Good job you aren't charging for your thoughts, then!

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.

In which case the body charged with deciding whether Bradford recieve next years SL funding would also be one of, possibly the only, benificiary of any deductions from it. Sounds to me like a textbook case of conflict of interest.

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

Quote ="Derwent"Anyway, Fev are unaware that any mini-licensing process is going to take place..... www.loverugbyleague.com/news_101 ... eturn.html'" aye, interesting is that, on a couple of levels. I don't claim to have any knowledge of what goes on at Fev and have never met Craig Poskitt but he does not strike me as the sort of guy who would make the comments he has about P&R without first having taken great care to first establish which way the wind was blowing...

Quote ="Derwent"Anyway, Fev are unaware that any mini-licensing process is going to take place..... www.loverugbyleague.com/news_101 ... eturn.html'" aye, interesting is that, on a couple of levels. I don't claim to have any knowledge of what goes on at Fev and have never met Craig Poskitt but he does not strike me as the sort of guy who would make the comments he has about P&R without first having taken great care to first establish which way the wind was blowing...

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 say:



I'm not aware that any of the side members on the rota are employed by the RFL, they seem to me to be former Referees, players and coaches with no direct link to either clubs or the RFL. Can you expand on why you feel they are not independent of the RFL.

Bear in mind also the context of my remarks, I was responding to Ferocious Aardvark's suggestion that all decisions must be made by the governing body as they are the only one we have. I could gone with examples equally from other sports to make the same point. e.g. The FA's independent disciplinary panel that looked into the Suarez/Evra incident or perhaps the RFU's independent panel looking into London Welsh's promotion/ground issues. I'm sure I could google others but I trust you get my drift. The suggestion that a sport's governing body is the only avenue for decision making/resolving disputes within that sport simply doesn't stand scrutiny.



Well yes, independent of club affiliation but hardly independent of the RFL and that, in this case, is exactly the point.

Who do you think pays the former referees, players, and coaches? They usually also have some legal representation on there. Did you think that came for free? They are employees of the RFL, implementing the RFL's disciplinary code.
You may be interested to learn that the RFU's independent panel who looked in to London Welsh's promotion/ground issues was chosen, appointed and paid for by guess who? Yes, thats right, the RFU
It isnt the point, it is nonsense because it supposes that 'the rfl board has a preferred outcome. Now you may disagree with the RFL's decisions, you may even disagree with their decision making process, but it is silly to pretend that the RFL board benefit from having any one particular team in, over another.
Considering the level of technicality you are descending to, it is important to note that it is Super League (europe ltd) who vote on how many clubs are in SL, the process they take to get there, how they are chosen etc etc, it is they who have voted, and chosen, to pass some decision making powers to the RFL board. The RFL board may not be independent of itself as you seem to be demanding, but it is independent of Super League (europe) Ltd, the body which controls SL.

Probably, but don't remember really. However if you asked me in twenty years time which clubs do I remember being in trouble in the past. The Bradford debacle will be top of the list. Actually we might all have forgotten about RL in twenty years time the way things are going. There are currently two clubs in SL who have a net worth of around =#FF0000-£10million

Nothing there for me to disagree with. Crucially though they are all appointed to carry out a specific task with clear terms of reference that do not require them to consider the consequences their decisions may have on other aspects of the appointers operations. Staying with the example of the RFL disciplinary its why they use ex referees rather than current ones, why they appoint chairs with a legal background, who do no other work for them, rather than use the in house legal team and Its why they can be described as independent in the commonly understood sense of the word.

If the test for independence is simply, are you being paid and have you been appointed, nobody will ever pass it and we may as well have left Jeremy Hunt to get on with deciding what nice chaps the Murdochs are. We could have saved a fortune and not taken up the valuable time of Leveson, Jay et al..





I responded originally to a poster who described a scenario where a sum of money beyond this years entitlements had already been paid to Bradford, it suggested that an agreement to deduct an equivalent amount from next years SL entitlements had been included as part of the overall sale price but that no such deduction would or could be made if Bradford were not in SL next year. I said, simply, [ushould that be the case[/u an apparently clear conflict of interests would exist, with a minor moderation I stand by that. I don't suggest the scenario described has the RFL board having a preferred outcome but it does have a clear financial benefit if Bradford stay in.

The one supposition I can now see I am making is that some or all of those charged with making the decision would be sufficiently senior to have an interest in or responsibility for the financial performance of the RFL.

So you're criticism of the independence is that the RFL consider the entire impact of a decision on the game as a whole, and not simply a decision purely on the narrow, immediate, issue at hand, you want any body which makes a decision within our game, to make a decision on one part of the game and not consider if it is disproportionally damaging for the another part? Frankly the fact the RFL can take a high level overview for the entire structure, as well as looking at the narrow frame of a specific question is a good thing if anything.

If something as important as government can, within it, have three branches which are necessarily independent, even though they are paid and appointed by the state, why cant the game of RL have an independent RFL board, entrusted by SL (Europe) ltd to independently administer a licence application for the joining of SL?

No, you are supposing the RFL, have a preffered outcome for applications to join SL (europe) ltd and you still are.

You would sound less disingenous if Wakefield and Widnes went pop 20 years ago, rather than 1 year ago and 5 years ago.

If you are going to forget about it in a year like you have Wakefield, it makes you wonder what you are getting yourself into such a tizzy about.

If you are going to specifically remember this incident in 20 years, having forgotten about Wakefield after only one year, we would have to wonder why that would be, and probably question whether there was some kind of bias at play.