Given this situation, how then did they manage to sign the likes of Reardon and Johnson? What were these players told when they were convinced to sign as I am pretty sure it was not along the lines of "Come and join us Stuart/Paul. We are actually in very real danger of going out of business which would leave you in limbo and nullify your contracts and put you right up creek."



Not suggesting that they were lied too but I am sure that they (Crusaders) made assurances that they (Crusaders) may not now be able to keep (which they would have known at the time I suspect.) Or, on the flip side, they knew that they could carry on regardless as the RFL would bail them out if needs be.......

I suspect its something along that line, maybe not bail out, but that the RFL will be working closely with crusaders to get them through admin and into 2011. The I guess the club will be confident enough to sign some players. And to be fair, Reardon and Johnson probably didn't have many choices at superleague level I guess so from their point of view its probably worth a punt.

Whichever way you look at it this is not good news especially for the new signings. That’s one team’s SL licence not getting renewed after 2011

maybe we could get witt from them

In VERY basic terms:

The job of the Administrators is primarily to sell the club (company) as a going concern to another company or person(s).

Probably a newly formed one



They will take professional advice on what the market price should be and look for buyers at that price.

They need to assure the court that it is financiallly viable and profitable in the future without its current debts.

When a sale is made to the new company, the latter must take over the employment responsibilities of existing staff under TUPE

"Transfer of undertakings - Protection of Employment"

Thus Reardon and players that are now contracted will have their existing contracts safeguarded



The real question now is - Can the Administrators make a practical case for Crusader's future financial profitability?

This would be impossible without a firm assurance to them that Crusaders would be guaranteed an SL Licence past 2011.

Which considering Widnes were refused admission primarily based on the fact they had recently been in Administration, if the RFL were being consistent, Crusaders should be refused their 2012 license too.



Bloody big IF though isn't it.

But, unless things have changed, all players are free agents if they choose to be.

conveniently however the RFL have quietly removed the rule about insolvency being a reason for automatic expulsion from SL in last month or so.

Not in this case. Its an Administrartion not a Receivership and the contracts are binding on the new employer and the employee.

Unless the employer imposes a fundemental change in terms or conditions the employee will be bound to the contract.

I was not aware of that and it is interesting, I'll have a look at it. Need to know their interpretation of Insolvent

There are 2 scenarios for the generic term "Insolvent"

1. That the company does not have the funds available to pay debts when they fall due. This can merely be cash flow problems at any snapshot in time and discounts future income from Debtors or the like or the capabilty of encashing other assets to pay the debts.

This may not usually a long term problem.

2. That the Balance Sheet shows that there are not sufficient current assets to meet current liabilities.

This is a problem.

I suspect that the RFL interpretation quite simply that the club has been subject to some form of formal insolvency procedure (e.g. Administration, Liquidation, Company Voluntary Arrangement) rather than being insolvent in terms of application of the above "tests" which you quote.

Will the players still be paid. I've come across a lot of instancesd where employees haven't been paid etc when their employers have gone into administration.