Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"But you are looking at this from a completely different perspective. The point that I have been making is from the perspective of the new owners, and what, in real terms (and not theory) the purchase has and will cost them. In hard cash. And foregoing (as part of the overall deal) some funding that every SL club in other circumstances receives is a direct and obvious part of the purchase cost. To over-simplify, an example - "I offer to buy B for (a) an immediate payment of £X (b) a future payment of £Y; and agree that also in 2013 we will forego income of £Z. The point I am making is that, viewed from the perspective of such a buyer, the cost is X + Y + Z. If Z was Nil, then X would either be a bigger sum, or else the buyer would be quids in to that amount. The position from the RFL's perspective is something completely ">different.'" I said in a previous post I accepted that in terms of the cost to the purchaser it made no difference, my mistake was to believe the discussion had become wider. However on further thought there does seem to be a problem even with the logic of what you outline above. It seems to me you are either saying: a) If Z reduces, X automatically increases by the same amount to ensure the total remains the same. b) If Z reduces, the total reduces by the same amount. If its a) then we have a very odd situation whereby OK Bulls have to find more of the money upfront to take on a club in the Championships than one in SL. If its b) then clearly agreeing to deduction of funds can only be described as being the equivalent of increasing the purchase price if the distribution is one you are guaranteed to receive.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"But you are looking at this from a completely different perspective. The point that I have been making is from the perspective of the new owners, and what, in real terms (and not theory) the purchase has and will cost them. In hard cash. And foregoing (as part of the overall deal) some funding that every SL club in other circumstances receives is a direct and obvious part of the purchase cost. To over-simplify, an example - "I offer to buy B for (a) an immediate payment of £X (b) a future payment of £Y; and agree that also in 2013 we will forego income of £Z. The point I am making is that, viewed from the perspective of such a buyer, the cost is X + Y + Z. If Z was Nil, then X would either be a bigger sum, or else the buyer would be quids in to that amount. The position from the RFL's perspective is something completely ">different.'" I said in a previous post I accepted that in terms of the cost to the purchaser it made no difference, my mistake was to believe the discussion had become wider. However on further thought there does seem to be a problem even with the logic of what you outline above. It seems to me you are either saying: a) If Z reduces, X automatically increases by the same amount to ensure the total remains the same. b) If Z reduces, the total reduces by the same amount. If its a) then we have a very odd situation whereby OK Bulls have to find more of the money upfront to take on a club in the Championships than one in SL. If its b) then clearly agreeing to deduction of funds can only be described as being the equivalent of increasing the purchase price if the distribution is one you are guaranteed to receive.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?).