You seem to have problems understanding English. Especially the concept of tenses - ie, how is what happened with PSG in 1995 (the past) covered by the verb "is" (the present)?



The actual figure quoted at length on here is £700k (but hey, what's £100,000 between friends?). For services rendered.

I love it when various flat earthers quote the fact that the RFL [icharged [/iCrusaders for services rendered as evidence of a subsidy, or funding by the RFL. If the RFL had supplied services without charging, you might have a point. But they didn't. They charged for those services. Therefore it wasn't a susbsidy. It's really not that difficult to grasp.

OK £700K, I wasn't too fussed about seeking out the exact figure mentioned on here because:

1. Being posted on RL Fans does not in itself constitute the truth.

2. The principle remains whatever the "exact" amount.

I love it when bigots stare down from their high horse and completely fail to comprehend posts becasue their prejudices blind them to what is actually written.

The phrase is "financed by", not subsidised.

And if there is a charge for services rendered, they're not "financed by" any more than they are "subsidised by". Sophistry does not count as argument

The RFL financing the club would be giving money or services, not charging for them. hth.

"financed by" a third party = "subsidy". hth.

Are you saying the non-payment of a debt is equivalent to financing them?

If the RFL were financing them, they wouldnt have been charged for it in the first place. The RFL like all creditors of a business in administration are unlikely to get their full payment back.

I find it difficult to envisage what ' services ' the RFL provided over the course of a few months that added up to the reported £ 700,000 , that would be over 20 grand a week over course of a full season , expensive advice

You seem to be under the illusion that "is" only ever refers to the present when in fact it can be used to refer to the past and future as well. In the case of headhunter, he clearly used it to talk about the past extending to the present which is something normally covered by the present perfect simple tense but I'll let him off.

I'll send you my copy of Swan's English grammar by post as you seem to need it more than I do. In the meantime stick to your day job as you clearly know less about linguistics than you do about economics or even the nature of proof.



It wouldn't be if Crusaders had settled their bill. However they didn't. They got a freebie.

no it isnt.

The RFL simply have a debt to a company in administration. As part of that administration the RFL will have to accept an amount of money in payment of that debt. Whether that amount is £700k or £1 the RFL really cant do a lot about it other than force the company in to liquidation and take the amount they are given in the end along with everyone else.

If the company that run the crusaders was the same, operating as normal, and the RFL had simply written of the amount to allow them to carry on trading then you may have something resembling a point.

As pretty much the exact opposite has happened (the previous company being struck off, a new company arising) the RFL actually had no claim, on this new company for the debts of a different. Anything at all the Crusaders have paid off is over and above their obligation to the RFL and as such it would be completely mental to view it as a subsidy or the RFL financing them.

As I understand it, this thing about services provided by the RFL is a complete red-herring. The bulk of the amount owed by Crusaders to the RFL was in the form of a loan, mainly being an advance of future TV money which was granted by the RFL during the back end of the 2009 season (around the time that Samuel began making noises about wanting out). That loan has not been repaid. I also understand that the new company will continue to receive an equal share of the TV contract money as it has been decreed that they were not the beneficiaries of the original loan - this is where the lines between 'club' and 'company' become blurred.

I'm going to ask for that awful thing that stops every single poster in their tracks.


Can someone provide solid proof that the RFL finance the crusaders?

That would tie in with what has been said in thi article.

rlhttps://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/dec/14/crusaders-relocate-wales-rfl-leighton-samuel?cat

Indeed that was my understanding. I recall Lewis being asked a question about lending Crusaders money in a BBC interview - although he didn't confirm that the RFL had done so, he certainly didn't correct the interviewer either.

The RFL were in negotiations with Crusaders regarding the repayment of monies (and services) before the club entered administration and before they confirmed that Crusaders would be readmitted to the league. The RFL wanted all monies to be repaid whilst Moss & co wanted to repay only part - the fact that the club were fined four points rather than six would tend to confirm that Moss & co did repay rather more than just what the administrator allowed (possibly out of their own pockets).

The RFL could have insisted non full repayment or no SL slot but (perhaps wisely) decided not to do so. That's clearly a subsidy that allowed the club to keep running.