Assuming they did owe the RFL a fair wedge, not really. If they had folded the RFL would have received a few pence in the pound on their investment. By allowing them to compete at the top level and carry on for a bit longer the idea is to manage the debt and generate a better value return.

Acting as a good creditor would if they could.

IF

and its a big if, they did allow them to continue in order to manage the debt then the question surely must be should the RFL if it is financially involved in clubs be in a position to award licenses or should this be and independent process by some accountancy or law firm etc.

RE: Exiled Tiger

Salford need 8k to spend the maximum cap.
This is the figure from Tarry our CEO, so don't believe everything you hear from your director's.
I think the stadium is a success, as we have had substantially improved attendances at every game when compared to the corresponding fixture last season.
Much prefer to build the crowds slowly but surely as it then becomes more substainable, rather than boom or bust that has been Bradfords downfall.

This is where RL fans become deluded about how big and important RL actually is. I dare say it's peanuts in football and not a huge amount in Cricket and dare I say RU but in RL it's a huge amount - you're utterly kidding yourself if you think there is a spare million floating around RL.

A million pounds too Wakefield down and it will probably take Bradford down.

It is when your turnover is only supposed to be £3-4M.
I think you are getting association football and rugby league confused.

So many posts, so little clue.

some of you are also confusing premiership with football.
leagues 1 and 2, and even some championship - most clubs would fold with a million quid missing