Really? All the reported £1.5m total debt or just the money owed to the rfl? If the intention is to repay the full £1.5m then I applaud them. If this sum had to be accrued from central distributions due to a championship club my understanding is that it would take at least 20 years!!

If you are, as i suspect to be the case, talking purely about repaying the RFL then firstly I question the morality of such an arrangement but also must go back to the first point i made in response to Mr Aardvark. This is not the same as increasing the purchase price as the return to creditors is very different.

Even if the agreement is to repay, via deduction of central funds, in full regardless of which league the bulls are in the rfl still have a financial intetest in the decision. It determines how long they have to wait for their money.

In which case the body charged with deciding whether Bradford recieve next years SL funding would also be one of, possibly the only, benificiary of any deductions from it. Sounds to me like a textbook case of conflict of interest.

But you are looking at this from a completely different perspective. The point that I have been making is from the perspective of the new owners, and what, in real terms (and not theory) the purchase has and will cost them. In hard cash.

And foregoing (as part of the overall deal) some funding that every SL club in other circumstances receives is a direct and obvious part of the purchase cost. To over-simplify, an example -
"I offer to buy B for (a) an immediate payment of £X (b) a future payment of £Y; and agree that also in 2013 we will forego income of £Z.

The point I am making is that, viewed from the perspective of such a buyer, the cost is X + Y + Z. If Z was Nil, then X would either be a bigger sum, or else the buyer would be quids in to that amount.

The position from the RFL's perspective is something completely different.

As i read it the 1.5 million debt will disappear on the liquidation of the old company. But he does have 6 mill to spend on Odsal. So up yours to the creditors.

That’s a tad too simplistic

.

It sounds like it depends on who the Creditor is.

Tax Man, Caterers, Cheerleaders et al, sod all.

The RFL to get it back on the never-never.

See Elima has re signed for the Catalans on a two-year contract

Has he stated it is a definate , even if the Bulls dont get a SL licence ?

I said in a previous post I accepted that in terms of the cost to the purchaser it made no difference, my mistake was to believe the discussion had become wider.

However on further thought there does seem to be a problem even with the logic of what you outline above. It seems to me you are either saying:

a) If Z reduces, X automatically increases by the same amount to ensure the total remains the same.
b) If Z reduces, the total reduces by the same amount.

If its a) then we have a very odd situation whereby OK Bulls have to find more of the money upfront to take on a club in the Championships than one in SL.

If its b) then clearly agreeing to deduction of funds can only be described as being the equivalent of increasing the purchase price if the distribution is one you are guaranteed to receive.

Anyway, Fev are unaware that any mini-licensing process is going to take place..... www.loverugbyleague.com/news_101 ... eturn.html

Anyway, Fev are unaware that any mini-licensing process is going to take place..... www.loverugbyleague.com/news_101 ... eturn.html

Quote Derwent="Derwent"Anyway, Fev are unaware that any mini-licensing process is going to take place..... www.loverugbyleague.com/news_101 ... eturn.html'" aye, interesting is that, on a couple of levels. I don't claim to have any knowledge of what goes on at Fev and have never met Craig Poskitt but he does not strike me as the sort of guy who would make the comments he has about P&R without first having taken great care to first establish which way the wind was blowing...

Quote Derwent="Derwent"Anyway, Fev are unaware that any mini-licensing process is going to take place..... www.loverugbyleague.com/news_101 ... eturn.html'" aye, interesting is that, on a couple of levels. I don't claim to have any knowledge of what goes on at Fev and have never met Craig Poskitt but he does not strike me as the sort of guy who would make the comments he has about P&R without first having taken great care to first establish which way the wind was blowing...

Yes we all know and understand the maths , you dont need to be an accountant to do that , but also dont ' act stupid ' we all know [ yourself included the point being made here , and it isn't very nice , is it ?

Also i'd like to see your opinion on this