The article is being a little more than economical with the truth.
THE RFU instituted a requirement for advanced reporting of the next seasons financial arrangements for clubs, Premiership and Championship, and maybe all for all that I know. It did so because it was accused of being 'asleep at the wheel'. Every club had to submit detailed plans, was it in April, I think? Failure to do so would see the club suspended (kicked out).
Why? To make sure that all involved knew where they stood well in advance of next season. If the club was loss making, someone had to personally guarantee to cover those losses, and prove they could make good on those promises. In the PRL, only one club failed that test. London Irish. Because Crossan was unwilling to guarantee the losses. I don't blame him, it's his money after all. He asked for a one month can kicking to give him time to sell the club. The RFU, surprisingly, agreed. Given what transpired, I doubt that they will do that again. Then they issued a formal ultimatum, and even back slid on that for another few days. Had it not for HMRC issuing the winding up petition, I wouldn't mind betting the RFU would still be sliding in all directions.
The US consortium did not withdraw over that. It was a whole combination of things, including proving where the money had come from (shady offshore banks accounts) and proving they could cover losses for the foreseeable. The Brentford deal going sour was only a matter of time given that Crossan hadn't paid them fully for months.
It is all very well pointing (and getting the press to do the same for you) fingers at others, but Crossan was the one who closed his chequebook up a look time ago.
Which is to say, the sugar daddy funding model of the premiership (and a couple of Championship clubs) is utterly and totally unsustainable. Sugar daddy withdraws, club goes under. No back up plan.