We know newco has no obligation to pay the debt so why would the RFL pay them with the "withheld" Sky money - there is no obligation on them to do so. Not sure the RFL's own cashflow is that robust that it could payout £1.2m for a piece of the moral highground.

I would be curious to know - if the story is true - what the reason would be for cutting our Sky money in half? If it was to recover monies owed by the previous lot to the RFL and not other creditors - then on the face of it that would seem like undue preference for one of the creditors?

The way things are being loaded onto OK I am just waiting for Red Hall to annouce we have to give all the other teams a 20 point start for each match.

Not without a CVA, I don't think. But I don't think that would not preclude a voluntary settlement by the governing body, especially if that was the price for avoiding serious consequences. But its all speculation! And I have not seen any numbers actually quoted yet apart from in the guy's post earlier.

Bear in mind I have only suggested what any withheld monies might best be used for. I would be pretty annoyed if instead every other club received more, since that would be a double-whammy.

The RFL may however prefer not to have this non payment of tax thrown back at them when they come to negotiate with Sports England. Given the £29M they got last time is bound to come under pressure next time, their failure to regulate one of their clubs so spectacularly will undoubtedly be a point of discussion.

1 - To head off sanctions against the game by HMG, who are sick and tired of sports clubs going bust and taking the HMRC and the taxpayer for a load of money that was never their own in the first place? This has been worrying me for a while, and especially since the Rangers debacle which I think was the last straw for HMRC, although would it be fair to make an example of RL?

2 - The statement of affairs shows no monies owing to the RFL.

And, maybe more to the point, they could demonstrate that they have taken "firm measures" that will be applied to any future insolvency, as a massive deterrent to any other owners with similar ideas?

Does all make you wonder?

1) - Fair enough providing the same line is taken with clubs who play the "Beautiful Game" and have taken HMRC for much more than RL.
2) - So they were either up to date with the rents for the ground - or they weren't being charged any rent? I might have missed reference to it but I assume OK Bulls are still renting Odsal from the RFL?

If I was the RFL, I would have ensured I deducted the monthly rent from the monthly Sky monies transfer.

Maybe they have followed your sage advice and that is why we are only getting half the Sky money in the next two years - they are knocking the rent off?

Given the rent was quoted at £72k p.a. I rather doubt that would explain the reported difference?

£6k per home game - seems a bit light?

Don't our footballing friends accross at VP pay about x10 that, albeit for a rather more modern ground?

Anyway if that is what we pay I will shut up to avoid alligations that its further evidence of extra support for the Bulls by the RFL

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.