But you are looking at this from a completely different perspective. The point that I have been making is from the perspective of the new owners, and what, in real terms (and not theory) the purchase has and will cost them. In hard cash.

And foregoing (as part of the overall deal) some funding that every SL club in other circumstances receives is a direct and obvious part of the purchase cost. To over-simplify, an example -
"I offer to buy B for (a) an immediate payment of £X (b) a future payment of £Y; and agree that also in 2013 we will forego income of £Z.

The point I am making is that, viewed from the perspective of such a buyer, the cost is X + Y + Z. If Z was Nil, then X would either be a bigger sum, or else the buyer would be quids in to that amount.

The position from the RFL's perspective is something completely different.

As i read it the 1.5 million debt will disappear on the liquidation of the old company. But he does have 6 mill to spend on Odsal. So up yours to the creditors.

That’s a tad too simplistic .

It sounds like it depends on who the Creditor is.

Tax Man, Caterers, Cheerleaders et al, sod all.

The RFL to get it back on the never-never.

See Elima has re signed for the Catalans on a two-year contract

Has he stated it is a definate , even if the Bulls dont get a SL licence ?

I said in a previous post I accepted that in terms of the cost to the purchaser it made no difference, my mistake was to believe the discussion had become wider.

However on further thought there does seem to be a problem even with the logic of what you outline above. It seems to me you are either saying:

a) If Z reduces, X automatically increases by the same amount to ensure the total remains the same.
b) If Z reduces, the total reduces by the same amount.

If its a) then we have a very odd situation whereby OK Bulls have to find more of the money upfront to take on a club in the Championships than one in SL.

If its b) then clearly agreeing to deduction of funds can only be described as being the equivalent of increasing the purchase price if the distribution is one you are guaranteed to receive.

Anyway, Fev are unaware that any mini-licensing process is going to take place..... www.loverugbyleague.com/news_101 ... eturn.html

Anyway, Fev are unaware that any mini-licensing process is going to take place..... www.loverugbyleague.com/news_101 ... eturn.html

Yes we all know and understand the maths , you dont need to be an accountant to do that , but also dont ' act stupid ' we all know [ yourself included ] the point being made here , and it isn't very nice , is it ?

Also i'd like to see your opinion on this

My opinion is that any talk of "conflict of interests" is risible. We only have one governing body, it administers certain things including central funding, and it is responsible for essentially the running of the game and the competitions, teams and players. Therefore you could make some sort of "conflict" argument about pretty much ANY decision the RFL takes, but it would be as vacuous as asking "why is there only one Monopolies Commission".

The RFL has to carry out its role, nobody else can, and in any case where there is scope for accusations of real or imaginary potential conflict of interest, that clearly can't mean that the RFL can abdicate its responsibility to fulfil its function. That's just how it is. Ultimately the RFL answers to its members. The point most seemingly miss is that any money isn't "the RFL's" money, it is basically money held for the running and benefit of the sport.

Give over, yer 'avin a laff.

This issue isn't that we only have one governing body and the analogy to the Monoplies/Competition Commision is bizarre at best. I could give a long answer but to avoid drift I'll keep it short use one simple example from with our own game to illustrate the point.

We have an INDEPENDENT disciplinary committee. The Governing body recognises that sometimes, not always by any means, its duties in this area will compete and not be capable of resolution by means of a simple test of what is best for the game. Resultantly it creates the rules and guidelines in advance but outsources the decisions.

We should have appointed a suitably qualified independent panel to make all licence decisions from the outset, we didn't. Now we have a mess.

No we don't.


The licencing decisions are made by the [iindependent[/i RFL Board. Last time around it consisted of Lewis and Woods plus 3 non-executive directors - Clare Morrow, Bob Stott and Maurice Watkins. None of these people have club affiliations. There are also other non-RL bodies that assist, including KPMG and Savilles.

Any more straw men you'd like me to demolish?

The same as every other company to go through a similar issue.

Im guessing you were as vocal in your criticism of Wakefield for not paying off all their creditors before investing in improvements for Belle Vue? Widnes before they spent all that money on a licence application, when their creditors went begging?

Really? I'll admit I was going largely on my understanding of the process rather than detailed research but having checked, the RFL themselves sayAt the Tribunal an independent chairman and two side members will consider all the evidence put
before them.'"