As the agreement was confidential, you won't find a link.


And that is precisely the same mistake that the RFL (seemingly) made. Because if when you do the distribution, each club receives £1.2m but the Bulls only get £0.6m, you find that, actually, you haven't completed the distribution - you would find that leaves you with a "spare" £0.6m.

At this point, all you need to do is sit down and work out WHY your figures don't balance and you quickly realise your mistake.

Now, if everyone was agreed that that went to pay creditors - or even into the game's coffers, that would be one thing- but you do get a blindingly obvious problem in one situation - and that is if instead you pay that money to the other 13 clubs. And then their distribution is increased from £1.2m to £1.2465m
(£1.2m + £46,513) = 1,246,513. The Bulls are stuck on £600,000. And are thus not receiving half a distribution, but only 48.134% of a distribution share and not the agreed 50%..

Have you been peeking at Adeybulls notebook? Both calculations are correct it just depends to which argument you want to use for which one. The fact that Solly went for the simpler one is no surprise!

No, I actually pointed out the mistake to him. He considered it and agrees I am correct.

Maybe it isn't but both cannot be correct. And whilst it may depend, you don't actually have the choice. Once an agreement to use one particular method is agreed between the parties in writing, then you must use that method. You can't choose the other, however much simpler you may find it.

I would not say that you caused me any offence. I just thought that it was a curious argument, that is all.

And, yes, you were indeed correct about Mr W. As I said, you are usually right on the mark, which was why I was somewhat surprised with your cheap shot about crowd and the stadium.

If his attitude is still all about making money, apart from being completely alien to me, I would be very worried. For the obvious reasons. If he has suddenly discovered corporate social responsibility then great, but someone who has not attended a RL match before is in for a massive challenge &, while it might excite him, might be too easy to walk away from, dependent on how much he is prepared to lose. Not that I aren't pleased there is some new money coming in to the game & Bulls in particular.

.. says the man with a mansion in Ilkely, a chauffeur and a butler




I think he probably meant it in a "making the business make money" rather than an ""I can add more to my pile" kind of way, but didn't put it very clearly. least I hope so!

If the new owner wants to be judged by actions not words then Judgement Day is upon him. Ans I don't mean more backroom staff.Nobody ever went to a rugby matvh to watch a commercial director.

Whilst that's perfectly true, it is also a fact that crowds have been known to come in to watch the players that the commercial director created the money for...At the end of the day, the commercial director has to bring in more than he costs - if he does that everyone should be happy.

I used to go and watch Steve Ferres

LOL, so did I...he was pretty good, come to think of it!! and former chief exec Abi Ekoku, not to mention Robbie Paul. We seem to have had some very watchable backroom staff when you think about it.

Francis Cummins - length of the field try at Wembley (albeit for Leeds

)

Paul Medley - almost 150 tries for Northern / Bulls

Lee St Hilaire ...ummm.... well, thats where it ends

Wasn't thinking about coaches to be honest, more office/commercial management side, but there have been a few coaches including Nobby and going back even the legend himself, Trevor Foster who was both a coach and director in the fifties, followed by Joe Phillips in the sixties.