They look well chuffed to be there don't they? (Bower and Shaw).

Yup. Main difficulty to be overcome might be ensuring that a non-fit and proper person is distanced from the new club. Then again, it might be that that person is only awaiting some incentive to do so. The RFL might join forces with other interested parties in order to smooth the path towards that happening.

Can you list for us the creditors that the newco is dumping on, as you obviously know.

Can you also tell us what action we can usefully take in the event we are "unhappy" with any aspect of what is going on. None, so our hypothetical "happiness" with anything of it is just you trying to take some moral high ground.


Well, at least you'll have something to look forward to then. You'll just have to find somewhere else to vent your righteous spleen for a while before you can gloat to us how you "called it".


"Don't forget"? You talk as if you are not only stating facts but that everyone knew these alleged facts. We, and certainly I, know no such thing. Maybe you are confusing the consequences of being deep in the financial mire with the best conspiracy traditions?


Oh please

The liquidation has not yet been presented to the courts so albeit he had to make the staff redundant the club is still in admin so Petttitt is still legally in control.
The RFL had to act assuming the liquidation would go through so they started a new bidding process.
The administrators have found a new way to satisfy the creditors (MG).
None of this puts the RFL nose out of joint it is just an unexpected turn of events. They have to still approve the club getting a licence.
Is this letting MG have shares to wrest control of the Coral stand from him. The charge he put on the business would presumably be against the only real club asset which would be the boxes and hospitality suite. If he still 'owns' that when a new company takes over they have little option but to 'rent' it of MG or have no use of it.

Thats to other championship clubs. I think we owe Dewsbury about £20k, Fev about £21k & Whitehaven about £8k. I'm not sure what for but I would assume pre-match ticket sales?

RFL had said they would cover it & take it out of our central funding this season but thats vanishing day by day.

Oh, Derwent beat me to it, sorry

That's similar to how i see it. The time to the new season is a big thing.

From what i understand the latest bidder failed last week and staff were made redundant and the administrator put a statement out saying he will liquidate the club. At this point i believe Marc Green (Who the administrator has a LEGAL duty to get the best deal for as he is the largest creditor. Not happy with it but the law is above me) has panicked as he knows he'll get squat from liquidation and has compromised.

I reckon Richardson may have been one of the bidders accepted by the RFL. Players are going at a rate of knots, so he has being pro-active, maybe already deemed acceptable by the RFL previously if he was one of the bidders in talks with the RFL previously, talked to the players so we don't lose anymore, brought the domain and setup the company and we are ready to go to start the new season. Unfortunately due to the size of the debt unless we had a sheikh prince buying us, a lot of the creditors were going to lose out. I don't like it, I don't agree with it. But it's not as if they were going to get a better deal from Liquidation.

The RFL's process is in response to the liquidation letter. The new season is fast approaching and if we were due to be liquidated, we need a board, kit, players, stadium agreement. Maybe their liquidation process is now Plan B.

It's the only scenario that makes any sense to me. Green says to Pettit, get me n with the guys who you turned down after the RFL accepted their bid and lets cut a deal so I get something back.

Also, will benefit all creditors, they will get more if this happens than liquidation, hope it comes right for them too

Interesting stipulation in the new bids piece nicely tucked away..... People of INFLUENCE must pass the fit and proper test. Apply this here and Green is well within rights to be a silent shareholder

Don't be ridiculous. The answer is clearly no.

Define "influence". Like I said it depends on whether his shareholding is enough to have any influence. If not then no big deal. If yes then no deal.

Depends the %age of shares he has against the biggest one. If he has say a third if the shares he's an influence, les than that, he's noise. Let's face it, there doesn't seem to be any previous link between Green and Richardson, so I don't see how he could have been in a strong negotiating position to demand a big share.

To be fair to the players you can't blame them if they feel this gives them the best option of maintaining an income at the contracted salary they had agreed previously. I am sure we would all do the same with families to provide for and bills to pay