FORUMS FORUMS






RLFANS.COM
Celebrating
25 years service to
the Rugby League
Community!
  
FORUMS > The Virtual Terrace > Expansion?
209 posts in 15 pages 
<<   PREV  NEXT   >>
Subscribe | Moderators: Admin, Durham Giant , TimperleySaint
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach2912No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 200619 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Apr 2024Jan 2020LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
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.

tb
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman48326
JoinedServiceReputation
Mar 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Sep 2023Oct 2022LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
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 icon_wink.gif

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

RankPostsTeam
Player Coach2912No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 200619 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Apr 2024Jan 2020LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
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.

tb
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman48326
JoinedServiceReputation
Mar 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Sep 2023Oct 2022LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
1357.jpg
[b:34xc0vwf]Doubt everything, even this[/b:34xc0vwf]:1357.jpg



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

RankPostsTeam
Player Coach22777
JoinedServiceReputation
May 200618 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Jun 2020Feb 2018LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
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.

RankPostsTeam
Club Owner33944No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Mar 200421 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Mar 2016Mar 2016LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
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

RankPostsTeam
Player Coach1034No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Sep 200717 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Feb 2024Jul 2014LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
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.

RankPostsTeam
Player Coach1034No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Sep 200717 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Feb 2024Jul 2014LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
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.

RankPostsTeam
Player Coach22777
JoinedServiceReputation
May 200618 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Jun 2020Feb 2018LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
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.

RankPostsTeam
Club Owner2874No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 200421 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Aug 2024Aug 2024LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
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.

RankPostsTeam
Player Coach280No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jun 200915 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Nov 2016Aug 2011LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
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?

RankPostsTeam
Club Coach3356No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 200520 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Aug 2014Apr 2014LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
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.

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

RankPostsTeam
Player Coach1034No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Sep 200717 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Feb 2024Jul 2014LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
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.

RankPostsTeam
Player Coach1034No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Sep 200717 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Feb 2024Jul 2014LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
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.

RankPostsTeam
Player Coach22777
JoinedServiceReputation
May 200618 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Jun 2020Feb 2018LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
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.

209 posts in 15 pages 
<<   PREV  NEXT   >>
Subscribe | Moderators: Admin, Durham Giant , TimperleySaint
209 posts in 15 pages 
<<   PREV  NEXT   >>
Subscribe | Moderators: Admin, Durham Giant , TimperleySaint



All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.

Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.

RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.

Copyright 1999 - 2024 RLFANS.COM

You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.



Please Support RLFANS.COM


4.048828125:5
RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
9m
I dont think this is a good signing for the Leopards
Bent&Bon
5
10m
Film game
karetaker
5324
19m
2025 Recruitment
Clickin'knee
168
22m
DoR - New Coach - Investor & Adam - New signings
Rugby Raider
3900
29m
Season pass roll call
Rugby Raider
30
34m
removing posts
Spookisback
5
Recent
The Brick Stadium ownership update
MattyB
26
Recent
New Players
Victor
124
Recent
New Kit
matt_wire
66
Recent
2025 Squad Discussion
Bully_Boxer
46
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
1m
New Kit
matt_wire
66
1m
Season pass roll call
Rugby Raider
30
1m
Rumours and signings v9
NickyKiss
28880
1m
New Players
Victor
124
1m
Transfer Talk V5
Ex-Swarcliff
462
1m
Hospitality packages including new refurbished Foxs Bar
AgbriggAmble
10
1m
BORED The Band Name Game
Boss Hog
63080
2m
removing posts
Spookisback
5
2m
Game - Song Titles
Boss Hog
40591
2m
Guess whos backtrying anyway
Pumpetypump
5
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Merry Christmas
Victor
3
TODAY
I dont think this is a good signing for the Leopards
Bent&Bon
5
TODAY
Red Devils sign International forward
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Hospitality packages including new refurbished Foxs Bar
AgbriggAmble
10
TODAY
Offiah on Salary Cap
Shifty Cat
11
TODAY
removing posts
Spookisback
5
TODAY
Season pass roll call
Rugby Raider
30
TODAY
Positivity Pact
Sebasteeno
3
TODAY
Jack Coventry
Wanderer
1
TODAY
A Year to Remember
Father Ted
2
TODAY
2025 Annual
JamieRobinso
1
TODAY
2025 KIT Thread
Sadfish
1
TODAY
NRL Kick Off Rules
stpatricks
7
TODAY
Garry Schofield
PopTart
6
TODAY
Out of contract 2025
Wires71
8
TODAY
Gary Schofield
hull2524
10
TODAY
Joe Phillips
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Andy Ellis
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Manoa Wacokecoke
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Jeylan Hodgson
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Mackenzie Harman
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Ben Dent
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Callum Rutland
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Harry Aldous
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Jack Aldous
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Garry Schofield
rubber ducki
14
TODAY
Lennon Bursell
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Brett Ferres
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Reece Dean
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Alex Holdstock
Wanderer
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS
England Beat Samoa To Take Tes..
938
England's Women Demolish The W..
778
England Beat Samoa Comfortably..
1038
Operational Rules Tribunal –..
833
IMG-RFL club gradings released..
1110
Wakefield Trinity Win Champion..
1632
Hunslet Secure Promotion After..
1885
Trinity Into Play Off Final Af..
2140
Wigan Warriors Crowned Champio..
1713
York Valkyrie Win Back to Back..
1954
Hunslet Book Relegation Play O..
2422
Penrith Panthers Secure Fourth..
1862
Wigan Humiliate Leigh For Gran..
1950
Hull KR Survive Warrington Fig..
2132
Warrington Wolves Break Saints..
2265
POSTSONLINEREGISTRATIONSRECORD
19.64M 1,550 80,15414,103
LOGIN HERE
or REGISTER for more features!.

When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
RLFANS Match Centre
There are currently no matches to display.
Matches on TV
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wigan 29 768 338 430 48
Hull KR 29 731 344 387 44
Warrington 29 769 351 418 42
Leigh 29 580 442 138 33
Salford 28 556 561 -5 32
St.Helens 28 618 411 207 30
 
Catalans 27 475 427 48 30
Leeds 27 530 488 42 28
Huddersfield 27 468 658 -190 20
Castleford 27 425 735 -310 15
Hull FC 27 328 894 -566 6
LondonB 27 317 916 -599 6
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wakefield 27 1032 275 757 52
Toulouse 26 765 388 377 37
Bradford 28 723 420 303 36
York 29 695 501 194 32
Widnes 27 561 502 59 29
Featherstone 27 634 525 109 28
 
Sheffield 26 626 526 100 28
Doncaster 26 498 619 -121 25
Halifax 26 509 650 -141 22
Batley 26 422 591 -169 22
Swinton 28 484 676 -192 20
Barrow 25 442 720 -278 19
Whitehaven 25 437 826 -389 18
Dewsbury 27 348 879 -531 4
Hunslet 1 6 10 -4 0
RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
9m
I dont think this is a good signing for the Leopards
Bent&Bon
5
10m
Film game
karetaker
5324
19m
2025 Recruitment
Clickin'knee
168
22m
DoR - New Coach - Investor & Adam - New signings
Rugby Raider
3900
29m
Season pass roll call
Rugby Raider
30
34m
removing posts
Spookisback
5
Recent
The Brick Stadium ownership update
MattyB
26
Recent
New Players
Victor
124
Recent
New Kit
matt_wire
66
Recent
2025 Squad Discussion
Bully_Boxer
46
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
1m
New Kit
matt_wire
66
1m
Season pass roll call
Rugby Raider
30
1m
Rumours and signings v9
NickyKiss
28880
1m
New Players
Victor
124
1m
Transfer Talk V5
Ex-Swarcliff
462
1m
Hospitality packages including new refurbished Foxs Bar
AgbriggAmble
10
1m
BORED The Band Name Game
Boss Hog
63080
2m
removing posts
Spookisback
5
2m
Game - Song Titles
Boss Hog
40591
2m
Guess whos backtrying anyway
Pumpetypump
5
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Merry Christmas
Victor
3
TODAY
I dont think this is a good signing for the Leopards
Bent&Bon
5
TODAY
Red Devils sign International forward
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Hospitality packages including new refurbished Foxs Bar
AgbriggAmble
10
TODAY
Offiah on Salary Cap
Shifty Cat
11
TODAY
removing posts
Spookisback
5
TODAY
Season pass roll call
Rugby Raider
30
TODAY
Positivity Pact
Sebasteeno
3
TODAY
Jack Coventry
Wanderer
1
TODAY
A Year to Remember
Father Ted
2
TODAY
2025 Annual
JamieRobinso
1
TODAY
2025 KIT Thread
Sadfish
1
TODAY
NRL Kick Off Rules
stpatricks
7
TODAY
Garry Schofield
PopTart
6
TODAY
Out of contract 2025
Wires71
8
TODAY
Gary Schofield
hull2524
10
TODAY
Joe Phillips
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Andy Ellis
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Manoa Wacokecoke
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Jeylan Hodgson
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Mackenzie Harman
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Ben Dent
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Callum Rutland
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Harry Aldous
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Jack Aldous
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Garry Schofield
rubber ducki
14
TODAY
Lennon Bursell
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Brett Ferres
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Reece Dean
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Alex Holdstock
Wanderer
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS
England Beat Samoa To Take Tes..
938
England's Women Demolish The W..
778
England Beat Samoa Comfortably..
1038
Operational Rules Tribunal –..
833
IMG-RFL club gradings released..
1110
Wakefield Trinity Win Champion..
1632
Hunslet Secure Promotion After..
1885
Trinity Into Play Off Final Af..
2140
Wigan Warriors Crowned Champio..
1713
York Valkyrie Win Back to Back..
1954
Hunslet Book Relegation Play O..
2422
Penrith Panthers Secure Fourth..
1862
Wigan Humiliate Leigh For Gran..
1950
Hull KR Survive Warrington Fig..
2132
Warrington Wolves Break Saints..
2265


Visit the RLFANS.COM SHOP
for more merchandise!