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.

No I didn't, 'is' would refer to the recent past, certainly not as far back in the past as 1995. Either way, your mention of PSG was completely and utterly irrelevant and I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve by bringing it up.

Having checked your post I find that tb is even more in need of a grammar book than I had thought as you didn't even say "is" but "has" i.e. present perfect simple. And present perfect simple doesn't necessarily refer to the recent past either.



You referred to Bronquins (I presume) being given a SL franchise in the first SL because of their location and said that this is the only time it has happened. It wasn't 12 years ago but I let that slide. I brought up PSG because they are even a more clear cut case than Bronquins.

If you think it is irrelevant to bring up a case that contradicts what you said then there is no hope for you. It didn't happen once, it happened twice for sure and probably three times if Crusaders are included.

I was referring to Gateshead. London Broncos and Crusaders were already existing clubs who were promoted to Super League, not examples of made-up clubs who were stuck straight in the highest division with no prior basis, which is what you seemed to be basing your argument on. I don't know anything about PSG, and the fact that it is so long ago and relates to a club in a different country means it doesn't have any relevance at all. The 'is' that both myself and tb were referring to was in the second part of my post. HTH.

Can anybody explain to me what kind of ' services ' supplied by the RFL could add up to £ 700K over a few months ?

Over 20 grand a week for 30 odd weeks , please anybody ?

Gateshead were formed and placed into SL before playing in the Lower leagues.

rlhttps://www.thunderrugby.com/page.php?id

It would appear the money was an advancement of central funds rather than for "services". See Derwents post.

So where did the term ' services ' come from ? , anybody know ?

No idea. Im sure TA can make something up though.

One was a made-up club and I'd forgotten about it. So the "only ever happened once" seems to have happened four times....

Broncos were not promoted by winning the league or finishing second. They were awarded a place in SL on the grounds that Murdoch wanted them in - which is exactly what you were arguing had only happened once.

Crusaders got in through a very dodgy process by which the RFL made a statement that they were financially stable despite them already having county court judgements against them. According to the interview in RLW, they were missing pension payments under LS as well.



You couldn't make it up. I'll spell it out for you PSG were in Super League. In fact the very first game of SL was in Paris. It could hardly be more relevant since they had never played a competitive game before that (I'm not even sure that they had played any friendlies).



Indeed, the "is" in "is done" is part of what is known as "present simple passive" which is used to explain regular processes and as such refers to past, present and future.

The RFL sent down a "troubleshooting" team, presumably they want paying.

At 700 k , one thing is for certain , if you're not ' in ' trouble beforehand , you certainly would be after

I am asking were did the term ' services ' in this context first get quoted , then we will know who was lying

So a bale out then