Ok , my impartial view [i( trying to look through Red Hall Tinted Spectacles )[/i : -

Red Hall:-SL is a Business first , a sport 2nd they have to answer to their main backers. =Sky , Yes Fans are also the major income of the sport , but SL is showing increasing crowd figures so they could argue franchise decisions have in principle been backed by popular support.

= Sky BSB are the main income and I guess are the main impetus on expansion London / Wales. , a new deal is due ..

= 2013 RLWC -Launched in England & Wales , they need to keep a presence / interest in the province . wales have won through to the group stages

= the previous owner ( Leighton Samuel ) , blamed as the main reason for the perilous financial position of the Crusaders , the 4 pt deduction acknowledges the new owners efforts at the Racecourse ground and may not put off support for the new season .

= They're less corrupt than FIFA ? maybe .. Richard Lewis will invite Sep Blata to open the 2012- 2015 Franchise envelope



[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/community_board/the_big_debatethe big debate[/url

Hello BF,

You seem to be suggesting they've applied the law in such a way that Crusaders have gotten off lightly. They haven't. The RFL have applied the appropriate law to deal with this particular situation. What would you like them to do? The law states that the penalty for going into administration is a deduction of up to 6 points, but you seem to want the RFL to apply a different standard (one that applies when allocating licences). Would you feel the same if it were us and not Crusaders who had gone into administration?

Right they got 2/3rds of the available punishment,which is a lot more harsher than some of the sentences handed out by the Judges in court in comparision, so chaps handbags away and lets look forward to a new brighter season with us in the top 8, let other clubs look after themselves.

Red John, you can repeat the rules as many times as you like the fact of the matter is the rules in this country don't fit the crime in comparison to those dished out in oz! The comparisons I drew were to illustrate the wider view of how the RFL let teams get away with things in this country including the salary cap (which was mentioned by another poster earlier in the thread!)

The goal posts have mysteriously moved since the first round of franchises. Widnes were refused entry on the insolvency basis. This was clearly an excuse to allow the Welsh side in ( I refuse to name them as it would appear they can't decide what they want to be called themselves yet) because once they were in the rules change thus allowing them to have constant membership without fear of relegation to the lower leagues because they are somehow considered more important to our game than any of the founder member clubs who created RL in 1895!

I have no issue with expansion and the inclusion of the Welsh in the league but not at the expense of other clubs who are not given the same help and are infact expelled from the league all together (ie Blackpool) for the self same offence- insolvency! As I said before , (at the risk of repeating myself) this is not expansion by pure definition merely redistribution. The RFL should be honest about it and say that the welsh have a lifelong membership of SL and state their reasons. Of course they can't because that would be illegal and therefore corrupt..... The Defence rests your honour!

There would be nothing "illegal" about it if the RFL (with the agreement of the clubs) were to decide just that. No law has ever been passed saying that sporting bodies have to be fair or consistent in their decisions.

What penalties do the NRL apply to clubs that go into administration?



What were the rules regarding penalties to clubs who went into administration prior to them changing?



Are these cases the same? The clubs were asked by the RFL to provide a plan detailing how they would get out of administration. Blackpool failed to provide that plan by the stated deadline.