I suspect that the RFL interpretation quite simply that the club has been subject to some form of formal insolvency procedure (e.g. Administration, Liquidation, Company Voluntary Arrangement) rather than being insolvent in terms of application of the above "tests" which you quote.

Will the players still be paid. I've come across a lot of instancesd where employees haven't been paid etc when their employers have gone into administration.

Thats true - during the period of Administration as the wages are due from the existing company, and of course they won't pay during that time. When a new company takes over they must pay from the date of their take-over.
Thats if there is a new buyer.
Unfortunately what often happens is that the Administrators cant find a buyer who will pay a reasonable price for the company as a going concern (not least because of the financial onus of taking on the employee contracts which could include humungeous redundancy liabilities) and sit back to buy up only the assets they want. The company has then to go into a CVA (Creditors Voluntary Agreement) or directly into Receivership where the individual assets will be sold off to gain some recompense to the creditors. The employee's contracts would be cancelled and no wages paid.
In this case players, as all other employees, would be able to claim redundancy and pay in lieu of notice, not from the old company then The Insolvency Service - though both would be curtailed to the years of service which means nothing to employees of the short lived Celtic Crusaders.

The Crusader's case is unique in that it appears to have no tangible assets at all. No property, no cash. I discount player contracts as an asset as these are as much a liability as an asset in these times
It has evidently a sh*t load of debts which they cant pay and are trying to renage on by a legal mechanism.

Much will depend on whether a bank or persons hold a fixed charge over their future income.

The Administrators do have a responsibility to the creditors

You "suspect" wrongly as each of terms should not be lumped together as being similar.

Think of it medical terms for your ailing body:
Administration : you go willing to hospital and have your brain and heart removed
you come out looking the same but it's not you.
CVA : You go williingly into hospital and finally accept euthanasia as the only way out
your body parts are caefully disected and sold the highest bidder
Receivership : As above but you are already dead.

Does this mean they'll be moving somewhere else again next year? Even closer to the traditional heartland?

CRUSADERS RELOCATE TO CLECKHEATON
RFL back new owners bold expansion plan

No disrespect here, but you don't really seem to know what you're talking about. I also didn't try and state that those insolvency procedures are the same, simply that each [iis[/i an insolvency procedure.

Anyway, presuming this point has been removed from the RFL's rules, it doesn't really matter, but my comment was accurate.

Your description of the procedures, as well as being condescending, is also wrong. There is a brief summary of the difference between a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) and an Administration on rlthe Insolvency Service's websiterl which sets things out in fairly simple terms.

It would also appear you are confusing receivership with liquidation. Receivership is an "old" procedure; it wouldn't and couldn't apply to the Crusaders since the current company hasn't been around long enough to have granted security which would allow the holder of the security to appoint a receiver.

You are also confusing a CVA with liquidation.

In respect of employee (or player) wages - whilst an administrator does not adopt the contracts of the company to which he is appointed, he may "hire and fire" employees and salary costs will be met as an expense of the administration where the company, acting by its administrator, has continued to employ staff in order to trade during this period. Any arrears of wages, however, would not be paid (unless they are minimal and the administrator feels that it will help achieve the purpose of the administration if the arrears are brought up to date). The arrears would need to be claimed from the Insolvency Service's Redundancy Payments Office, which the RPO will pay up to the statutory limit which, I think, is currently £380 per week.

I can't be bothered clearing up the other inaccuracies in your posts right now, time for bed.

Yep. Amazing how that happened just before this isn't it? It's almost like they were expecting it and changed the rules so that Crusaders didn't get kicked out. Although they'd never do that obviously.....

You can fool some of the fans all of the time, and all of the fans some of the time, but you can't fool all of the fans all of the time...

According to the Guardian the clubs voted for the rule change last month. I'm just guessing, but I assume that means there are a few clubs with money worries.

I wonder if it was another one of those votes where Lewis threatened to resign if the motion was not supported?

Doubt it. It was voted on by the clubs, that's correct. But I have no doubt that those who voted for the change were doing so in order to help save Crusaders. What their reasons for that are, I wouldn't know. But there's no doubt that's the only reason the change was made.

whilst crusaders maybe the immediate beneficiary there may be a more self interested reason clubs have voted for change. Theres a rumour going round that several clubs maybe considering insolvency and then re-forming as a new company as a way of dodging the image rights issue which is hanging over every SL to a greater or lesser degree.

Yet Wakefield didn't shaft the taxman the paid there debt and still could be shafted for it.

We can but hope.

Wrong. Whitehaven went into administration recently and the administrator cancelled all contracts and the players became free agents. The contracts only continue as valid if the original company is bought as a "going concern" and remains trading under that name. If a new company buys the assets (tangible and intangible), as opposed to buying the existing business, then the contracts are invalid.