Does each individual member of the forum need to post evidence of the clubs taking the distribution penalty and sharing it, or is it just that you are a goldfish?

[listSo a carrot is most often orange can you prove this.
Here is a thesis on carrots noting that they are now mainly Orange.
So let me get this straight, according to the thesis carrots are in the main orange? Can you prove that?
Here's a series of articles showing that over time the various colours of carrot have given way to the mainly orange variety.
I'd like to see your proof of that.[/list:u

Repeat as required.

There are some, including yourself, who appear to believe that OK Bulls reduced funding was merely that money being shared out between other clubs. There has been no actual mention of how much this amounted to and when it occurred.

I have stated that the reduction in funding to OK Bulls is as a result of the total amount of money the RFL forwarded to BHH & P&A.

No one quoting the £1.3m figure appears to have any source for it's validity.

In fact, carrots are not orange. Or any other colour. You perceive them to be orange but in fact all that is happening is that of the narrow band of optically visible light, the carrot's surface is such that it absorbs most of the spectrum, but reflects a small portion. The receptors in your eyes pick up this reflection and assign to it a code, which then is sent by your optic nerve to your brain which in turn produces a visual experience that you call "orange".

But it is lies.

You are mad.

Anything from anyone will do. Otherwise it's just hearsay and myth?

For not readily accepting an often used, but unsupported quantum?

I am sure that I have just read some evidence on here, a few pages back, quoted from the BBC, and Mail to mention a few. But I guess they are colluding in this massive smokescreen too.

So the RFL didn't share out the money? The other clubs did not take it? The chairman did not agree to take it? The press made it all up? The BBC made it all up? What a crazy conspiracy.

Even if the RFL was owed £1,299,999 million, it still means that £1 was shared between other clubs.

This calculation then equates that £1 divided by 13 clubs is £0.77 for each club, which is approximately £0.77 more than each club deserves. The RFL is responsible for each club walking home with an additional £0.77.

Do you get my point?

Also, I thought you previously mentioned that none of the clubs received extra funding as a result (urban myth wasn't it?), now your saying they did, just not as much.

What's it going to be, they did or they didn't?

£110k per month

The NRL & Newcastle Knights. That's all that needs to be said

Yes, because that answers all the questions that you have been asked doesn't it?

You have become a ridiculous parody. Nobody is being taken in by your bullcrap.
ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS or STFU.

I'm simply asking for some verification of quantum & timing. Neither of which have been forthcoming.

It shows that a governing body of rugby league is stepping in to ensure a major club can deal with financial difficulties. Surely this will only make things far far worse.

So this £1m OK allegedly invested, that is actually less than half that?

That's the sort of claim Gerry Sutcliffe has made to defend OK, and that RW alluded to in the press. He is quoted as saying there was sufficient money invested to see the business through last season and this.....Just before OK quit.

Strangely this money was not enough to avoid the SSG debenture deal. Just 4 days after OK quit.

In which case, I'm expecting Newcastle knights to have their TV funding withdrawn for a full year to help them out

Jeez Dweeb, are you still here?

You've lost every toss of the dice and still come back for more; first rule of hole digging - when you find yourself in the hole, STOP DIGGING!

"Actually"? Like, you know? You are, simply, lying, then. OK did put in £1m and whilst his claim was originally listed by the administrator at £400K or thereabouts, he was obliged to revise it up to around £1m at the creditors meeting. These are the facts. I have previously told you this so why are you persisting with your lie?

Dweeb is now coming across as a bit of a OK hater - Wonder if the Dweeb is a disgruntled failed bidder?

Given a moderator looks to have counted them all out, and counted them all back, I suggest Dweeb goes in the ignore bin.

I think what Dw means is that part of the conditions of OKB gaining membership would be that if it failed within the two years deduction period then it paid the rest of the sky money back, and backed up by OKs PG. So to invoke the PG the RFL would have to see how much they get from OKB and then claim the balance on the PG.

[uIF[/udw is correct that the withheld sky money was simply retained then that amounts to a horrendous financial penalty for OK both personally and via OKB, as essentially he will have not received/paid out a full years funding of £1.3m and of course the double count, also paid players to play matches - some on sky - for which he received nothing. Makes that Wakie chairman putting his house on the line look insignificant.

It's a theory but what he repeatedly said was that the RFL was not a creditor of OKB. I have pressed him on this but as you'll know he just ignores the questions. In any case, the scenario you give is not the one that applies in this case. RFL can go after OKB, or OK personally, or both. Claiming against OKB is not connected.

FWIW I personally believe the RFL are on very dodgy ground in claiming against either, but the starting point is the agreement and that allows them to claim against either; but only in specific circumstances and an insolvency ain't one.

if it was me I (...first of all I would not have agreed to take on a millstone with another millstone around my neck, but assuming I was daft enough to listen to a sporting politician...) the PG would only be for the balance after OKB had coughed up, if its as you say then OK had pretty poor advisors. However its your intriguing comment that insolvency would not trigger the payback that seems to contradict whats out there. Why the discrepancy?