Yes. What exact level of payment back I don't know, do you believe they didn't pay any debts at all?

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 ?).