As a Leigh fan you arent on particularly solid ground criticising another RL club for using the owners money to paper over the cracks in the business, nor to criticise them for breaking in the SC in a way which made them unsustainable.

Still not a million quids worth there though , Is there ?

Banging on about costs is a spokescreen to hide the fact that you can't explain how you can accumulate CCJs but go on trading indefinitely. If you can't pay for your debts then you can be bankrupted.

And you ignored revenue again.



1.3 million but you suggested that Crusaders were nowhere near the max cap and that £1 million was more likely.

If you read the public statement about Crusaders first bankruptcy then you'd know that "historic debts accumulated before SL" was cited at the time. Even if they had been making a profit in SL (unlikely), they would have had to cover their past debts or run the risk of being bankrupted. So it's not speculation on my part.



They were not first graders. They may have played one or two NRL games but most were not regular players. And 8 new players is hardly a new squad. It's not even half a match squad.

I don't think any of these players became first grade NRL players after the whole thing fell through and if any did then it was an isolated example. They were not good enough for SL let alone the NRL.

I have always been critical of the way Leigh operated recently , as for the SC indiscrestion , that was a combination of clerical error and the owners business suffering a huge loss because of a customer going bust on him

But then again I am not suggesting Leigh were or are ready to enter SL under a licence system ? are you bringing Leigh up to try to change the subject because it is plain once again you are losing the argument ?

No there isnt. Crusaders spent nowhere near the SL cap yet in 2011 they went bust.

So you admit that with the additional revenue (inclusing funding), the loss made in SL might actually have been lower than that made it the previous year.

Remember profit or loss = revenue - costs (though I'm predicting that you'll ignore this once again)

And still no explanation for how CCJs can be ignored indefinitely.

Yes , because as HK has pointed out , they were massively in debt through just playing in in the NL 's , this despite recieving money from the RFL for Welsh development , that they paid players with

A CCJ is a CCJ, it isnt a bankruptcy order. It is clear that
Because we dont know what it is. Which is why I am saying you are speculating. You are guessing, you dont know if revenue was relatively much higher compared to cost than it had been in the NL's it is just convenenient for your argument for it to be so.

It is speculation, it is pure speculation because you dont know the P+L for the two years they were in SL before they went bankrupt. What you are saying is that the debt they incurred during their years in the NL's, which we can directly attribute to their spend on salary over and above £300k whilst they were in the NL's put them in to a position where their debts werent servicable, and you know as well as i do that this is a complete guess on your part. They could have been making a loss and they could have 'accumulated historic debts before SL' even if they had only spent the SC, or even less than the SC. The club could very well not have been profitable even if run at the £300k salary cap. And it is you who are ignoring the increase in revenue, you havent a clue how much extra revenue was brought in by Crusaders putting out a squad which played at the top end of the NL's rather than at the bottom end. You are making a guess when you have no way of knowing enough of the pertinent information to make that guess anything more than pure speculation.



Are you kidding? Mark Bryant had just won an NRL grand final? Did you think this was some kind of 'rocky' scenario and they found him playing out in the bush somewhere and just gave him a gig in the Grand Final? It was his 2nd GF as well. He had 99 NRL appearances, and was an Aussie Schoolboy international. Withers has over 150 NRL appearances and had played 80 games over the preceeding 4 seasons, O'hara had over 120 NRL games to his name, played for both Country and NSW in rep games, and played in the 06 WCC. Also there are 9 players there, that is more than half the match day squad

No, ill readily admit the loss made in SL might have been lower, Ill also admit it may have been higher, unlike you Im also happy to admit that if i stated either were true it would be pure speculation on my part, because we dont have the necessary information to go on.

They did it, why do you need me to explain how for you?

Or, they spend more than they could afford whilst in SL aswell and the business became unsustainable.

It seems very strange that both of you expect that the club ran up bigger debts from a lower cost base. Especially as the continuation of that argument would be Crusaders were sustainable in SL, it was solely the debts run up (and that is solely the debts run up because of the players salary costs over and above the £300k SC in NL1) in the NLs that caused them to fail, therefore Crusaders were a viable SL entity simply hamstrung by debts run up competing in a league they only competed in to access SL. So had we simply put Crusaders in SL they would have been a roaring success.