except the central funding that purchasers are talking about not getting/voluntarily forfeiting (depending on who you listen to) for remainder of this license period is on top of the central funding which has already been advanced to keep the club running, which they obviously were not going to get.

Link ?

No , if you had paid a higher purchase price , then other creditors than the RFL would have recieved a share

The RFL will deduct your money wether you agree to ' forego ' it or not

A Lawyer eh ?

Do you really think the mini-licence review is a sham?

I would have thought there will be a thorough review of all clubs entered into this exciting opportunity.

Just think, the possibility of your club making the “Big Time” a couple of years earlier than you could have possibly dreamed of.






























Or maybe, Big Nige misheard & thought he’d been offered a Mini Roll.

The one way out of this hole is if Mr Khan agrees a deal with creditors. As he's on about putting £6 million into Odsal, there must be some potential for that. Now he might be waiting to check he isn't dumped into the Championship first (and I don't blame him if that is the case), but doing it first should clearly remove that threat and the RFL could/should state it explicitly, IMO. Gives the creditors a strong hand, admittedly, and we don't want it dragging on any more. If SL status is granted without and not dependent on a deal, then the carrott/stick disappears. The RFL can't impose a deal or amount to be repaid, obviously. Not easy...

...and even then, the credibility of licensing would still be severely damaged, IMO. After Crusaders it was already looking wobbly. Now we've had a glimpse of how far they are willing to go, even if they find a way to avoid doing it, they've shown their hand. IMO. At this stage though, any port in a storm.

so basically your saying its just YOUR opinion that we've been advanced part of next years money and you cant back that opinion up. Thanks for clarifying that.

You seriously thought it was anything else but my opinion ? , this is the VT , the only thing posted on it is opinion

It is if the entirety of any monies forgone is distributed amongst all the creditors, yes. Is that the case?

An agreement to forego an otherwise guaranteed income is effectively the same as a higher purchase price irrespective of where that money ends up you great witless dandy.

Not if there is no ' choice ' in the matter , if the new club say "No " , the RFL say " Championship RL with no central funds for 5 years "

May I firstly say that is one the more impressive insults hurled in my direction, I hope you won't object if I keep it in mind for future use myself.



I'm afraid however, I beg to differ. Firstly the RFL are apparently due to make an impartial decision on the acceptance or otherwise Bradford's bid to continue in SL, to have a financial interest in their continuation could be seen as compromising any impartiality, could it not?

Secondly, we have just spent months dragging out this process largely because of an insistence that conditional offers were unacceptable. Unless the central distributions that are to be forgone are solely those due to a non SL club what we have is a conditional offer, is it not?

Finally, the discussion, if not the part of the post I quoted, taken in its full context appeared to me to be about more than simply the cost to OK Bulls of acquiring the club. It was also about the value to creditors with particular reference to the cost of the administration versus the purchase price. In that context I would suggest that where the money ends up is relevant. I would also suggest, as a slight aside, any scheme by which the RFL or indeed any other creditor positioned themselves as a de facto preferential creditor is morally dubious.

On the narrow point that the cost OK Bulls is the same either way, I agree.

Which financial interest might that be?


Not if the discussion is what financial distributions will be foregone [iif[/i the Bulls stay in SL.

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'"

:w1g1pwh7

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.