In that case shouldn't Wakefield have been relegated for the same reason?

Gronk is right.

Wakefield created a new company (Spirit of 1873). The debts sank with the old company.

You're saying Bradford could create a new company. You're right - Glover did take on SOME of the debt. Not all. And no one knows the true figure.

What is stopping Bradford's new owners doing the same? By token, Wakefield should have been relegated if you're going down that route. In which case, you cannot moan about Bradford being kept in SL.

No both you and Gronk are wrong - or are the RFL lying when they stated Glover covered debts he wasn't liable for. I believe he did this, not to retain the licence, but to try and rebuild an element of good faith with the business community affected by the Richardson board.

"Glover did take on SOME of the debt. Not all. And no one knows the true figure." What a gem this is!! You say I am wrong (despite the RFL clearly stating otherwise), and then say no-one knows!! Apart from you and Gronk, of course.

Wakefield DID create a new company, this is a fact.
Bradford are creating a new company which you want them kicked out for, despite the fact Bradford might take forward some debt, that is not known yet.
What's the difference? You're being the blinkered troll you always are, it's the exact same situation.

It's also a fact we don't know exactly how much debt Glover did take on, if any at all because we were never told, convenient.

Yes, a new company that took on some of the debt of the old company, which it did not have to do.

I do not know the level of that and neither do you...but you seem to want use that to justify your misguided oponion that it never happened.

The RFL clearly stated it.

The same is to be expected of Bulls if they want to retain the licence.

No, I said we were never given any proof, just the word - the company/companies never came forward.

What if they only paid back the debt owed to say...West Yorkshire Windows (if they were owed anything).

And Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon.

No. You're saying kick Bradford out for doing exactly the same.

It wasn't the old Wakefield company that paid the debts was it? Let me make this simple for you: Wakefield went into administration under old company, Andrew Glover (under Spirit of 1873) purchases the club and transfers club into new company. Old company is wound up with debts. New company is debt free. Andrew Glover agrees to honour some of those debts.

You appear to be under the illusion that we're arguing that this wasn't the case. We're not at all. Either that or you've completely misread my post.

What we're arguing is that Bradford CAN do exactly the same.

i.e. They're currently in administration under their existing company name. A new company could be created and buy the Bulls. Debts sink with old club. What's stopping them from honouring some of the debts like Glover?

And then you're arguing they should be relegated. In which case, Wakefield should have been relegated as it would be exactly same that you're asking for.

Hope this simplifies/clarifies things easier for you.

So Gronk/you agree that Wakey correctly weren't relegated, having taken on (an however unspecified) amount of debt the newco wasn't liable for, and that Bulls would be expected to do the same in order to retain the SL licence?

One major difference is of course, the levels of debt - Wakey crashed for 300k, Bulls is 10 times that.

That would be the case yes, but you're the one who was saying Bradford should be kicked for making a newco, just like Wakefield did, hence the original comment www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/ru ... -31883811/