Salford have entered a CVA which is an alternative to administration.

They should receive a points reduction and loss of sky money in my opinion (the precedent set against us - which I disagree with but believe should be kept consistent), but it seems the rfl are contempt with sweeping this issue under the rug. From a cynical outsiders view, I believe that they are contempt with the lack of publicity on the subject causing a problem to the games overall image (ala bulls) because the loud mouth of koukash has done such a good job of deflecting it.

The cited reason as to why we got such a harsh points deduction and a subsequent loss of sky income was because our creditors wouldn't be paid back in full. A cva entails an agreement with creditors by which they are paid back over time - not straight away. Which would surely differ from the original credit terms. I.e credit would have been issued on the proviso that it would be paid in full in the next months payment run... Not at £10 a month (for example).

This is another example of the rfl making things up as they go along. Their embarrassment is self evident (world cup or super league sponsor anyone?), so why should we expect anything less? Maybe we don't... But the feeling of injustice hurts all the same

I'm not sure a CVA is all that much better than Admin for the the people owed money.

"Give us your agreement and we'll give you 15% of what you're owed, or we'll go into admin and you might get sod all", is clearly slightly better than getting nothing after the administrator has taken his 'expenses', but it isn't that much better that it should totally avoid the loss of points and sky money.

think point is that if figures being discussed for salfords mooted CVA are correct, they are plaaning to pay creditors 100% of moneys owed, but over several years (and presumably without any interest added).

The CVA has been agreed by the creditors - at least the 75% majority by worth - and obviously think that whatever money they will be repaid is better than Admin where they might get zilch.

Agreed. Though I think that's pretty much what I said?

Admittedly with maybe a bit more accent on the relative merits. The 75% are likely to be the banks, HMIT, VAT and the like - I'd guess the other 25% get pretty much the same either way..somewhere around zippo.

No, the 75% refers to the percentage of creditors (by value) that is needed to approve the CVA.

If approved, all creditors get the same percentage. (Though in Salford's case the position is said to be 100% just paid over a long period)