Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:30 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Even if the RFL were to agree to pay the players, its surely unrealistic to expect the coaches to keep on working for nowt.

I cannot see any way the RFL could justify paying the players via a loan or a handout. Every other club would have a legitimate case to argue that they deserve similar payment.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:32 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Even if the RFL were to agree to pay the players, its surely unrealistic to expect the coaches to keep on working for nowt.

And some of them couldn't anyway. There was a report Mick Potter had been contacted regarding his work visa.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:33 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Even if the RFL were to agree to pay the players, its surely unrealistic to expect the coaches to keep on working for nowt.

Whilst the coaches as you put it are working for nowt. I bet you anything their expenses bill is pretty high!!
I agree with some of the posters on here in as much as what is the point teams like Widnes, Leeds and Warrington giving money to the Bulls when most of it will go to pay the Administrator.
The Board screwed money out of fans and ex players before and where did that go?
There has been the sale of players and the lease and still the Bulls want a million to stay afloat.
If it were a Bull it would be shot by now.
Why prolong the agony?
The RFL should pull the plug now or pay up until the season ends and everyone can get on with sorting this one great club out wherever it might be playing.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:36 pm  

The RL position is very strange, asking someone to buy something with 0 guarantees about future revenue streams, this isn't eBay, this is serious money! I can understand them not wanting to sell the lease back at a loss, but the license determines the value of the club - it is the main asset. Buyer beware is the RL stance which indicates to me they want us out.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:47 pm  

Why dont they just sell some assets??

Bateman 200K
whitehouse 200K

That would pay the players wages for a few months

Thats a start - rfl are bent. Its blatant

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:50 pm  

Quel Suprise! wrote:

Why dont they just sell some assets??

Bateman 200K
whitehouse 200K

That would pay the players wages for a few months

Thats a start - rfl are bent. Its blatant

To who? Why would anyone spend money when they can take a gamble on getting them for free in a couple of weeks? Which clubs have salary cap space to accomodate them?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:52 pm  

Quel Suprise! wrote:

Why dont they just sell some assets??

Bateman 200K
whitehouse 200K

That would pay the players wages for a few months

Thats a start - rfl are bent. Its blatant

What about Lord Longford, he must be worth as much as Mary!

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:53 pm  

Quel Suprise! wrote:

Why dont they just sell some assets??

Bateman 200K
whitehouse 200K

That would pay the players wages for a few months

Thats a start - rfl are bent. Its blatant

I know the housing market has taken a hit these past couple of years, but only 200K for the Whitehouse?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:54 pm  

Who's Whitehouse?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:04 pm  

bobsmyuncle wrote:

Who's Whitehouse?

I agree that you should have sold some fictional players. Hull would probably have gone for it.