Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"But they didn't, and that's just one of the obvious inconsistencies.
I hesitate to add any facts for your information any more, as it seems to annoy people, yet posting incorrect "facts" (not aimed at you btw) weirdly does not seem to have the same effect.
But many on here and the VT will tell you that the club - meaning OKB - were docked 6 points pretty much automatically "for going into administration". They reckon it's the deal. Go into admin, that's like your fixed penalty.
if that is true, then why didn't it happen?
OK Bulls went into administration on 31 January 2014. No sanction was applied to it. Not then, not ever.
It was on February 25th, 5 days after BB2014 had been announced as the winners of the auction, that the 6 point penalty was announced and implemented. And it is certain, however many times the misinformants want to claim this is some sort of fixed penalty, that it is no such thing, but that it was arrived at only after taking into account the proposals and plans of BB2014 i.e. NOT as a quid pro quo "for OKB going into admin":
Of course we now know (and the RFL presumably knew then) that they were not in fact the cub's directors, as they owned nothing, they were directors of BB2014 which had won the bid but was only in a conditional waiting period, and being allowed to run the business effectively as caretakers for the administrator, in case a better bid came along.
These remarks are concrete proof that the 6 points was based on the RFL's dim view of what BB2014 proposed to do about debts/ business plans. NOTHING mentioned about OKB.
It is hardly semantics to point out that it MUST follow, like night and day, that if the RFL HAD been more impressed, then we would not have been docked the full 6 points. (For Bradford to NOT drop off debt as a result of the administration would NOT have significantly impaired the integrity of the competition, so a lesser or nil points deduction would logically be fair).
Otherwise, the RFL have tied the two things (proposals & plans / points penalty) together for no apparent reason. Which clearly isn't the case.
I see this as a fundamental and massively important fact, for the club and the fans. If I need to spell it out, it MUST mean that (if the process is to be done consistently and fairly) the RFL needed to do exactly the same routine with the new new owners - BBNL - and base a new decision on exactly the same sort of factors, as they announced prematurely would apply to BB2014 (but never did, as they never owned the club).'"
The RFL has been consistent in the timing and level of punishment in both cases of administration at the Bulls. The first time round the penalty was announced in roughly the same timescale, give or take 2/3 days as the second.
First time round there was no prospect of a new owner, the RFL was funding the business and creditors were not going to be paid a penny. Liquidation was the outcome for the holding company.
Second time round, although there was a prospect of new owners, they were not taking over the existing holding company. This was the case with OK. He set up a new holding company, as did Moore et al. No creditors were to be paid a penny. The only difference is the timing of the new holding company seeking to take over.
The new holding company owned by Marc Green has no intention of paying any creditors of OK Bulls, so the 6 point penalty is absolutely correct & consistent.
Both OK & MG have taken control of the assets through new holding companies. No creditors have been paid. The penalty imposed is exactly the same, and done in the same timescale.
MG has no chance of getting any points back. he deliberately placed OK Bulls into administration to protect his debenture, therefore it was not unforeseen or unavoidable.
