RP London

Yes "more" but still not much... As said, there have been plenty of these sorts of stories in the past in all sports and they come to nothing. I hope this isnt another, but it would be remiss of any creditor just to accept their word as a done deal. Salford just have to keep moving on an working to the rules of the advance they got and keep working on the business takeover. There is no need to do what they did and annoy the RL public who, for the most part, did have sympathy for them.

its the only way you'll make the ground look full...

With the example you use also they have earned the right to do that over the last 26 rounds, which has to hold some sway in it. I dont like them doing it but I do get it and there will be players with "niggles" that would have played if there was something on the line but you dont play them with nothing, and that seems fair as they have got those "niggles" by getting them to the position where they can rest them (if that makes sense)... as you say Context.

Interestingly my brother, who has no interest in Rugby League, did mentioned this whole sorry state to me this morning (which shows the negative cut through it is getting) and he mentioned the guy who was supposed to buy Sheffield United a few years ago. Paid a none refundable deposit which meant United could get out of the transfer embargo they were in, didnt follow through with the purchase though. Its this type of thing that causes scepticism, "non refundable deposit" pays off the debt to the council, pulls out of purchase of SRD but still in good books with the council meaning he can buy the land and develop it. Without the first part the council don't talk to him about the second... its these other possibilities that make us sceptical of the whole "buying salford" if the person isnt some sort of fan of the game becuase in reality why on earth would you buy them (or frankly pretty much any club) otherwise.

I didnt think you cared what I thought....

I've been around long enough to have heard umpteen rumours at so many clubs in so many sports of "xyz is going to buy"/" looks who's in the stands with the current chairman" 9 times out of 10 it turns out to be utter rubbish....until you see the colour of their money it's just bluff and blister. I hope it comes off for Salford, a strong Salford is potentially good for the sport .. however, anyone associated with what happened last weekend need to walk (and that includes complicit RFL employees).

Because you keep saying ... Ooh look all these people have all this money... Well then put up or shut up.. at the moment it's the latter..

Oh I'm sure there's more otherwise this would have been done by now or at least the basics needed would have been, especially when listening to the flag wavers that they have all the money etc (which they can surely prove)

I'm selling my house... Person comes in and says "I have millions just sell it to me" Well know rich person comes in and says "sell it to me you know who I am" Someone you've never met before comes in with a mortgage gaurantee and a bank line of credit showing proof of funds... Who do you sell your house to.

Are other post .. PROVIDE CASH OR PROOF OF FUNDS... that is as simple as it gets..

Sorry but none of that is important.. proof of funds is all that is.. doesn't matter who you are we can all claim to have money, we can all have money on paper but if we can't pay debts or provide proof of funds then it is irrelevant. This may well all come off but until the moment they pay the debt or provide proof of funds they are just people in the stand. It really is quite simple not matter how much you want to point and shout "but look at that person over there" And that is the same for Journos.. they can write about who may be involved and how much money they may have but without paying the debt or providing proof of funds it just simply isn't important.

Who is Joanna lomu? And just because johna had cash doesn't mean any of the rest of his family do.. for proof of that see chansiri at wednesday.. Proof of funds... Not names not "look who is sitting next to xyz" proof of funds that is ALL that is important.. and it's a job that is really really simple.. until then restrictions in place and ban Rowley if found to be a deliberate act (which I cannot imagine it isn't for all the reasons on this thread).

In not sure it's the precedent you're thinking... They've done this a few times.. this though could now be the "no we won't" precedent of "look what that bunch did last time, how can we trust anyone"...

Totally agree, if this turns out to be on the rfl then 100% someone needs to go from them

Am I right in thinking that the bailout was an advance of the TV money? Seems pretty daft to then pratt about with the team when we're on BBC, endangering the very money that you needed for the bailout...

To be fair lending a club money because without it they'll go bust is a headache that the rfl probably wouldn't want to do.. but thems the breaks

It's not just about those that play it at the top level and how much like "the people" they are,, it's about the journey to playing it at the top level. Everyone believes they can play pro football (just look at the parents at kids football matches on a Sunday FFS). How many believe you can play RU for England if you don't go to private school? RL just isn't known enough either way but I'd say it's tough when the sport isn't played in schools, which is the first part to try and break whenever this type of conversation is had around participation...

Its a false premise to say no one has been punished before... 1 it's a different scenario 2 it doesn't matter anyway, you can still punish them as long as it is within the stated rules... Yes you'll then have to continue in that vein but the mood of the clubs appears to be they'll live with that but this is unacceptable... Which it is

Exactly... First thing you'd say was "I wanted to but this is what the rfl said, oh and here's the paper trail to prove it"..

Or no not picking a good team because even if we win this we lose the next one so stuff it... (Or if you're Rowley just "reasons")

I'm agreeing with you... We need the whole story out there, that's on the media to get it out or the rfl to come back at him, as we've all said on here.

I agree with you that the full narrative needs to be given but it is the restrictions that Rowley is arguing so you can't ignore them.

Can someone tell Rod Studd that he doesn't have to just talk.. silence is ok

It's the full story thats needed. The restrictions is what Rowley is toy throwing about.. but they are in because SRD owe quite a lot of money.. get the full story out rather than a snippet but you cannot ignore the restrictions, what is Rowley "protesting" about otherwise?

No but the restrictions allowed him to do it and "have an argument" which is why they're being brought up.. I think we all know that he is being a big baby rather than anything else, he could easily have played a team that wasn't the one last night within the restrictions, he just chose not to. The RFL shouldn't lift them.. he should grow up and realise that and play within them until the takeover is complete.. why should the RFL trust anything coming out of SRD at the moment without verifiable proof.. I wouldn't.