| |
Welcome to the NEW RLFANS.COM. After twenty-five years of service, the old site expired over the last few days. To maintain service we have had no option but to make an early switch to the new site which was in development/testing. Some elements of the new site are unfinished, such as; page numbering and quotations. We will fix these minor issues as soon as we can, please bear with us.
If you are having problems logging in, please try a different browser or platform, if problems persist then email support@rlfans.com
 |
| 
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1030 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2016 | Jan 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="vbfg"An agreement to forego an otherwise guaranteed income is effectively the same as a higher purchase price irrespective of where that money ends up you great witless dandy.'"
May I firstly say that is one the more impressive insults hurled in my direction, I hope you won't object if I keep it in mind for future use myself.  icon_cool.gif" alt="icon_cool.gif" title="Cool" />
I'm afraid however, I beg to differ. Firstly the RFL are apparently due to make an impartial decision on the acceptance or otherwise Bradford's bid to continue in SL, to have a financial interest in their continuation could be seen as compromising any impartiality, could it not?
Secondly, we have just spent months dragging out this process largely because of an insistence that conditional offers were unacceptable. Unless the central distributions that are to be forgone are solely those due to a non SL club what we have is a conditional offer, is it not?
Finally, the discussion, if not the part of the post I quoted, taken in its full context appeared to me to be about more than simply the cost to OK Bulls of acquiring the club. It was also about the value to creditors with particular reference to the cost of the administration versus the purchase price. In that context I would suggest that where the money ends up is relevant. I would also suggest, as a slight aside, any scheme by which the RFL or indeed any other creditor positioned themselves as a de facto preferential creditor is morally dubious.
On the narrow point that the cost OK Bulls is the same either way, I agree. |
|
Quote ="vbfg"An agreement to forego an otherwise guaranteed income is effectively the same as a higher purchase price irrespective of where that money ends up you great witless dandy.'"
May I firstly say that is one the more impressive insults hurled in my direction, I hope you won't object if I keep it in mind for future use myself. icon_cool.gif" alt="icon_cool.gif" title="Cool" />
I'm afraid however, I beg to differ. Firstly the RFL are apparently due to make an impartial decision on the acceptance or otherwise Bradford's bid to continue in SL, to have a financial interest in their continuation could be seen as compromising any impartiality, could it not?
Secondly, we have just spent months dragging out this process largely because of an insistence that conditional offers were unacceptable. Unless the central distributions that are to be forgone are solely those due to a non SL club what we have is a conditional offer, is it not?
Finally, the discussion, if not the part of the post I quoted, taken in its full context appeared to me to be about more than simply the cost to OK Bulls of acquiring the club. It was also about the value to creditors with particular reference to the cost of the administration versus the purchase price. In that context I would suggest that where the money ends up is relevant. I would also suggest, as a slight aside, any scheme by which the RFL or indeed any other creditor positioned themselves as a de facto preferential creditor is morally dubious.
On the narrow point that the cost OK Bulls is the same either way, I agree. | |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 2874 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2024 | Aug 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Adeybull"[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/9946617.Bradford_Bulls____Super_League_spot_secured_by_RFL_funding_cut/=#800000First official confirmation of how Bulls' new owners have been punished and the club Hamstrung financially for the sins of the previous owners.[/url'"
Or, alternatively, a measure to ensure that a club does not gain an unfair advantage by wiping off its debt ? Seems to me that the amount taken from the Bulls roughly equates to the amount of debt written off. You say the Bulls' new owners are being punished but, equally, why should they be allowed to gain an unfair advantage ? This seems to balance things out. | | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Moderator | 36786 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jul 2003 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | May 2023 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
| Quote ="Adeybull"[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/9946617.Bradford_Bulls____Super_League_spot_secured_by_RFL_funding_cut/=#800000First official confirmation of how Bulls' new owners have been punished and the club Hamstrung financially for the sins of the previous owners.[/url'"
If the cash withheld equates to the amount advanced to the administrator then the new owners have benefited by inheriting a largely intact squad, which would most likely not have been the case had those monies not been advanced. Seems fair enough to me. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 3829 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2005 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Sep 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Adeybull"[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/9946617.Bradford_Bulls____Super_League_spot_secured_by_RFL_funding_cut/=#800000First official confirmation of how Bulls' new owners have been punished and the club Hamstrung financially for the sins of the previous owners.[/url'"
That article is all a bit flaky though.
OK, it mentions to £240k to the administrator, but also talks of a sizable chunk, don’t get me wrong that’s a fair few quid, but over two years is not big money in the scheme of things.
So, where has/is the cash the cash gone/going?
Putting my cynical hat on I would guess at the lease buy back, so come the next licence everything is hunky-dory. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 9554 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Nov 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="Derwent"Or, alternatively, a measure to ensure that a club does not gain an unfair advantage by wiping off its debt ? Seems to me that the amount taken from the Bulls roughly equates to the amount of debt written off. You say the Bulls' new owners are being punished but, equally, why should they be allowed to gain an unfair advantage ? This seems to balance things ">out.'"
whats more interesting is whats going to happen to the withheld funding. If its used to pay the creditors or goes into central rfl coffers then fair enough. If its given to the other SL clubs as extra funding then thats another matter. Could do with RFL clarifying situation.
|
|
Quote ="Derwent"Or, alternatively, a measure to ensure that a club does not gain an unfair advantage by wiping off its debt ? Seems to me that the amount taken from the Bulls roughly equates to the amount of debt written off. You say the Bulls' new owners are being punished but, equally, why should they be allowed to gain an unfair advantage ? This seems to balance things ">out.'"
whats more interesting is whats going to happen to the withheld funding. If its used to pay the creditors or goes into central rfl coffers then fair enough. If its given to the other SL clubs as extra funding then thats another matter. Could do with RFL clarifying situation.
| |
|
| | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 2874 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2024 | Aug 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="mat"whats more interesting is whats going to happen to the withheld funding. If its used to pay the creditors or goes into central rfl coffers then fair enough. If its given to the other SL clubs as extra funding then thats another matter. Could do with RFL clarifying ">situation.'"
I agree with the sentiment but the cold hard fact of the matter is that SLE can vote to distribute its revenue in whatever way it sees fit. The Sky money belongs to SLE not the RFL so if there was a majority vote by SLE shareholders to redistribute money among members then there wouldn't be much the RFL could do about it. It shouldn't happen, but it probably will just as in 1997 when Keighley, Hull KR, Workington and Prescot were all stripped of central funding due to being in administration and the money redistributed among SL clubs (guess which club proposed that motion by the way ?).
|
|
Quote ="mat"whats more interesting is whats going to happen to the withheld funding. If its used to pay the creditors or goes into central rfl coffers then fair enough. If its given to the other SL clubs as extra funding then thats another matter. Could do with RFL clarifying ">situation.'"
I agree with the sentiment but the cold hard fact of the matter is that SLE can vote to distribute its revenue in whatever way it sees fit. The Sky money belongs to SLE not the RFL so if there was a majority vote by SLE shareholders to redistribute money among members then there wouldn't be much the RFL could do about it. It shouldn't happen, but it probably will just as in 1997 when Keighley, Hull KR, Workington and Prescot were all stripped of central funding due to being in administration and the money redistributed among SL clubs (guess which club proposed that motion by the way ?).
| |
|
| | | |
| |
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2025 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
|
|
| POSTS | ONLINE | REGISTRATIONS | RECORD |
|---|
| 19.67M +2 | 498 | 80,283 | 14,103 |
| LOGIN HERE
or REGISTER for more features!.
When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
|
|
|
icon_cool.gif" alt="icon_cool.gif" title="Cool" /> 
