that had the salary cap been enforced during the NLs that the chance of success would have been higher.

You asked why the SC didn't prevent Crusaders going bust, I replied that it might if it had been enforced when they were a NL side. I didn't say "would", there is no cast iron method of preventing clubs going bust.

We do know what the Sky money is. We do know that it would make up almost all the difference between the NL1 cap and SL one. And even if we didn't know, you can't just ignore an unknown factor and then draw a conclusion from the stats that you do know unless you compensate by erring on the conservative side (and you didn't).



The debts that Crusaders occured were not serviceable. That's a known not speculation. We know that because they went bust. Debts were occured during the pre-SL era, that's again a known fact.

What you are arguing is that pre-SL debts could not have contributed to their downfall. That's speculation. Especially since there is fair amount of reason to think that losses in NL1 were of a similar proportion to those in SL.



How old were these players? They were past it.

Crusaders got some decent players but that was when they moved to Wrexham. The 1st year team were reserve grade, Queensland league and those in search of a pension. None of these players achieved much on leaving Crusaders. They weren't good enough.



No, but it's the first step. CCJs are legally enforceable via bailiffs. If the bailiff can't get your money then you can apply to have the business bankrupted. You can't just ignore debts in perpetuity.

Again you are speculating that had they stuck to the NL SC they would have entered SL debt free.

Do you really think they were running at a profit or break even, or even close to it bar what they were spending over and above £300k?

Do you really think that the amount they were spending over and above £300k where a particularly large part of their financial situation?

Realistically how much do you think they were spending over and above £300k? And how much did they owe when they collapsed?

1.25 million

The only assumption the model requires is that debt would have been lower not that the debt would have been zero.

Yes, this is speculation. You may believe you are right, but you have to admit you are speculating.


But you are ignoring the running costs needed in SL, and the losses made in SL. They could have had debts of £2 incurred in the NL's and lost a million pounds in SL, if they had no money left then those debts at the end of the year then yes, those debts werent servicable but it would be ridiculous to say it was the £2 debt incurred in the NL's was what brought the club down, ignoring the million pound debt incurred a year later. Any debt is servicable if you have the cash. If Crusaders were losing money in SL and nobody wanted to invest any more money in them, then any debt whatsoever, however tiny or relatively insignificant, isnt servicable.

No, im not, im arguing that pre-sl debts, and specifically pre-sl debts incurred from spending over and above £300k on salaries whilst in the NL's may not have been a significant contributer to their downfall.


Bryant was 27 as was Withers and Chalk, O'hara was 28, Chan was 24. Bryant, Withers, O'hara and Chan will all be playing SL next year. I have no idea why you are persisting in simply making things up here?

But can continue to trade, and often for a long period of time despite a CCJ. And a CCJ doesnt guarantee administration. A CCJ doesnt stop you trading and wont stop you trading, which is pretty much the reason it didnt stop them trading

Erring on the cautious side is not speculating. It means that you take the worst possible figures for your own argument and then seeing if your argument holds weight despite pessimistic assumptions. It pretty much does too. This is how finance / accountancy works, it's called the prudency concept.

It would be speculating if the argument only worked with figures that were highly contrived and advantageous to my point of view.



Then it is fortunate that I didn't say that. I said it would be ridiculous to say that previous debts did not contribute.



Then what you have said here doesn't contradict my statement that the pre-SL debts was a contributory factory. You are merely quibblingly about "significant" and even then hedging with "may".



It's hardly "making things up" to point out that Crusaders didn't hire top drawer players that would have cost very much in salaries. It's my recollection that many of these players arrived mid-season and so Crusaders didn't pay them a full year's salary.



But you are ignoring the long-term. Just because it doesn't stop you in the short-term isn't an argument that it won't in the long-term and therefore your argument that only debts acquired in the year you go bankrupt are relevant is very odd.

No, it requires that the debt would have been 'serviceable' not that it would either be lower or zero.

For your point to be correct you would need the portion of that £1.25m debt which was accrued through spending over and above £300k on salaries whilst in the NL's to be equal or greater than the portion of debt which wasnt 'servicable'. Otherwise it wouldnt make a blind bit of difference.

Even if we are very very kind to you and pretend Crusaders spent £600k a year on salaries whilst in NL1 (which is massively kind to you considering we agree it is doubtful they spent a million in SL, when not only would they have new players, but increases in wages for older players and others going part time) then we would only be able to attribute £300k of that £1.25m to the fact they didnt stick to the SC. For your argument to stand up it would need to be true that Crusaders, in their two years of SL, operated at a level where they had no issues servicing a debt of £950k (either through operating profit or private investment) but couldnt service a debt of £1.25m. Which is something you have no idea whatsoever of knowing.

It is massively more likely that Crusaders operated at a loss in the NL's operated at a loss in SL in their first season under Samuel, moved, still operated under a loss which was made greater by needing to pay off historic debts, went into adminstration, came out, then operated at a loss again (even when they had no debt) and so went bust. I wouldnt subscribe any legitimacy to someone blaming historic debts for making a business untenable when that business proves untenable a year late with historic debts at all.

Of course it is speculating. If it werent speculating you wouldnt need to err on the side of anything because you would know the answer.Definition for speculation:
guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence.
you are erring on the cautious side because you dont have complete evidence.
This again is a significant retrenchment from stating that it is less likely that crusaders were going to go into administration had they stuck to the original SC

Firstly they were all lower league players, when that was pointed out to be incorrect it changed to them all being passed it, now that has been proven wrong they only joined mid-season (none of them did, they all signed at the beginning of the year) what will be next? You could just accept you were wrong and Crusaders signed some good players who likely cost some good money?

It doesnt stop you in the long term either, CCJ's in and of themselves wont stop you trading. Which is why it didnt stop them trading.

Which to bring it back to the point of the thread, it doesnt affect Northampton whether or not the spend more or less than the SC, it only matters if they spend more or less than they can afford. The SC is completely arbitrary of their business and financial model spending it may be damaging for them, spending more very healthy and spending less equally damaging. Of course the converse could also be true. Which is why we need to allow the people running the club to make those decisions rather than having them work to arbitrary budgets.

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.