You actually took the time to point out that if a buyer pays more money to a seller, then the seller has got more money than if less was paid? In that respect you are clearly right, but it's not earth-shattering insight.

Exactly how much has the administrator paid the RFL and when?


Clearly (well, except perhaps to muppets) I wasn't talking about advances made this season, since you can hardly "forego" something which isn't yours to forego, now can you?


I'm a mere aardvark, but clearly one with a better grasp of English than you. Is English your first language?

The repayment of ' advanced ' monies , not to mention the likelyhood of recieving a ' reasonable market rental ' for Odsal

No , Leyth is my 1 st language , I would suggest Bulls**t is yours , You being a lawyer

Does your 2nd point not answer the 1st? If the financial distribution to a Bradford club expelled from SL is less than to one that is retained does it not follow that the return to the RFL will be less and/or slower if they do not retain the licence?

On the 2nd point in isolation the conditional nature of the offer becomes the price.

Again, you don't need to give an example to demonstrate that if more money is paid to the administrator, then the administrator has more money. I think most people could work that out. But if it helps you to understand it to write this point down, then fair enough I suppose.


Wow. That is an extremely serious insinuation. I hope you can back it up if their lawyers come calling. Personally I think it is utter bull but you're entitled to your views, even if they risk being very expensive ones.

In the current situation one of the creditors [ RFL ] have managed to assume almost a ' prefferential creditors ' situation'"

Wow. That is an extremely serious insinuation. I hope you can back it up if their lawyers come calling. Personally I think it is utter bull but you're entitled to your views, even if they risk being very expensive ones.'"

So you make no suggestion at all that the RFL have managed to assume almost preferential creditors" status. You intended to suggest no such thing and your quoted post is therefore meaningless and can be ignored.

Glad we've cleared that up.

The 'advanced monies' will be repaid whatever happens. Likewise the rent. An owner who's talking about splurging £6M on Odsal is hardly likely to be able to plead poverty when it comes to repaying owed monies or rent on the ground.

See my response to Starbug. Bradford now have a (reasonably) wealthy owner so have no excuse not to repay any owed monies regardless of which league they end up playing in.

Monies advanced from this years sky amount won't need repaying anyway. Only any advances made against next years central funding would need repaying ( probably in the form of a reduced central funding amount should we remain in SL).

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.