May I firstly say that is one the more impressive insults hurled in my direction, I hope you won't object if I keep it in mind for future use myself.

I'm afraid however, I beg to differ. Firstly the RFL are apparently due to make an impartial decision on the acceptance or otherwise Bradford's bid to continue in SL, to have a financial interest in their continuation could be seen as compromising any impartiality, could it not?

Secondly, we have just spent months dragging out this process largely because of an insistence that conditional offers were unacceptable. Unless the central distributions that are to be forgone are solely those due to a non SL club what we have is a conditional offer, is it not?

Finally, the discussion, if not the part of the post I quoted, taken in its full context appeared to me to be about more than simply the cost to OK Bulls of acquiring the club. It was also about the value to creditors with particular reference to the cost of the administration versus the purchase price. In that context I would suggest that where the money ends up is relevant. I would also suggest, as a slight aside, any scheme by which the RFL or indeed any other creditor positioned themselves as a de facto preferential creditor is morally dubious.

On the narrow point that the cost OK Bulls is the same either way, I agree.

Or, alternatively, a measure to ensure that a club does not gain an unfair advantage by wiping off its debt ? Seems to me that the amount taken from the Bulls roughly equates to the amount of debt written off. You say the Bulls' new owners are being punished but, equally, why should they be allowed to gain an unfair advantage ? This seems to balance things out.

If the cash withheld equates to the amount advanced to the administrator then the new owners have benefited by inheriting a largely intact squad, which would most likely not have been the case had those monies not been advanced. Seems fair enough to me.

That article is all a bit flaky though.

OK, it mentions to £240k to the administrator, but also talks of a sizable chunk, don’t get me wrong that’s a fair few quid, but over two years is not big money in the scheme of things.

So, where has/is the cash the cash gone/going?

Putting my cynical hat on I would guess at the lease buy back, so come the next licence everything is hunky-dory.

whats more interesting is whats going to happen to the withheld funding. If its used to pay the creditors or goes into central rfl coffers then fair enough. If its given to the other SL clubs as extra funding then thats another matter. Could do with RFL clarifying situation.

I agree with the sentiment but the cold hard fact of the matter is that SLE can vote to distribute its revenue in whatever way it sees fit. The Sky money belongs to SLE not the RFL so if there was a majority vote by SLE shareholders to redistribute money among members then there wouldn't be much the RFL could do about it. It shouldn't happen, but it probably will just as in 1997 when Keighley, Hull KR, Workington and Prescot were all stripped of central funding due to being in administration and the money redistributed among SL clubs (guess which club proposed that motion by the way ?).