Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"My opinion is that any talk of "conflict of interests" is risible. We only have one governing body, it administers certain things including central funding, and it is responsible for essentially the running of the game and the competitions, teams and players. Therefore you could make some sort of "conflict" argument about pretty much ANY decision the RFL takes, but it would be as vacuous as asking "why is there only one Monopolies Commission". The RFL has to carry out its role, nobody else can, and in any case where there is scope for accusations of real or imaginary potential conflict of interest, that clearly can't mean that the RFL can abdicate its responsibility to fulfil its function. That's just how it is. Ultimately the RFL answers to its members. The point most seemingly miss is that any money isn't "the RFL's" money, it is basically money held for the running and benefit of the ">sport.'" Give over, yer 'avin a laff. icon_smile.gif" alt="icon_smile.gif" title="Smile" /> This issue isn't that we only have one governing body and the analogy to the Monoplies/Competition Commision is bizarre at best. I could give a long answer but to avoid drift I'll keep it short use one simple example from with our own game to illustrate the point. We have an INDEPENDENT disciplinary committee. The Governing body recognises that sometimes, not always by any means, its duties in this area will compete and not be capable of resolution by means of a simple test of what is best for the game. Resultantly it creates the rules and guidelines in advance but outsources the decisions. We should have appointed a suitably qualified independent panel to make all licence decisions from the outset, we didn't. Now we have a mess.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"My opinion is that any talk of "conflict of interests" is risible. We only have one governing body, it administers certain things including central funding, and it is responsible for essentially the running of the game and the competitions, teams and players. Therefore you could make some sort of "conflict" argument about pretty much ANY decision the RFL takes, but it would be as vacuous as asking "why is there only one Monopolies Commission". The RFL has to carry out its role, nobody else can, and in any case where there is scope for accusations of real or imaginary potential conflict of interest, that clearly can't mean that the RFL can abdicate its responsibility to fulfil its function. That's just how it is. Ultimately the RFL answers to its members. The point most seemingly miss is that any money isn't "the RFL's" money, it is basically money held for the running and benefit of the ">sport.'" Give over, yer 'avin a laff. icon_smile.gif" alt="icon_smile.gif" title="Smile" /> This issue isn't that we only have one governing body and the analogy to the Monoplies/Competition Commision is bizarre at best. I could give a long answer but to avoid drift I'll keep it short use one simple example from with our own game to illustrate the point. We have an INDEPENDENT disciplinary committee. The Governing body recognises that sometimes, not always by any means, its duties in this area will compete and not be capable of resolution by means of a simple test of what is best for the game. Resultantly it creates the rules and guidelines in advance but outsources the decisions. We should have appointed a suitably qualified independent panel to make all licence decisions from the outset, we didn't. Now we have a mess.

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 ?).