Doubt it. The company which owns the Bulls is BBN2014. Only if it could prove it paid off, from its funds, Green's debenture, do I expect that would "count" as a repayment to creditors.

But then, if MG introduced 150k capital into BBN2014, which then used that money to repay the SSG debenture, that would on the face of it seem to work. Hmm. Anybody got any paracetamol?

I didn't think so, but am no accountant and bow to the knowledge of Adeybull who assured us that yes, season ticket holders are unsecured creditors, as they were owed a future service when the old company went tits. In Adey's absence, I speculate that honouring season tickets MUST therefore count as repaying some of the old company's debt. At any rate, I can't see any logical reason why it shouldn't.

Thought I remembered something along those lines. So assuming 3.5k season tickets ( which is lowest figure I've heard claimed for sold ticket,think official figure was closer to 5.5k but will have included under 12s and other freebies) at average £180. Then by honoring them for remaining 10 home games ( 76% of value of ticket) green is effectively paying off creditors to tune off 478k. Must be worth something in terms of reducing points deduction on appeal I'd have thought.

With goings on at Salford at the moment, chance of our 5th director being a director of rugby? Nobby perhaps?

Season tickets are a balance sheet liability but not to be confused with creditors. Usually, season tickets are accounted for as Deferred Income which is drawn down to the P&L account as the service is delivered. They are not recognised as a cash liability, but an obligation to provide goods or services to that value. Therefore, honouring season tickets in no way diminishes the company's cash creditors position as they are not counted as such in the first place.

Spoilsport. Boo, hiss.

Surely, the provision of our future service [watching the games has a monetary value? If not, how can they get away with charging on the gate?

It has a monetary value but the ticket holder is not owed money. The holder is owed admission to watch RL games. In technical accounting terms the holder is not a cash creditor. They would only become one if the club reneged on the original contract and if they were entitled to a refund.

I can appreciate there are different kinds of debt [and I'm sure, under the technical differences you cite, you're correct in what you say but, however it's looked at, the ticket holders cash was paid to the old company and the service is going to be provided by the new company. In any logical train of thought it's clear the 'debt' of the old company is being 'paid off' by the new one.

Even in law, I'm pretty sure the new company [i:1ughkgiocould[/i:1ughkgio have said the tickets were invalid for future games [which, presumably [i:1ughkgiowould[/i, so it seems somewhat illogical that it wouldn't be seen as paying off a 'debt'.

The club did renege on all season tickets. And everything else. It went into administration and was then sold. Thus there can be no dispute at all that the seller of the tickets, the company we are discussing, OK Bulls, has failed to honour the season ticket contracts. Therefore why would we not be technically entitled to a refund from them?

Think people are getting hung up on legal definition of creditors tbh. RFL aren't just looking at financial creditors, they will also consider moral creditors which is category season ticket holders undoubtedly fall in. Also consider any remaining debt to safeguard security. Pretty easy for new owner to transfer money into club to cover any such amount outstanding and then pay it back hence satisfying another creditor, whilst in reality just shuffling money between companies he owns.

I must have missed something: has money been demanded from season ticket holders for greenco?