|
FORUMS > Bradford Bulls > Swinton points deduction? |
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 3546 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2013 | 12 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2019 | May 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
69500_1482141774.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_69500.jpg |
|
| Quote: Nothus "I'm assuming Swinton's worries are behind them completely now because they announced two new signings last night....transfer deadline, what's that?'"
Actually they announced five new signings. Only one of which was a loan deal.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 70 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2014 | 11 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2018 | Jul 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: martinwildbull "Yes, PAYE was my assumption so I am glad to have someone, with the appropriate technical knowledge and experience, that agrees. Looking at the dates of the first four, all within a day or two of the due date (22nd of the following month for the non-accountants here) it seems to me that they were to ensure that the arrears never got to two months, only one, hence that pattern. The two recent ones however have different timing.
I just do not see anything remotely worth £100K, the website should have cost not a lot and what licences intellectual property trade mark brand or other software could they have developed. Swinton Lions PS4 rugby league team management game would start to tick the boxes, though who would buy that (Bulls fans maybe!)
And yes, if someone, who clearly does not want to be identified, wants to guarantee payment then that is fine, that is what it looked like to me hence my reference to technically insolvent. But clearly someone prepared to put a bit in whilst the dream was still alive, but once reality and the amount spiralled, clearly they did not want to know/could not cover it, prompting the sale, appeal to fans (bless them) and yes, unidentified parties.
FA's contribution, thanks FA, is to point out that the RFL must have known all along about this, but cannot pin point what the definition of insolvency event is.
So in the Articles of Association, right down at the bottom, it says that an Insolvency Event includes (4.10.2.a.ii) "If any petition is presented... for the winding up of the company". This is entirely logical, as an unsatisfied Statutory Demand would almost certainly be required as evidence to support the petition, and an unsatisfied Stat Demand is in the Insolvencies Act as An Insolvency Event, not the Winding Up Petition.
So we are approaching my question again, which I will re-state a bit fuller based on the various contributions: on the face of it, Swinton should have been deducted 6 times 6 points
Does it all really matter? Just another RL club dying a slow painful death.... sound familiar??
How many times did us Bulls appear in the Gazette with WUP's in the last few years???? A few if I recall... does that mean we should have additional points taken off? As the 12 this time was for the second administration we had entered, even though it ended in a sort of liquidified mess that rumbles on and will into next year......
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 28357 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
973_1515165968.gif Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_973.gif |
|
| The RFL's problem is that IIRC recently at one point there was a literal queue of winding up petitions against a number of clubs, so maybe ignoring everything is less messy than starting the next season with every fecker on minus 6?
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Board Member | 117 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2002 | 22 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2017 | Aug 2017 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
Jimmy Ledgard would have caught that.: |
|
| Quote: martinwildbull "Yes, PAYE was my assumption so I am glad to have someone, with the appropriate technical knowledge and experience, that agrees. Looking at the dates of the first four, all within a day or two of the due date (22nd of the following month for the non-accountants here) it seems to me that they were to ensure that the arrears never got to two months, only one, hence that pattern. The two recent ones however have different timing.
I just do not see anything remotely worth £100K, the website should have cost not a lot and what licences intellectual property trade mark brand or other software could they have developed. Swinton Lions PS4 rugby league team management game would start to tick the boxes, though who would buy that (Bulls fans maybe!)
And yes, if someone, who clearly does not want to be identified, wants to guarantee payment then that is fine, that is what it looked like to me hence my reference to technically insolvent. But clearly someone prepared to put a bit in whilst the dream was still alive, but once reality and the amount spiralled, clearly they did not want to know/could not cover it, prompting the sale, appeal to fans (bless them) and yes, unidentified parties.
FA's contribution, thanks FA, is to point out that the RFL must have known all along about this, but cannot pin point what the definition of insolvency event is.
So in the Articles of Association, right down at the bottom, it says that an Insolvency Event includes (4.10.2.a.ii) "If any petition is presented... for the winding up of the company". This is entirely logical, as an unsatisfied Statutory Demand would almost certainly be required as evidence to support the petition, and an unsatisfied Stat Demand is in the Insolvencies Act as An Insolvency Event, not the Winding Up Petition.
So we are approaching my question again, which I will re-state a bit fuller based on the various contributions: on the face of it, Swinton should have been deducted 6 times 6 points
FWIW my understanding is that a petition is only presented when the hearing takes place, before that it is lodged pending that hearing. As all of the petitions were withdrawn before any hearing did take place then said petitions were not presented. Hence no points deduction would be initiated.
I find this speculation, including my own, to be a sad reflection on our attitudes towards the sport and clubs that we love.
| | | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 1795 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2011 | 14 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Apr 2021 | Jan 2021 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
54218_1349939535.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_54218.jpg |
|
| Insolvency is the inability to pay a debt or debts. The Insolvency Act essentially defines this as the inability to satisfy a statutory demand, a reasonable step so that frivolous petitions are not presented. A winding up petition can only be presented if the company is unable to pay its debts, in other words the insolvency event has already happened. HMRC follow the rules. They will normally have presented a statutory demand before issuing the winding up petition. This is acknowledged in the RFL rules of association as it includes "if any demand under section 123 of the insolvency act 1986 is served..." So as mentioned in my previous post, service of a statutory demand is sufficient, the insolvency event having already happened. Unless HMRC have not been issuing stat demands before WU petitions.
As nobody had come up with, for example a hidden section in the RFL constitution that states the RFL can do what it pleases in defining insolvency event irrespective of the sections I have quoted, and as noted before this is usually explicitly stated rather than hidden, the next thing to do is to write to the RFL and ask for clarification.
| | |
| |
|
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2024 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
4.18212890625:5
|
|
POSTS | ONLINE | REGISTRATIONS | RECORD | 19.65M | 1,931 ↓-30 | 80,155 | 14,103 |
| LOGIN HERE or REGISTER for more features!.
When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
|
RLFANS Match Centre
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1 | | PLD | F | A | DIFF | PTS |
Wigan |
29 |
768 |
338 |
430 |
48 |
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Hull KR |
29 |
731 |
344 |
387 |
44 |
Warrington |
29 |
769 |
351 |
418 |
42 |
Leigh |
29 |
580 |
442 |
138 |
33 |
Salford |
28 |
556 |
561 |
-5 |
32 |
St.Helens |
28 |
618 |
411 |
207 |
30 |
|
Catalans |
27 |
475 |
427 |
48 |
30 |
Leeds |
27 |
530 |
488 |
42 |
28 |
Huddersfield |
27 |
468 |
658 |
-190 |
20 |
Castleford |
27 |
425 |
735 |
-310 |
15 |
Hull FC |
27 |
328 |
894 |
-566 |
6 |
LondonB |
27 |
317 |
916 |
-599 |
6 |
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1 | | PLD | F | A | DIFF | PTS |
Wakefield |
27 |
1032 |
275 |
757 |
52 |
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Toulouse |
26 |
765 |
388 |
377 |
37 |
Bradford |
28 |
723 |
420 |
303 |
36 |
York |
29 |
695 |
501 |
194 |
32 |
Widnes |
27 |
561 |
502 |
59 |
29 |
Featherstone |
27 |
634 |
525 |
109 |
28 |
|
Sheffield |
26 |
626 |
526 |
100 |
28 |
Doncaster |
26 |
498 |
619 |
-121 |
25 |
Halifax |
26 |
509 |
650 |
-141 |
22 |
Batley |
26 |
422 |
591 |
-169 |
22 |
Swinton |
28 |
484 |
676 |
-192 |
20 |
Barrow |
25 |
442 |
720 |
-278 |
19 |
Whitehaven |
25 |
437 |
826 |
-389 |
18 |
Dewsbury |
27 |
348 |
879 |
-531 |
4 |
Hunslet |
1 |
6 |
10 |
-4 |
0 |
|