"Iconic" to the rescue again!

Broncos, you can learn from this. Dig yourselves a massive hole somewhere then consult some very clever scientists on how to create some kind of weird atmospheric inversion layer so that the temperature inside said hole is somewhere between the Antartic and the surface of Pluto.

The "28 day temporary SL licence" is something I've not seen before.
What was the plan had this new guy not come along ?

"And monies recently advanced to them by the RFL"
How much have they had off the RFL this time?

£300k, every club got it.

Though the Wakefield supporters trust is writing a letter to the RFL because Bradfords was paid by BACS where as Wakefields was paid by cheque and they demand an inquiry in to this unacceptable favouritism and an end to this conspiracy against them

So why, according to the article, was it an advance that would have to be paid back to the RFL, or is this in addition to the £300k that (you say) each club got ?

"It is understood that in order for Mr Lamb’s bid to be accepted, he would need to work to pay back creditors and monies recently advanced to the club by the RFL."

Why would any advance be paid back?

Its just a poorly structured sentence.

If money advanced needs to be paid back, it suggests it's a loan, not part of any due sky money

Then it would be a loan not an advance wouldnt it. But it says it was an advance and we know the clubs got an advance.

What i assume that sentence is trying to say is that he will need to pay back the creditors and work with the fact that some of the TV money you would budget for has already been paid as an advance.

I agree, but as all clubs received the £300k, how much of this years sky money after that have they already been advanced? And how much can they need now? Sponsors and season ticket cash should be brimming their coffers now plus the sky £300k! It's later in the season when money gets tight as there's a lot less income then but wages and stadium running costs still need paying

But i dont think they are asking for more cash or saying they have a cash flow problem. The current owners/directors seem pretty confident they will be fine on what they know is to come.

I think the point the author is trying to make is the same as yours, that whilst the cash flow situation is fine now a lot of the income is has already come in, and the new owner will need to deal with that.

"Advance monies", something that they would have received at some point, but paid in advance.
Don't make such an issue out of it. Pedantic or what ?

More importantly, what happens when the 28 day temporary licence expires, which will of course be after the start of the season ?

SmokeyTA making things up that that have not been said. Read what the RFL said. Don't forget, the new guy is looking to put in an offer for OK Bulls Ltd not Bfd Bulls (2014) ltd. He will get it (and the Bradford Bulls club) if he offers the Administrator more than the owners of BB (2014). The latter only have the club and SL LICENCE ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, PENDING the Administrator looking for better offers over a 28 day period. So, if the new guy's offer is accepted, he will have to pay off any remaining creditors of OK Bulls ltd AND pay back the £300k that the RFL has given to BB (2014) Ltd and which they will have spent by the end of the 28 days. This is because, if the new guy's bid is accepted B Bulls (2014) ltd will end up with no rugby club and no assets.

Im not being pedantic and you are agreeing with me.

From that article it seems the 28 day licence was put in place to allow other parties to come forward. So after it expires it will revert to a normal licence.

according to this nonsense though they have got a free £300k. Genius move from the BB (2014) Ltd.

Any new investment is good in my book. I just hope, if he’s successful with the bid, he’s got deep pockets, or he’ll be chucking himself in that river in no time.

28 day licence sounds more like a trial of some sort, rather than something set up to allow new people to come in.
If not just allow a "normal" SL licence and then carry out the usual "fit and proper person" checks if somebody wants to take over ?

Smokey really is talking bull this time. The clubs are receiving the 300k THIS WEEK.

And?

If this is just an attempt to have a dig because of the tense used to describe a payment promised but not paid, thats some barrel scraping.

Well it must mean the money the RFL advanced the Bulls was from their normal tv money, still don't understand why it needs paying back ?

It could just be the author poorly worded a sentence.

Makes a big difference if instead of advanced, they meant loaned

From pendants corner over here, the phrase 'advanced [some money' could mean different things according to common usage nowadays. When you take out a loan it's common to describe the money as being 'advanced' to your account, even though it's a loan, not an 'advance payment' for anything. It could also of course absolutely mean 'a payment in advance' for something, but word 'advance' in the context I read it, didn't rule out it being a loan, gift, or anything for that matter, just simply that some money had been transferred.

I thought the £300k was a sort of bribe



I’m sure the RFL have lent some money to Bradford over the last few months, I wonder if they deduct it from the said “windfall”.

I want all this mess sorting and bradford to be on a stable footing for the start of the season but it's obvious that they won't be.

With the reintroduction of promotion and relegation we should have all teams off a level playing field so nobody can cry foul come October time.

So frustrating that in the aftermath of restructure and a new television deal that these problems still hang over the sport.

The governing body needs to become proactive rather than reactive

There's a good argument to say the governing body should stay well away from the commercial dealings of clubs and just focus on the sport side of things - rules, refs, etc. Do you have much confidence that a more proactive RFL would produce better-run clubs? Even the RFL themselves pointed to micromanagement of clubs being a significant drain on resource and I have a lot of sympathy with them on that (though one has to ask who's fault that is in the first place).

Let's just say, they'd let Bradford collapse. Would that have really meant that the city of Bradford would have remained without a professional RL club for long? I doubt it. It always makes me laugh when people go on about how Wigan RL nearly collapsed under financial strain. And if they had? Would the RL town of Wigan just not have a Rugby League club? One season without at absolute worst. We'd be far better just letting clubs go under. Apart from the cost of bailing them out, there's the 'moral hazard' of rescue.