Re: Crusaders Demise? : Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:28 pm  

Starbug wrote:

:STUPID:

Look above you Speedy , the answer is out there

i refer you to my staement previously, where do you get the info from, not whats sat in that pea brain of a mind you have got but cold hard facts......

i await

[tb]

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:40 pm  

Starbug wrote:

The opinion on this is obviously affected on where you are in the league ladder at any given time , isn't it ?

no. hth

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:08 pm  

Speedy wrote:

i refer you to my staement previously, where do you get the info from, not whats sat in that pea brain of a mind you have got but cold hard facts......

i await

My ' Info ' came from the framing the future document given to all clubs back near the millenium , and from the the RL Grounds guide outlining the relative capacitys and details of all the pro RL stadiums

Not rocket surgery

Why do you need to shout all the time

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:18 pm  

Starbug wrote:

My ' Info ' came from the framing the future document given to all clubs back near the millenium , and from the the RL Grounds guide outlining the relative capacitys and details of all the pro RL stadiums

Not rocket surgery

Why do you need to shout all the time

post it then

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:25 pm  

Speedy wrote:

post it then

No

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:56 pm  

Starbug wrote:

No

Aw go on, ill help you a little,

originally the documents were articles of association (upto feb 2009) and the latterly called operational rules (from 2009)..... the rfl are now on version 10 i believe..

So come on prove your self

[tb]

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:15 pm  

so: starbug's case is that the promotion criteria under which we were promoted in 2005 differ from the ground standards laid out in the Framing the Future document of 199something or thereabouts. And he offers this as evidence that the RFL changed the rules during 2005 just to benefit us?

It's not the sort of evidence that would fly in a court of law, is it?

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:52 pm  

tb wrote:

so: starbug's case is that the promotion criteria under which we were promoted in 2005 differ from the ground standards laid out in the Framing the Future document of 199something or thereabouts. And he offers this as evidence that the RFL changed the rules during 2005 just to benefit us?

It's not the sort of evidence that would fly in a court of law, is it?

Which was still used for Leigh in 2004 when we were promoted , how do I know this ? , I along with another club Director had to show an RFL official that we complied with that document the week before the 2004 NL 1 GF

HTH

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:43 am  

tb wrote:

so: starbug's case is that the promotion criteria under which we were promoted in 2005 differ from the ground standards laid out in the Framing the Future document of 199something or thereabouts. And he offers this as evidence that the RFL changed the rules during 2005 just to benefit us?

It's not the sort of evidence that would fly in a court of law, is it?

I was not aware this was a court of law. All along I thought it was a discussion board. That explains a lot.

Re: Crusaders Demise? : Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:32 am  

Chris Dalton wrote:

That explains a lot.

That explains a lot....M'LUD