I can't judge Crusaders' licence application (which isn't even written yet) against the 13 others from current Super League clubs (which also don't exist yet) and reach a conclusion. No. I don't have super powers.


tbh, my primary concern for next summer is that Cas's application is strong enough.

There's more to this than meets the eye. Although Vaughan had stepped down from the board at Widnes he was still the major shareholder and was reported to be violently* opposed to the decision to put the club into administration.

I'm told that the non-rugby related debts would have been sufficient to have put the club out of business in 2007 even if player costs had been pared to the bone - the one hope of rescue was to achieve promotion to Super League.

So you could even argue that by funding the promotion push from their own pockets the remaining directors were pursuing the only course of action that might have resulted in creditors receiving their money.

The one big criticism of course is the club getting involved with SV in the first place, but then the RFL did get into bed with Leighton Samuel, metaphorically speaking, so I'm sure they understand.

* I hope you'll forgive me if I don't go into more detail. Anyway there's no hard evidence linking certain people to certain events which occurred in the months following the administration.

Oh come on. Let's not be coy. The formal pretty documents may not have been drawn up but we know how each side have done in the league over the last two years and a good idea of how they will do next season, we know what kinds of crowds they attract and the stadium they will play at....oh hang on....I see your point.....who knows where Crusaders will be playing by then?

Administration leads to a statutory investigation into director conduct, so if something dodgy was going on - it's no surprise formal insolvency wasn't desired. Not just limited to current directors either.

p.s. I know nothing of the circumstances surrounding Widnes' insolvency at all, but a desire to avoid scrutiny can often at the heart of efforts to avoid administration.

Isn't there a substantial difference in that Vaughan is a fraudster, whereas (whatever one may think of him) Samuel has never been charged with any criminal offence.

A friend of mine was talking to a (then) RFL official who had been closely involved in the licensing process. The RFL man, who had had his tongue loosened by a few beers, stated that the point scoring system was set up in such a way that many clubs would be classed as category 'C', leaving Red Hall with the chance to cherry pick their preferred options whereas a more finely tuned gradation would have left them with no such freedom.

Whether or not this was 'in vino veritas' or whether he was winding up my friend I don't know. But it does fit the conspiracy theorists' view that the RFL were following an agenda not a process, in which case 'merits' becomes a very elastic term.

But if so, why not say so, instead of risk the discrediting of the licensing system from the get-go.

The RFL have given other leg-ups (legs-up?) to expansion clubs in the past - why not make clear in this instance that Crusaders were outwith the licensing project and were being granted a place in SL in much the same way that London, Paris, Gateshead and Catalans were before them?

Has Mr Vaughan ever been convicted of fraud?

The only problem with that theory though is that licences were only graded A, B or C [iafter[/i they were awarded – ie: licence applications were judged against the five areas spelled out in the RFL's publications and only those clubs awarded a licence were then graded according to the 10pt system made famous by Sky's prelicensing shows.

hmm

rl]10 November 2009rl


Though there is also this from

rlJanuary 2008rl



Can;t find a follow-up story though

I don't know. That is the description given to him by Widnes fans on here. I know he failed the FA's fit and proper test becuase of his involvement in a fraud at Widnes and that he is presently facing criminal charges.

Quote: tb "hmm rl]10 November 2009rl Though there is also this from rlJanuary 2008rl Can;t find a follow-up story though'" He was found not guilty of the latter (which related to a motor insurance proposal and maybe also a mortgage or other loan application) and I've seen no reports of any prosecution for the VAT matter. As far as I know the case against him for assault against a police officer is still due for trial in January but then there are also plenty of RL personalities with a bit of previous in this area so we can't afford to be too precious. www.wirralnews.co.uk/wirral-news ... -27361533/

Quote: tb "hmm rl]10 November 2009rl Though there is also this from rlJanuary 2008rl Can;t find a follow-up story though'" He was found not guilty of the latter (which related to a motor insurance proposal and maybe also a mortgage or other loan application) and I've seen no reports of any prosecution for the VAT matter. As far as I know the case against him for assault against a police officer is still due for trial in January but then there are also plenty of RL personalities with a bit of previous in this area so we can't afford to be too precious. www.wirralnews.co.uk/wirral-news ... -27361533/

May be not, but imo there is still a substantial difference between Vaughan and Samuel (whatever one may think of the latter, which for any RL fan has to be not a lot)

Maybe so but both of them got involved with their own best interests at heart, not their respective clubs or the game itself and both in my eyes have been equally damaging to the clubs they shafted.