I definitely hope we're not going to be signing 'dross', however the truth is that, outside the top four or five, squads are bulked out with solid super league players who could not really be called 'stars', and I'm sure we'll have a few of these.

I agree with the argument for 'keeping some powder dry' for later in the season though, it seems common sense in our position. We can never know just when or where we are likely to need to bolster the squad but if a decent player becomes available in a position where we need quality (or even just bodies, given recent injury levels) then it would be good to be able to go ahead.

I wonder how close the amount of withheld TV money is to the amount of rent the RFL are owed?

rent for odsal has been mentioned as approx 72k a year. so unless their covering themselves for next 15 or so years then seems unlikely. Plus RFL werent listed in administrators account as a creditor so seems likely the rent is one of the few things we did keep up with ( or RFL deducted it from tv money before handing it over).

Why would the RFL be owed any rent? They will have deducted it from the Sky money every month.

The statement of affairs showed nothing due to the RFL.

We were anyway told the rent is £72k p.a.

EDIT: And sorry, looks like Mat said same while I was posting...

The rent is only 72k a year?! Wow.

The funding cut is simply a fine then isn't it?

I think bribe is a more accurate term.

I do believe that is what I have been describing it as for a while now, yes.

But "only"? If the stadium head lease was worth £1.25m, and commercial property is rlyielding returns of around 6% p.a.rl then the rent is about right.

Yup, that's how I am viewing it at the momen.

I understand it's money to pay back "some" of the creditors. (the ones which could have scuppered any deal for the buyout).

The companies are two different entities, this company have no historic creditors.

Which is irrelevant if perchance the RFL had "voluntarily" chosen to settle certain creditors of the former company, for whatever reason.

If have no idea whether or not they have, although if the RFL has not been put under a shedload of pressure from Sport England, as a disher-out of public money, regarding losses incurred by the collector of public monies, after the Rangers debacle especially, I would be very surprised. And of course the RFL could well be seen by some as a soft target compared to say the FA or the RFU or the TCCB or even the LTA. But I honestly have no information in this regard.

I would be pretty surprised if the RFL does not settle the small amount of rugby debts, maybe out of the Bulls' fines, but given its the RFL who knows?

It's fair enough that any rugby debts are settled when membership of a rugby competition is involved, I just fail to see why the reasoning has to remain secret.

It's the RFL.

Innit.

if thats the case can we have 2 points back ala Wakey??

Well they're no use to the current season, so maybe they could add them onto next year?