Wereyou saying Widnes should have been relegated from Championship to Championship1 when they "cheated" as you call it and went into administration?

If that had been the ruling back then I would have accepted it, not sure on what the administration rules were at the time.

With the amount of bitterness you're showing it's hard to tell the difference.
Your club went through a similar situation to Bradford, yet you're don't call for your own expulsion from SL. That's hypocrisy of the highest order.

Bitterness has nothing to do with it, it is the injustice of the situation that I dislike & how unfair it is to the other clubs aspiring to SL. We were not in SL at the time so that does not stack up. See above being dropped to champ 1. As Starbug points out we were denied the chance of a SL franchise due to going into administration. I await with anticipation for the next round of licensing to see if the Bulls admnistration denies them a SL place.

Cheating? Yes when the Bulls received their grade B licence they covered up their financial woes, that is cheating and very worrying in that the RFL didn't spot it also????

In my opinion I really don't think that the RFL were daft enough to miss the fact that the Bulls were in trouble with money. They knew what the situation was & subsequently bought Odsal. This would mean that both the Bulls & the RFL were in cahoots covering the situation up. That makes the RFL corrupt & the Bulls cheats.

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 ?).