Quote kinleycat="kinleycat"Without wishing to light any blue colured touch paper, isnt taking the moral high ground with the RFL over financial common sense a bit rich, taking into account at any time in the past the clubs owners (which ever ones) could have said "hang on aminute! this could all go badly wrong, lets rein in our spending, after all we might not be able to afford all this and then where will we be?"
Having a wild uncontrolable horse (of for this metaphor) bull foaming at the mouth intent on getting out of its stable (i know bulls don't live in them, but we're back to the horse bit again, sorry!!) is one thing, but blaming the stable lad (horse again i know) for being trampled under the stable door once its bolted is a tad unfair...i think!'"
Have you thought it through?
The company formed by Mr A and Mr B take normal Sky money and run AB into the ground. It goes into admin and can't be saved so ends up liquidated. The business and such assets as there are are sold by the administrator. They are bought by Mr. X and Mr Z and they had no connection with the business of A&B and no part in the insolvent behaviour.
Why would A&B ever think such a thought, then? To underline how unfeasible the notion is, we only have to flesh out what that thought would be:
"Hang on a minute! this could all go badly wrong, lets rein in our spending, after all we might not be able to afford all this and the club may go tits. Then the somebody else altogether may buy the remains from an administrator and start trying to sort out the mess but the RFL will fine them a year's Sky distribution, and then where will we be?"
I suggest it is ridiculous that they would think any such thing. Why should the threat that some future owner of A&B's business, if they bankrupt and lose it, would get fined a year's distribution, be the thing that incentivised A&B to reining in their spending? Why would A&B care [iwhat[/i penalties were imposed on X&Z or any potential future owners? How would that be in any way a deterrent to A&B's behaviour?
It's like if when you took out a mortgage, you were told, if you fail to meet your payments, your house will be repossessed. Oh, and the next person who buys it will have to pay double the mortgage payments." You might very much worry about the former, but would you give the smallest shiit about the latter? Would concern for any future owner influence how you ran the account?
'"
