Not a place i frequent, who knows

I'd hazard a guess i wouldnt have done the day the decision was made, probably more so the days after it being decided

Wouldn't that be the chancellor of the exchequers job?

There's no rule on stating points deduction is relative to debt paid. There is and always has been a rule stating that the punishment for going into administration is a points deduction of up to a maximum. Taking account of mitigating circumstances, whatever they were, has always been part of implementing the rule. There has never been a rule stating that the maximum points deduction is the also the minimum, nor that it is mandatory.

So, in response to your claim that there's been a rule change, based - [ike so much else you've posted on these thread – on 'facts' that only exist inside your own head:

"What are you banging on about?"



Honest. If I were you, I'd give it a rest. You're not only making yourself look a fool, but severely undermining any case that might exist to criticise either the Crusaders or the RFL.

Legally, the management of Crusaders could not agree to do that.

When a company goes into administration all control of the business is relinquished to the administrator, and only he has the power to decide who gets paid and in what ratio based on the sale price of the assets less the costs of administration. The debts of the old company can not be transferred to the new company either, unless the business is sold as a 'going concern' which in this case it wasn't.

If that is the case then that is excellent news , hopefully we wont be in this situation again

I thank you - clearly not every poster here is a dyed in the wool apologist for the RFL. After all, don't they go into a lot of detail on their site to explain the penalty for player disciplinary?

For example, looking back through the archives:

Sean Long was given a 150 pound fine and banned for the second half of the game after next. His arm only made brief but intentional contact with the 30 longest hairs on the left eyebrow of Lee Briers. In the context of his previously disciplinary record and the fact we think he is a complete to$$er, we feel a significant deterrent is appropriate for this class 2 grade 3 offence.

Yet they cannot bring themselves to be transparent about a much more serious threat to the credibility of the sport!

Quote: ExiledTiger "It shouldn't be too much to ask for the game's ruling body to publish such decisions and a brief explanation on their official website, but apparently it is.'" Been on 4 days www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/20669

Quote: ExiledTiger "It shouldn't be too much to ask for the game's ruling body to publish such decisions and a brief explanation on their official website, but apparently it is.'" Been on 4 days www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/20669

Surely the RFL should give them a four point head start for groundbreaking work in the field of reducing club debt?

I'm just poking at possible answers here. But I believe the RFL have been a little more lienient on the crusaders for two reasons.

1. They have paid off a great deal of their debt. Which is impressive none the less.

2. The paid off debt that was not from the Wrexham based franchise. If the debt had been accumulated by the Crusaders they were fair game. However, all this "hidden" debt reaks of the disgusting poison that is Leighton Samuel.edit
I just can't wait for the season to start now. So the Crusaders can put all of this behind them, and start whooping your 's again

And let's face it, most of this thread has been exactly that.