Points deduction poll

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Nonsense. It was a financial sanction and of course that is in the rules. The RFL only used some money which would have been due to the club anyway and no funds outside that. It did not "prevent liquidation". Why would the RFL care whether or not the old company was liquidated anyway?

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "BB Holdings had taken the full allocation of Sky money due before admin came. The RFL pumping in money via P&A prevented BB Holdings being liquidated. Had liquidation occurred as a result of no money being put in by the RFL, the club would have disappeared altogether. The money was a stay of execution that eventually brought about a transfer of all assets & players to a new operating company of OK Bulls. If it were, as you say, Sky money that was due, then why is it an issue that OK Bulls was not given the money twice over? The RFL had simply advanced money, approx. £170k a month to P&A, plus paying all their extortionate fees. There is nothing in the RFL Operational Rules that specifies financial sanction upon administration.'"

Nonsense. The issue with BBH was that there were so many shareholders it was a company which, if kept alive, was uncontrollable. No new owner for BBH ever did come forward. Not even its main shareholder Mr Caisley who effectively brought the old company down.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "BB H wasn't kept alive because the debts were such that no potential owner would consider buying the old company & attempting to pay them off, even at a reduced rate. No sane businessman would take on debts & ongoing liabilities they had not accrued.'"

So in his original letter to all creditors, the administrator blatantly lied, did he?

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Got a copy of this letter?'"

But those two things are totally unrelated. You really don't understand anything, do you. Look, whether or not Green's company pays anything to creditors IS NOTHING REPEAT NOTHING TO DO WITH the administrator. If they did, they would do so direct.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "This is where you seem to be getting lost. The administrator is responsible for handling ALL the affairs of OK Bulls. It is he who decides which creditors, if any are to be paid. It would be illegal for MG to pay creditors without doing so via the administrator. The 6 point sanction was applied to OK Bulls whilst it was being controlled by the administrator. He effectively owns the business & would have to be paid any money offered by MG. As the sanction was applied to OK Bulls, the RFL is legally unable to recognise any money not paid through the administrator to OK Bulls creditors. MG has no intention of paying OK Bulls creditors, he knows this would have to be done through the administrator he appointed, and is why he is going down the force majeure route. A damn sight cheaper for sure./quote]

So, in your head, OK's £1 million doesn't count, because... ? I would suggest that his £1m is a slightly bigger contribution than his ego, in this farrago.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "OK's £1m? Analysis of OK Bulls finances by the administrator reduces this to £400k.'"

Nonsense. MG is a legal entity. SSG is a separate legal entity. You need to try to understand that a limited company IS A LEGAL PERSON IN ITS OWN RIGHT. It may be CONTROLLED by one or more persons, but they and the company are not the same thing. Of course the officers of a company must execute any legal documents. Seeing as a company cannot write.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "MG is SSG in the same way that OK was OK Bulls. You really are struggling with this aren't you?'"

Oh, and if MG is "paying out of his own pocket" as you weirdly claim - then WHAT is he paying? You just said he isn't paying anything, which is why it's 6 points!

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "MG has publicly stated on TV & radio that he is funding the appeal against the 6 point sanction from his own pocket. I make it quite clear what he is paying for.'"

I don't have any prblem at all with either facts or valid arguments. You seem to me be someone who does have some information, but doesn't understand that information properly, and lack key information too. Maybe you should get someone who does know what they're talking about to explain it to you as you are struggling. Also, don't get so bristly and defensive. If you state either correct information or even tell me something I didn't know then fine. I have no axe to grind, but do dislike misinformation.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Misinformation? Feel free to point any out from me. No lack of understanding of what has actually occurred either. OK's £1m is misinformation from you. based on you simply passing on what you have heard, rather than from fact checked details....?'"

'"
'"