Might have been discussed earlier, but why haven Salford been docked points and had to give up 50% of their Sky money? Have I missed something?

They didn't go into administration? Nigel Woods rang in a favour and enquired if Koukash fancied buying the club apparently. I assume he didn't fancy the look of the Bulls!

Didn't he refuse to buy if they got docked points and money and the RFL panicked that he might pull out and said ok?

I am sure I read that. But it's possible I may have made it up!

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

www.salfordonline.com/localnews_ ... k_16pc_of_£1.5m_reds_loan_by_2018_.html To back up my last post. Just read that we won't be getting out sky money next year either.., what a fcking joke

www.salfordonline.com/localnews_ ... k_16pc_of_£1.5m_reds_loan_by_2018_.html To back up my last post. Just read that we won't be getting out sky money next year either.., what a fcking joke

where are the chattered accountants when you need them to explain all this tedious stuff?

so, a CVA does not necessarily mean that all the debts are paid off. But as the creditors have to agree the plan including how much and how long to get it back, then it clearly is going to be much better than full administration. If the creditors have all been paid off, then why should the club be punished and if that has happened at Salford, good luck to them. What is more important to resolve is the double punishment of points deductions (and therefore money deductions) AND Sky money deductions for the phoenix club. And quite honestly if Bulls supporters had known that there would be double penalties for going into admin, many of them would have kept the money that they put into the appeal and put it into an fund to make up for the lack of Sky money. so in a way the bulls fans have had a triple penalty, paid the RFL a large amount of money (with other fans) to ensure the fixtures were completed, been deducted points and therefore cash, been deducted sky money.

rllicence but half sky moneyrl

[iSutcliffe said the club would get only 50 per cent of the monies in both 2013 and 2014.

“Obviously that’s not something we are happy about but we’ll have to abide by it,”

Sutcliffe said the Bulls had also voiced their intention to the RFL to buy back the lease on Odsal from the governing body as soon as possible. [/i


So. Few questions spring to my mind;

1) Will the RFL or SLE make an announcement on this holding back of monies and explain in full? (unlikely)
2) Will this be the standard punishment for the next club to go into administration? (doubt it)
3) Where is the money going instead? Is it being kept by SKY?, used to fund some grassroots projects? Pay back creditors? Or just being divided up between the other clubs as another nice little bonus like this year? (i think we all know the answer to this one)

Whilst im am still just grateful to have a club at all after last year, nevermind a competitive one in SL, it all still feels very cack handed the way our ongoing punishment is being handled.

Good to see we're intending to get the lease back...assuming the RFL want to sell the lease to such an iconic ground, sooner the better for that one.

Half the Sky money for a second year is the proverbial joke and disgrace. Anyway, now we know, we won't be signing anybody till 2015 and will do well to keep our best players, so at least Franny and the lads can continue to build on the present siege mentality. How do these s think it is possible to build and maintain a top SL club without half the money? If it is, then why not make everybody do it? A complete and utter outrage. Meanwhile, and on the question of a level playing field - just get yourself a sugar daddy www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ds-2596737 The limited details of Salford's CVA say that they will be repaying most of their creditors but over five years, and some even longer than that. Are those the exceptional circumstances to let them spend all their income on the team, instead of the debts, and ask for permission to spend even more? Mind you, their share of what should be our money will come in handy. Maybe they could even use it to poach one or two of our players?

Half the Sky money for a second year is the proverbial joke and disgrace. Anyway, now we know, we won't be signing anybody till 2015 and will do well to keep our best players, so at least Franny and the lads can continue to build on the present siege mentality. How do these s think it is possible to build and maintain a top SL club without half the money? If it is, then why not make everybody do it? A complete and utter outrage. Meanwhile, and on the question of a level playing field - just get yourself a sugar daddy www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ds-2596737 The limited details of Salford's CVA say that they will be repaying most of their creditors but over five years, and some even longer than that. Are those the exceptional circumstances to let them spend all their income on the team, instead of the debts, and ask for permission to spend even more? Mind you, their share of what should be our money will come in handy. Maybe they could even use it to poach one or two of our players?

I assume all money which is originally from Sky will be halved?

So we know the main TV deal money is halved.

But there are other smaller amounts during the season

I think clubs get £30k per televised match as well. To cover the (possible) reduction in gate receipts. so - £15k for us?
We need to be on TV as little as possible the next year & a half if that's happening.

Playoff money if involved - halved?

Man of Steel bonus? be harsh if that was halved if one of our players won it.

The more this goes on, the more it looks like it's just getting worked out on the back of an envelope as they (RFL) goes along.

Salfords position is irrelevant to Bradfords.

Withdrawing Bradfords Sky money (or at least not using it a lot better than throwing it in to the black hole of most clubs) isn’t a double standard, its just a poor decision.

There must be some point to you regaling us with that observation, but I'm struggling to know what on earth it could be

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.