You made a decent argument until you got to this last bit at which point you lost all credibility. What you don't say is whether or not you think option 2 is acceptable. I'm 100% for expansion but not at the expense of the game's integrity. If people on here, at the clubs and at Red Hall think that it's ok to bend a few rules here and there then the game really is off to hell in a handcart!

Quote ="dids858"And so ends most of the drama. www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/95238/ ... -owe-.aspx'" That'll disappoint a few.

Quote ="dids858"And so ends most of the drama. www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/95238/ ... -owe-.aspx'" That'll disappoint a few.

why?

the rules of the competition need to integrity and to be followed to the letter of the law. We are a sport

the rules which govern how we run as a business are only there to ensure the game runs well as a business, if they are wrong or not applicable then what is the point in sticking to them if they arent going to ensure what they were put in place to ensure?

So change them!

or just accept they are fluid.

Indeed - rules are fluid and organisations must adapt around them as they change. The last thing we want is inflexibility or rigid and arbitrary interpretations of the regulations or their spirit.

There is indeed a properly incorporated WRL - Mark Rowley is paid to be its Chairman.

RFL slips the WRL a few quid for welsh development. RFL tells the current Crusaders owners they're out of SL, thus removing any potential sale value of the club. WRL step in to rescue it. RFL magically finds there is space for a Welsh franchise after all & everyones happy. Of course, that only works if the club can then get into a state where it isn't losing money at an unsustainable rate.

No, you have said something different to what i said.

Ill re-iterate my position for you, If rules arent going to ensure what they were put in place to ensure, then there isnt much point rigidly sticking to them.

Thats a totally different thing to arbitrarily ignoring the spirit of regulations. Which is plainly ridiculous

Where have the club shown they have an unsustainable amount of debt as I have seen banded about on here?

We have now confirmed we've paid the tax bill, which I am cock a hoop about, and other than the pension troubles and the CCJ's we are ok. If the RFL have given assurances the club can go into administration and reform whilst keeping our Super League status then frankly I think we'd be plain stupid not to when the vast majority of debt was historic and run up by past owners.

kevs head

my answer to your question is simple

Over the next 4 weeks we will see 285,000 welsh rugby supporters watch 4 international matches at the Millenium stadium.

thats how big rugby is in Wales and the RL want to tap into it !

Are they only allowed to watch one match each

And at the previous Millenium weekends they did not show up, hardly anyone in Cardiff knew or cared about the LEAGUE weekend.

The missing word is UNION mate.

If Union played games in Yorkshire i would not attend or even care, not this year or any other year.

Now i have no grudge with CC and wish them luck but they face one hell of a battle to convert fans.

Interesting to see whether the Welsh franchise experiment movement will be able to bounce back from this latest embarrassment.

your quite right tb,the rfl are an easy target.
your also right to remind me that we've got two bodies that run RL.i do know that,i just forget some times.
perhaps in future when the chairmen of clubs in SLE have made a decision that impacts on the whole of the game they should send a spokesman out to tell the world the news instead of letting the RFL do the dirty work.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-nort ... s-11726963 what next

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-nort ... s-11726963 what next

Old boy network at work there with the other case?

This is probably due to some idiot at HMRC messing up.

Cru said paid it so surely all they had to do was show proof of payment? Yet by sounds of it they failed to do so.

From the content of the article I assume that the counsel for the (proposed) adminstrator was there on behalf of the company or its secured creditor to try to get the winding up order put aside so that they could lead the insolvency procedure rather than the official receiver.

Doesn't sound too promising no matter what the outcome.....

I thought we might have learnt something after Gateshead and Paris. it would appear not.

Evidence isn't submitted at this type of winding up hearing. They wouldn't get through the number of petitions listed each 30 minutes if they did. if both sides are represented and there is no agreement, it will always be adjourned for the parties to seek agreement to place before the court at the adjourned hearing or agree directions for a more substantive hearing.

Isn't that though what washappening before this hearing?

From reports HMRC were due to withdraw the petition, but did not at the hearing. I have seen nothing to explain why, but it could be they could not find the suggested payment in time for the hearing or their Counsel was not properly briefed on this petition (HMRC's Counsel is likely to be dealing with a substantial number of petitions on one list - when I used to do them at the RCJ the courtroom was like something out of Victorian times with the number of barristers, solicitors and respondents attending). HMRC does not appear to have pressed ahead, however, to get an order on the petition, which they would have done if they were sure no payment had been made.

Crusaders' Counsel standing there and saying it had been paid would not be enough for a dismissal and the Registrar would not look at any supporting evidence.

Thanks for clearing that up Sarf Essex Taff.

There is an administration hearing tomorrow so all may become clear after that. The new company to take over running of the club when all the loose ends are tied up seems to be the likely outcome.

That's been delayed 7 days according to that BBC link as HMRC ain't happy (want to make sure they get paid before admin).