Slugger McBatt wrote:
You're looking at it the wrong way round.
ABC: 'Can we be guaranteed Super League Status?'
RFL: "No. Subject to ratification by the member clubs and the terms under which you negotiate the administration/liquidation.'
ABC: "Can we buy the Odsal?"
RFL: "We paid £1.25 million for it. That is a matter for separate negotiation? Do you want to buy the Bulls?'
ABC: "No."
They won't buy the club without agreements the RFL either cannot guarantee or don't know the detail of. So they don't want to buy it.
The final "no" is plainly wrong, though. If they didn't, why would they be wasting time effort and money? Just how keen remains to be seen but in principle that is a "yes" not a "no".
Next, in the world of corporate law, negotiations which involve more than one party are hardly unusual. You talk to one party, agree something in principle, then talk to the other, agree something in principle with them, and then the lawyers write the magic words so all the agreements are given effect at the same time. So nobody is sold a pup, they all know what they are getting.
The thing which has caused most confusion is the ROFL's use of the phrase "we will not accept conditional offers".
(1) as regards the Bulls SL licence, it isn't an offer for the ROFL to accept or reject. It's a question. (Whether they are prepared to accept the buyers and their plan is of course a different matter, but even then, that would be more like "approve the bid/bidder" than "accept an offer".
(2) as regards the lease, that is a matter entirely between the bidders and the ROFL, who will (presumably) have had a direct offer (subject of course to all deals being signed simultaneously). The RFL need only respond whether they would, or would not, sell the lease, on those terms, or at all. So it can never be a "conditional offer" from the POV of the RFL. It's an offer, of a purely one-off nature, for a purely one-off deal. Take it, leave it, or negotiate it.
