Nobody said "expect" merely that the debts that Crusaders were already carrying had an impact. Had Crusaders entered SL debt free then they might have succeeded and they might not but it is hardly speculation to conclude that had the salary cap been enforced during the NLs that the chance of success would have been higher.

You asked why the SC didn't prevent Crusaders going bust, I replied that it might if it had been enforced when they were a NL side. I didn't say "would", there is no cast iron method of preventing clubs going bust.

We do know what the Sky money is. We do know that it would make up almost all the difference between the NL1 cap and SL one. And even if we didn't know, you can't just ignore an unknown factor and then draw a conclusion from the stats that you do know unless you compensate by erring on the conservative side (and you didn't).



The debts that Crusaders occured were not serviceable. That's a known not speculation. We know that because they went bust. Debts were occured during the pre-SL era, that's again a known fact.

What you are arguing is that pre-SL debts could not have contributed to their downfall. That's speculation. Especially since there is fair amount of reason to think that losses in NL1 were of a similar proportion to those in SL.



How old were these players? They were past it.

Crusaders got some decent players but that was when they moved to Wrexham. The 1st year team were reserve grade, Queensland league and those in search of a pension. None of these players achieved much on leaving Crusaders. They weren't good enough.



No, but it's the first step. CCJs are legally enforceable via bailiffs. If the bailiff can't get your money then you can apply to have the business bankrupted. You can't just ignore debts in perpetuity.

Again you are speculating that had they stuck to the NL SC they would have entered SL debt free.

Do you really think they were running at a profit or break even, or even close to it bar what they were spending over and above £300k?

Do you really think that the amount they were spending over and above £300k where a particularly large part of their financial situation?

Realistically how much do you think they were spending over and above £300k? And how much did they owe when they collapsed?

1.25 million

The only assumption the model requires is that debt would have been lower not that the debt would have been zero.

Yes, this is speculation. You may believe you are right, but you have to admit you are speculating.


But you are ignoring the running costs needed in SL, and the losses made in SL. They could have had debts of £2 incurred in the NL's and lost a million pounds in SL, if they had no money left then those debts at the end of the year then yes, those debts werent servicable but it would be ridiculous to say it was the £2 debt incurred in the NL's was what brought the club down, ignoring the million pound debt incurred a year later. Any debt is servicable if you have the cash. If Crusaders were losing money in SL and nobody wanted to invest any more money in them, then any debt whatsoever, however tiny or relatively insignificant, isnt servicable.

No, im not, im arguing that pre-sl debts, and specifically pre-sl debts incurred from spending over and above £300k on salaries whilst in the NL's may not have been a significant contributer to their downfall.


Bryant was 27 as was Withers and Chalk, O'hara was 28, Chan was 24. Bryant, Withers, O'hara and Chan will all be playing SL next year. I have no idea why you are persisting in simply making things up here?

But can continue to trade, and often for a long period of time despite a CCJ. And a CCJ doesnt guarantee administration. A CCJ doesnt stop you trading and wont stop you trading, which is pretty much the reason it didnt stop them trading

Erring on the cautious side is not speculating. It means that you take the worst possible figures for your own argument and then seeing if your argument holds weight despite pessimistic assumptions. It pretty much does too. This is how finance / accountancy works, it's called the prudency concept.

It would be speculating if the argument only worked with figures that were highly contrived and advantageous to my point of view.



Then it is fortunate that I didn't say that. I said it would be ridiculous to say that previous debts did not contribute.



Then what you have said here doesn't contradict my statement that the pre-SL debts was a contributory factory. You are merely quibblingly about "significant" and even then hedging with "may".



It's hardly "making things up" to point out that Crusaders didn't hire top drawer players that would have cost very much in salaries. It's my recollection that many of these players arrived mid-season and so Crusaders didn't pay them a full year's salary.



But you are ignoring the long-term. Just because it doesn't stop you in the short-term isn't an argument that it won't in the long-term and therefore your argument that only debts acquired in the year you go bankrupt are relevant is very odd.

No, it requires that the debt would have been 'serviceable' not that it would either be lower or zero.

For your point to be correct you would need the portion of that £1.25m debt which was accrued through spending over and above £300k on salaries whilst in the NL's to be equal or greater than the portion of debt which wasnt 'servicable'. Otherwise it wouldnt make a blind bit of difference.

Even if we are very very kind to you and pretend Crusaders spent £600k a year on salaries whilst in NL1 (which is massively kind to you considering we agree it is doubtful they spent a million in SL, when not only would they have new players, but increases in wages for older players and others going part time) then we would only be able to attribute £300k of that £1.25m to the fact they didnt stick to the SC. For your argument to stand up it would need to be true that Crusaders, in their two years of SL, operated at a level where they had no issues servicing a debt of £950k (either through operating profit or private investment) but couldnt service a debt of £1.25m. Which is something you have no idea whatsoever of knowing.

It is massively more likely that Crusaders operated at a loss in the NL's operated at a loss in SL in their first season under Samuel, moved, still operated under a loss which was made greater by needing to pay off historic debts, went into adminstration, came out, then operated at a loss again (even when they had no debt) and so went bust. I wouldnt subscribe any legitimacy to someone blaming historic debts for making a business untenable when that business proves untenable a year late with historic debts at all.

Of course it is speculating. If it werent speculating you wouldnt need to err on the side of anything because you would know the answer.Definition for speculation:
guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence.
you are erring on the cautious side because you dont have complete evidence.
This again is a significant retrenchment from stating that it is less likely that crusaders were going to go into administration had they stuck to the original SC

Firstly they were all lower league players, when that was pointed out to be incorrect it changed to them all being passed it, now that has been proven wrong they only joined mid-season (none of them did, they all signed at the beginning of the year) what will be next? You could just accept you were wrong and Crusaders signed some good players who likely cost some good money?

It doesnt stop you in the long term either, CCJ's in and of themselves wont stop you trading. Which is why it didnt stop them trading.

Which to bring it back to the point of the thread, it doesnt affect Northampton whether or not the spend more or less than the SC, it only matters if they spend more or less than they can afford. The SC is completely arbitrary of their business and financial model spending it may be damaging for them, spending more very healthy and spending less equally damaging. Of course the converse could also be true. Which is why we need to allow the people running the club to make those decisions rather than having them work to arbitrary budgets.

Great tooing and froing from HK and Smokey! Interesting stuff!

The burning question has to be - if people knew Crusaders were struggling and the licence process was duly followed, how the hell were they given a licence in the first place?

I can assure you that it does not.

Any debt even a small one added fuel to the fire. Even if the debt had been "serviceable", all that means is that some of Crusaders SL revenue was set aside to dealing with past debts instead of being spent on their SL costs.



Untrue. It just needs to be higher than zero.



Your concept of "servicing" is nonsense.