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?

yes, you missed my whole point, which is the reason money is not being demanded by greenco is because greenco is,in effect, for every season ticket holder admitted, paying off a part of the debt of oldco, and clearly should get RL brownie points for doing so, just as it should for any other creditors.

Just a genuine request for information FA. My interest is in Mats comment. I am sure it is not written in the laws relating to administration bankruptcy etc that any buyer of oldco assets also takes on any season ticket liability, but as Mat says there is a moral one, however I would also have thought that the RFL when examining bids and their suitability do take into consideration not just the players and hmrc but the fans too, so any bid with a hint of charging season ticket holders again would get nowhere, that liability has to be taken on with the assets. So yes, in my opinion, you dont need to do any more meldrewing about this, its already been noted by the RFL that their preconditions have been met. So the real question is about the unsecured trade creditors and what payback they get.