no idea mate.
why was this money given to the WCs?
wasn't this money given to them quite a few weeks ago when they were in admin and has now been turned into a secured loan ?.

It was given to them the day they exited administration, as far as I can understand.

I'm sure if Wakefield had a ground to secure a loan on, the RFL would do all they could to help them too, as they did with Keighley a few years ago.

In what way are Crusaders in a far worse situation than Wakefield?

apologies.
i should have said,that were in a worse situation.

fwiw wheels i dont think any club should be financially bailed out by the rfl.
i dont think they've got the money to do it and its not what the rfl exist for imo.

I've not forgotten anything, and I would have held exactly the same opinion had the RFL been called upon to dig Leeds out of the mess they got themselves in.

The RFL should not exist to play piggy bank. Looking at it from the outside, it appears one of the major factors in Wakefield getting into this mess was that they had treated the cash from the developers on permission being granted as a "done deal" and budgeted accordingly. If that is the case, then its directors need to take a long look at themselves for getting the club into this mess.

I would suggest some folks on this thread clearly don't understand the difference between a "bail out" and a secured loan either...

Can someone explain to me which developers were giving cash to wakefield and for what? I must have missed something

Wakefield were due to receive AFAIK £350K from the developers of the Newmarket site upon receipt of final planning approval.
I'm sure IA will have fuller details.

The RFL aren't a bank - yes it is a loan that is secured, but it's also clearly a bail-out. Unless you think Crusaders could have raised £700k from a commercial lender?

In answer to the question, Wakey will start the season however will they finish it?

I expect another winding up petition in February.

If there is a serious question mark over Wakey being able to fulfill their fixtures for the whole season should they be allowed to start it?

This is a very relevant question. Depending on the terms of the Sky contract, the RFL might be left with little choice but to bail them out once they've started the season.

They bailed out Crusaders so surely they have no choice in some ways. Please don't think I am condoning Wakefield's current financial position, I am not, but neither am I condoning Crusaders either.... but the RFL appear to be! My issue here is that had the RFL not stepped in the Crusaders would already not be starting SL, if they had taken that decision than Wakefield's current plight would be there own problem. However, it is very much like the bailing out of the Bank's, once you have decided to bail out one then you have to do all the others as required.

We also can't forget that Wakefield's pending issue with the tax-man is not just theirs alone, it is the whole of SL's and what happens when Castleford get their bill and can't pay or maybe St Helens, £8m in debt and hit with what we assume will be tax bill heading towards the number close to what Leeds are rumoured to having hanging over their head at £2m.

The RFL also have to take some responsibility for the issue of HMRC's rumoured tougher stance because they did bail out Crusaders and the money they think they are owed went with it!

From the VT, thanks Derwent for the timely info!



There you have it and I assume that Derwent's source is official and public record.