Didn't OK take out a loan of £300k from the local council within months of starting up again..hope they didn't forget to put that in the books.

So according to Smokey the loan was paid back plus a million pounds (what was that? A donation?). If this was the case and all this money went to the RFL why isn't the lease back with Bradford

Oh my god it's like someone arguing with themselves. Can't be bothered chirping in with people who just put out a mantra. But I will say play nicely. Remember there is an ignore function. Sadly not available to mods. But watch the language. I've only done a brief scan but something has slippedthrough the filter. Other than that feel free to keep posting immovable positions.

I put the link to the story on there. It was £7k to pay off the Inland Revenue.

No it wasnt, you put a link to something you didnt read it would seem

If it was 7 K, hardly a ' substantial ' amount

If you aren't going to 'ignore' the troll then can you refrain from quoting the said troll so those of us that have taken up that option don't have to put up with it's repetitive diatribe. Cheers!

You really can't handle a bit of debate can you? If it's not name calling it's pages and pages of utter unintelligible tripe....you are proof perfect of the old warning.

[iNever argue with an idiot! If you do, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience![/i

That depends on the club in question. To a SL club, 7k might not be a great deal of money, but for a club at Rochdale's level? It can be the difference between life and death.

So how much was the loan ?

Not necessarily correct what the article actually said was:

"The loan is around £7,000 short of the club’s current tax bill – but Hornets’ directors will make up the shortfall."

That can clearly be read in two ways, either the loan was £7,000 which was short of the total required OR the loan was the value of the tax bill less £7,000

The Manchester Evening News school of grammar and punctuation strikes again

Yeah, I mis-read the article. rlThis onerlhowever, has a few more interesting figures. A winding up order for £55k, the RFL loan being around £7k short, meaning a loan of around £48k. Which as you pointed out, makes my point even more solid. And as the argument was that the Bulls have been solitary in their support from the RFL, I don't see how other clubs getting the same sort of hand ups can be irrelevant.

Yet again a potential misreading!
The article in The News & Star does state that the winding up order was for £55,000 to HMRC but also says:

"Rochdale, who were established back in 1871, had debts totalling £190,000, with £150,000 of that owed to the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, with a further £40,000 due to local suppliers"

Couple that with the MEN article which refers to "... the club's current tax bill...." which would include IR and Customs & Excise and the loan could well have been £143,000 ie £7K short of £150K

Don't they do comprehension in schools any more?

Last post on this complete mess, 48 K is a lot different to 600 K, nobody is suggesting other clubs haven't had support from the RFL, Leigh were supported by them a couple of seasons ago

It is the level of support, the clandestine nature of it, the complete ' bull ' that was used to justify it, the fact this support was needed a matter of months after they had been awarded a ' B ' licence

Its the whole sorry mess, defend it all you want , would other lesser profile clubs have recieved similar? , we dont really know, personally, I doubt it

Lets hope the latest people in the hot seat get it right, because I doubt they'll be offered it again