It said on radio leeds that we are 'very likely' to have the maximum six points deducted for going into adminstration..
Thanks RFL prove to everyone how totally fair your rules and regulations are...

Bring it on, I don't care what they do now. We must all know that 'more than likely' we are NL next season, so as long as we do the best we can whenever we can, that will do me. Ambition despite adversity means more than being handed a place when it isn't deserved.

If you get more than -4 points the sports a discrace.

We know the mitigating circumstances which saw Crusaders' deduction reduced - taking foward and committing to repaying some of the pre- administration debt.

Wakefield haven't formally come out of admimistration yet, and we don't know what mitigating circumstanced might apply.

Or maybe you do, as you seem so sure that the penalty should be reduced ... care to share your knowledge?

Your defence of everything "expansionism" is admirable, but what the poster actually wrote was:

[size=150[iIf [/sizeyou get more than -4 points the sports a discrace.[/i

I suggest you dismount, Lester.

EDIT: Hold my hand up - I now see your point (even if the other guy is right

)

If we get more than a 6 point deduction, it's fairly clear we have not taken on any debt, if that is the case then the RFL are right and it is as good an indication as any that we are playing NL1 next year.

I think it's daft politics by the RFL. Let's face it, the difference between a four or six point deduction is unlikely to make much of an impact on our final placing. They could make it four points and look like they are treating us the same as Crusaders. By deducting six points, they give the conspiracy theorists something to scream about.

Correct slugger, they will clearly win more games than us this season so whats the point?

Yes but what if Crusaders go bust again and dont pay back the 700k?. Cant be making much money or wouldnt have gone bust last time round. Much the same as us.

Then the RFL will be the proud owners of a football club.

We got shafted when we first got promoted and had no SL money for two years. Just think how different things might have been had we had that (and got rid of Ted and cronies much sooner).

Over a decade on and we are still getting shafted

Fair point, any theories how the FA would feel bout this?. Just to take our minds off other issues.

but hang on mate ted did a good job.

You mean borrowing another £700k off the sports governing body and promising to pay it back over the next 10 years, assuming they stay in Super League and can afford the payments. But what happens if they don't get their licence renewed ?? After all they must lose some points from their francise application for going into administration........surely ?? What do you mean no? How is that possible??
Oh I forgot Mr Rimmer and Mr Wood are the world's biggest hypocrites and are running the game like their own private plaything.
I am quite frankly sick of the whole thing and wish they would disappear up their own ..........

Yeh - A good job of running us into the ground and providing a living for his family

The FA would act totally above board because of the level of following the overpaid dancing has.

By comparison, RL is a minority sport and the RFL has less interrogation from the press compared to the FA. Wood & Lewis are only bothered about trying to expand the game beyond its natural heartland faster than the sport needs to.

Give me a break!

Crusaders went into admin owing in excess of 2.2Million and the only debt carried forward was to the RFL(hello.....conflict of interest....hello)!
The owners who applied for administration did so to clear the debt so they themselves could buy the club back debt free (apart from the deal to pay the RFL). Not only did they make zero attempts to stay out of administration they actively sought it without any other avenues being explored.

Wakefield on the other hand staved off two winding up orders earlier in the year and did their best to avoid the third by agreeing a payment term with HMRC which was withdrawn because of the RFLs compliance in seeing Crusaders avoid their tax bill via administration. Doomed it may have been but at least the club tried to raise the money by hook or by crook after the RFL had refused to loan them the £350K that would have helped them avoid all the bad publicity the sport has suffered through Wakefields situation, by the way, more double standards from the RFL!

Finaly we have the old BoD applying for administration as a last resort to save the club and not as a mechanism to wipe off debts so they can buy it back for a song and be debt free.

Another BIG consideration that Wakefields debt is less than one third of the Crusaders debt.

Will any of this make a difference to the decision on how many points Trinity are deducted?

No!

The rfl are taking £175 thou a season out of there sky money over the next 4 seasons.

Which obviously guarantees their super league status no matter what.

They will have a charge on the racecourse Ground only.
The 2 people the RFL dealt with,Moss and Roberts,who took Crusaders in and out of administration,have tried to sell the football club for some time.
Some front men for Stephen Vaughan have made a recent attempt to buy the soccer club.Vaughan is the money launderer who took Widnes into administration.
[url=http://www.redpassion.co.uk/forums/wrexham/71026-vaughan-i-part-van-mortons-reds-bid.htmlUpdate[/url

In what way is it a conflict of interest? I struggle to see any argument where by the RFL insisting a debt that would otherwise have been unpaid and subsequently lost when the previous company was liquidated was paid in full, was something that the RFL did in favour of Crusaders.

Which avenues would you have expected them to explore that you know they didnt? If going into administration allows them to build a stable and secure company and staying out of it allows them to simply stay out of it, running up more debts and going further away from stability and security then going into administration is the right thing to do. The same as it seems to be in Wakefields case.


Wakefield didnt have any security to put up against the loan. The RFL took out a charge on the racecourse ground as security. Thats just sensible, its not a double standard.

Would you loan Ted Richardson £350k with no security?

I think you are using a bit of artistic license to argue the Ted Richardson put the club into administration as an effort to save the club. He could have give it away, but no-one seemed to want the debt. It seems Mr Glover would rather start with the debts wiped out, than take them on.
The size of the debt which sunk crusaders has never ever been mentioned as part of the reasoning when deciding their points deduction. It would certainly be a double standard if The RFL decide that Wakefields level of debt is relevant, but never did so for the Crusaders.

Got to get em first before they can take them off us!

In view of the RFLs investment into the expansion process it's a conflict of interest to also be the judge and executioner regarding the number of points they are deducted.

The RFL being the governing body have an obligation to the HMRC to ensure that it's member clubs do all they can to stay out of Administration and not actively aid them to do the opposite. This is a clear conflict of interest between their responsibility to the HMRC which in turn protects all RFL member clubs and their attitude toward one member club, Crusaders, and therefore the expansion concept which is obviously sacrosanct.

With franchising decisions just months away the RFL have a conflict of interest in that they must protect their £700K investment by favouring Crusaders, not just this time round but next time round as well.




Point me in the direction of one single link, report or whatever that suggests Crusaders were doing anything to rid themselves of debt other than seeking Administration.



The loan was to aid cash flow and could easily have been secured against the SKY money due this season!

It's a shame, but I have to admit that as soon as Smokey comes along and does those split quote responses, I stop reading. Sorry Richard, I know you're not a pedant, I just wish the other guy could summarize his thoughts in a couple of paragraphs, like everyone else.

No worries mate, I hate them too but responded in kind.