Does this effectively mean we're in the same position at the end of next season? Unable to sign players beyond the end of the season whilst anyone who comes through our junior system can be taken by other clubs?

That is the most likely scenario though Adey, unless the RFL needs to top up its warchest again.

I can't see any way the RFL would simply repay creditors; why would they? They have (so far as I know)no obligation whatever to do so and even if it were done for some other, maybe face saving reason, I would have thought the RFL would have shouted this from the rooftops before sticking in their thumb and pulling out the plum, whereas they remain as po-faced as Bart Maverick in a saloon..

The figures are reported in the RL Express. For the past month all and sundry have been reporting that OK Bulls would take less Sky money so it should be no real surprise. Whether the quoted figures are exact we do not know but the principle is obviously an accurate report.
The 2 items in today's issue that caused me to raise an eyebrow were:
the implication that the money forfeited by the Bulls might be distributed to the other 13 teams
and---- the Hull KR owner's diatribe against the Bulls , some of the other clubs and the RFL
It's clear that if only one club voted against a 14 club competition and against our readmission it was Hull KR and not Huddersfield

Where was this?

Sorry Jockabull to be so late in replying.
It was an article in RL Express. I'm no good at links so here goes with a summary :
1. Hudgell slammed decision to admit Bulls on probation.
2. No axe to grind but principle important
3. No brand too big to survive on that justification-- and brand not healthy
4. cited Scottish football
5. Too many teams and too little talent--paying average players inflated wages
6. 2 years distribution withheld implies probation is a "sham"
7. Can still spend full salary cap
8.Creditors lose out -PR own goal like Stobart deal
9. Wakefield Cas Salford Widnes London would vote against 13 clubs -- as Bulls "would have been odds on to get back in" so like turkeys / Xmas. "At least 2 of them told me that was their thinking before voting"
10. Leeds vote for Bulls "self interest"
11. Wire Wigan & Saints "relatively rich" -- keep at 14 "to keep the rest relatively poor"
12. Can't "comprehend Wood's statement "-- no stability and "we have 9 other loss making entities .. might well ask for same treatment"

Personally I don't think he will have made many friends with other club leaders .The only clubs not mentioned are Catalans Hull and Giants.
I disagree with him but it is a cogent case he makes and at least he has made that case openly like McManus and Hetherington on the opposite side of the argument.
But the key point for me is that given these expressed views there is no way Hull KR could have voted for the final package.

Perhaps they have long memories. What goes around comes around as they say.