It was a spectacularly misguided and financially illiterate reading of sets of accounts. Absolutely stunned that it went to the screens without anyone credibly asking the question, "is any of this debt a problem?".
The vast majority of it is owed to directors who are not expecting to see it repaid. That is completely not an issue. The headline figure was and is irrelevant, it's whether any of the clubs with debt need to pay it back or do not have directors who are willing or able to continue covering it. This is broadly the position Salford and Bradford ended up in. It is a much more nuanced thing - generally the clubs with tens of millions of pounds of "debt" are the ones who are ironically more secure as the owners have been happy to plough that money in themselves. The Bulls and Salford have been in trouble over much smaller sums but have had no one left to plug the gap.
Overall I think anyone with a decent understanding of accounts and/or sports finances could rip apart that piece and the so-called expert in a matter of minutes. I'm a little embarrassed for George Riley that he's been exposed to have such a shallow understanding of how sport actually works.
Edited by M j M, 28 January 2013 - 10:20 PM.