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In which case, I'm expecting Newcastle knights to have their TV funding withdrawn for a full year to help them out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

All these pages of complex arguments about the ins and outs of the matter, yet to me the situation can be addressed by answering a few fairly straightforward questions :

1)Is there an accepted process that clubs who go into admin face a loss of competition points?

2) is the accepted norm 6 points with the potential to be reduced based on amount paid to creditors?

3) is the basis of the new owners appeal that they should get some points back because they intend to pay some creditors back?

4)Should the new owners avoid any loss of competition points based on force majeure when it was the new owner who forced the old business into admin in the first place?

I would hope that all reasonably minded bulls fans would answer these questions YES YES NO and NO.

5) Is it the accepted norm that all clubs that go into admin get penalised to the sum of half their Sky money?

No its just the bulls it happened to. Although wakey had to go without 2 years money to get in to SL.

OK agreed the terms as part of continued participation in SL. There is some conjecture about the rationale behind the requirement but ultimately OK knew what the score was

Wouldn't get involved if I were you mate, that aardvark will have your nads off!