oldham in trouble rlagainrl

You have to wonder why they even bother. Rugby league isn't capable of being a professional sport outside of Super League. Teams are going to the wall left right and centre and those that do continue do so on the back of cash strapped benefactors.

Either get the sheiks involved in the sport or make it amateur below SL to reduce the cost.

You could quite comfortably be talking about a good few Super League clubs there as well. In fact, most sporting clubs in this country rely on benefactors to keep them afloat.

They certainly do, i'd be surprised if more then 15 pro or semi pro clubs are solvent in the UK.

And you've been very generous with your figure there I think, Chris

They should have 1 semi-pro division of about 12-14 teams I think, but teams like Doncaster and Oldham do this every other season, I really lose all sympathy for the clubs (though still have some for the fans of course), so clearly should be either amateur or pay a small match fee.

They need to license the Championship and not let the likes of Doncaster, Oldham or Gateshead anywhere near til they're in better shape

So you're alleging that [ihow many[/i limited companies are knowingly trading whilst insolvent, then? Care to name any?

For the avoidance of doubt, a company is insolvent if it is unable to pay its debts as and when they fall due.

Do not confuse this with a club having an excess of liabilities over assets ("technical insolvency"icon_wink.gif.

Many - most, maybe - RL clubs are "technically insolvent". Including some big names which might surprise some people. But they are able to keep trading because their owners/directors have committed to ensuring that the company has sufficient cash to enable it to continue trading for at least the next twelve months. Thereby they remain "solvent" and so may continue trading legally and without personal liability on the directors for trading whilst insolvent. This may be by, for example, by owners or directors
* Contractually agreeing to subordinate their loans to the interest of the other creditors
* Personally and contractually guaranteeing - or providing security for - the company's overdraft or other debt/s
* Personally and contractually agreeing to inject additional subordinated loan funds, or equity, should the need arise.[/list

Although quite why a non-owner director would do any of this this escapes me...

If necessary owners may write off loans to the company, or (a
(as happened with Saints recently) allow loans to be converted to shares thereby reducing the liabilities.

Sometimes, the lender may allow the situation to continue if the debt is secured on assets whose market value is a lot higher than their book value. That used to be the case sometimes with grounds, although probably less likely nowdays, and anyway most such properties have long since been sold.

It is easy for anyone to say get rid of Oldham or any other club outside of SL from the comfort zone of being a supporter of one of the clubs who does receive almost £1m Sky money a year. In Oldham's defence I would say look at the current England team how many other towns have produced two players that are in the team that do not have a team in SL. Lose Oldham and do you lose the production line which helped produce the likes of Kyle Eastmond and Kevin Sinfield?

Are you implying that if there wasn't a struggling semi-pro club in the town none of the schools or amateur clubs in the area would exist?

Personally, I think there is a certain credence in the argument. Particularly as the nearest pro clubs are either over t'hill or the other side of Manchester.

Sounds like he's saying that. From what I gather plenty of people in Oldham support other clubs now. Either way there's only so many times they can turn a blind eye to unviable clubs

Strange as it sounds I wondered whether this was the intention of the RLIF when they introduced a team in Dubai.

I may seem a bit naive here but how do you end up owing the tax man money? as you pay on what you earn or have paid in wages(emloyers liability) on vat you pay 15% of what you take. If you take nothing you pay nothing, if you have spent the money you should have put aside to pay tax or paid out wages that you can not afford then I have no sypathy.
I suspect it is a lot more complicated but I would genuinly like to know how it happens.