FORUMS > The Virtual Terrace > Expansion? |
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 2912 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Apr 2024 | Jan 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
25057_1281800333.jpeg www.hullrockers.co.uk:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_25057.jpeg |
|
| Quote: tb "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.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 48326 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Sep 2023 | Oct 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
1357.jpg [b:34xc0vwf]Doubt everything, even this[/b:34xc0vwf]:1357.jpg |
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 2912 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Apr 2024 | Jan 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
25057_1281800333.jpeg www.hullrockers.co.uk:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_25057.jpeg |
|
| Quote: tb "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
Had they not still owed the RFL £700K you might be right. As they apparently do then they have to all intents and purposes been financed (not wholly, but to a significant degree) by the RFL.
You brought the word subsidy into the reply, not me, please don't presume to burden my posts with your prejudices.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 48326 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Sep 2023 | Oct 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
1357.jpg [b:34xc0vwf]Doubt everything, even this[/b:34xc0vwf]:1357.jpg |
|
| "financed by" a third party = "subsidy". hth.
|
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
//www.pngnrlbid.com
[quote="bUsTiNyAbALLs":9q9d2t35]Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.[/quote:9q9d2t35]
[quote="vastman":9q9d2t35]My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.[/quote:9q9d2t35]: |
|
| Quote: Barnacle Bill "Had they not still owed the RFL £700K you might be right. As they apparently do then they have to all intents and purposes been financed (not wholly, but to a significant degree) by the RFL.
You brought the word subsidy into the reply, not me, please don't presume to burden my posts with your prejudices.'"
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Owner | 33944 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2004 | 21 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Mar 2016 | Mar 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
9005.jpg kcab sfrawdder
Luck is a combination of preparation and opportunity
Just to avoid confusion Starbug is the username of Steven Pike
SOMEBODY SAID that it couldn’t be done
But he with a chuckle replied
That “maybe it couldn’t,” but he would be one
Who wouldn’t say so till he’d tried.
So he buckled right in with the trace of a grin
On his face. If he worried he hid it.
He started to sing as he tackled the thing
That couldn’t be done, and he did it!:9005.jpg |
|
| Quote: tb "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.'"
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
|
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1034 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Sep 2007 | 17 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2024 | Jul 2014 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: tb "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)?'"
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.
Quote: tb "
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.'"
It wouldn't be if Crusaders had settled their bill. However they didn't. They got a freebie.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1034 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Sep 2007 | 17 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2024 | Jul 2014 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: tb "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
No, it would be the RFL providing services which Crusaders didn't pay for despite their obligation to do so. The services were valued at £700k by both the RFL and Crusaders (since they agreed to pay). Crusaders have paid less than £700k back to the RFL. The difference between the two figures is called a subsidy. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
//www.pngnrlbid.com
[quote="bUsTiNyAbALLs":9q9d2t35]Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.[/quote:9q9d2t35]
[quote="vastman":9q9d2t35]My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.[/quote:9q9d2t35]: |
|
| Quote: Hedgehog King "No, it would be the RFL providing services which Crusaders didn't pay for despite their obligation to do so. The services were valued at £700k by both the RFL and Crusaders (since they agreed to pay). Crusaders have paid less than £700k back to the RFL. The difference between the two figures is called a subsidy. Hope that helps.'"
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Owner | 2874 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2004 | 21 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2024 | Aug 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
8762_1295775855.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_8762.jpg |
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 280 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jun 2009 | 15 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2016 | Aug 2011 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| 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?
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 3356 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2005 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2014 | Apr 2014 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
12445.jpg :12445.jpg |
|
| Quote: Derwent "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.'"
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
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1034 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Sep 2007 | 17 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2024 | Jul 2014 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: Derwent "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.'"
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1034 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Sep 2007 | 17 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2024 | Jul 2014 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: SmokeyTA "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.'"
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
//www.pngnrlbid.com
[quote="bUsTiNyAbALLs":9q9d2t35]Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.[/quote:9q9d2t35]
[quote="vastman":9q9d2t35]My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.[/quote:9q9d2t35]: |
|
| Quote: Hedgehog King "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.'"
which is exactly why saying they were financed by or subsidised by the rfl is crazy
The RFL didnt have the option of forcing payment, they had the option of refusing to admit the to SL. Which still wouldnt have got the RFL their money back.
The RFL admitted the new Crusaders club not as a subsidy to the old one (which would quite clearly be a nonsense assertion in its own right) but to receive payment, even part payment, of the debt of the old club.
The RFLs choice wasnt to subsidise the crusaders or to not. It was to receive part payment and keep the Crusaders in, or kick them out and receive less money back.
|
|
|
|
|
|