God I must sound like a broken record but nobody is clarifying my point...

The criteria outlined yesterday were for a NEW rugby club to be admitted were they not? We are talking about an EXISTING club, so those criteria may very well not even apply to this scenario!

Secondly, if we are to believe that Chalmers and Lowe's bid was approved by the RFL, then they supposedly passed the fit and proper persons test despite their past dealings, so who's to actually say Green wouldn't pass? Who knows what the criteria for the fit and proper persons test actually is?

Players "selfish"? WTF?

On what basis would a player being effectively offered continued employment at the club where he plays be "selfish" to sign up?

What would they suggest? "No way, not unless the people who got the last company into administration pay off all that company's debts, I prefer to lose my job and my house and send the wife down the dole office, cos I'm not 'selfish', me. Never mind that the deal complies fully with English law and is passed by the RFL, there's a guy on the internet who would call me selfish if I keep my job so no, that's a red line for me, that guy".

Good points. I sort of expected the criteria that were online yesterday wouldn't be too different to what they were working to previously. You'd kind of expect them to be the same or similar.

Point about Chalmers is well made considering his past of failed businesses and people being left out of pocket. If he passed the fit and proper test then the test isn't really that good and we can't assume Green would fail it either based on what's known.

Why didn't the RFL publish the criteria for the fit and proper person test? We could speculate...

No you don't, but there are still many on the forum saying "Green can't be involved", so just wanted to point out that for Newco the RFL have left themselves a nice little loophole to jump through to refer to if Richardson can bring us out of admin...

Fax Fan "Argh!!! Green's involved!!! 24 points!!!! Sacrifice the Tea-Lady naked on Rooley Terracing and start in the lowest pennine league div!!!! Anything else is favouritism!!!!!!"

RFL "We are satisfied he'll have no influence. Move along now..."

Indeed. One of the things that gets me through the current carnage is just how miserable they must be. If we do stop existing, I'll be at fax games in my red amber and black. I can cope with putting a few quid into their club for the good of rugby league if I get to remind them that they still fundamentally hate themselves.

You're confusing club and company/owner. There is no way the legal entity i.e. BBHL will be bought and continue to trade. A new entity (Bradford Bulls Capital Ltd) will be the "owner". But that business can legally buy the whole, or any part of the old business from the administrator.

For internal purposes when the RFL talk about the club they effectively mean what used to be called the "franchise", it isn't a legal entity. But it was thus BBHL that ceased to be a member and it would be BBCL that would be applying to be admitted; on the basis that if admitted they play under the existing franchise, or club.

Think of it this way - if it was both a new owner AND a new club in RFL terms, that would be like saying they were passing on the Bulls franchise, but instead starting from scratch as Bradford Phoenix or whatever. The RFL see the value in keeping "the club" ie a Bulls franchise alive and that for I think obvious reasons suits the new potential owners too.

In The T & A it states that the bid that collapsed Monday night is this bidder that we are left with now.
Obviously Green and the Admin have opted to take less / shares as opposed to nothing which now makes it viable for them.

This deal if i'm right was already ok'd by the RFL which is probably why they are success in buying the domain, and setting up a new limited company.

If this is the case there is no underhandedness afoot they have just managed to come in with a new bid before the liquidation paperwork was filed.

As someone else said the players will sign upto it as they A) get paid B) are no worse of than what they agreed before.

I just hope that if we do have a new owner they have the best interests of the club at heart, want us to succeed and if they want Odsal develop it they do what's right by all involved.

I also hope they have money to do all this and Green is a very silent partner that never steps foot in the stadium again.

Richardson is worth about £50m. Don't know about Thorne.

Thanks FA that's the kind of response I've been waiting for. I had a feeling i was misunderstanding things and was looking for someone knowledgeable enough to clear it up for me!

So just to clarify, is the "club" effectively just an alias for the holding company? Therefore when the RFL grants membership it is to that holding company who are simply "also known as" the club?

This a defintion of "significant influence" which is used for accounting purposes.

Significant Influence

The existence of the ability to exercise significant influence is an important concept in relation to this standard. It is one of the two criteria stipulated in the definition of a related party, which when present would, for the purposes of this standard, make one party related to another. In other words, for the purposes of this standard, if one party is considered to have the ability to exercise significant influence over another, then the two parties are considered to be related.

The existence of the ability to exercise significant influence may be evidenced in one or more of the following ways :

By representation on the board of directors of the other entity;
By participation in the policy-making process of the other entity;
By having material intercompany transactions between two entities;
By interchange of managerial personnel between two entities; or
By dependence on another entity for technical information
Significant influence may be gained through agreement, by statute, or by means of share ownership. Under the provisions of IAS 24, similar to the presumption of significant influence under IAS 28, an entity is deemed to possess the ability to exercise significant influence if it directly or indirectly through subsidiaries holds 20% or more of the voting power of another entity (unless it can be clearly demonstrated that despite holding such voting power the investor does not have the ability to exercise significant influence over the investee).

Conversely, if an entity, directly or indirectly through subsidiaries, owns less than 20% of the voting power of another entity, it is presumed that the investor does not possess the ability to exercise significant influence (unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the investor does have such an ability despite holding less than 20% of the voting power).

Further, while explaining the concept of significant influence, IAS 28 also clarifies that “a substantial or majority ownership by another investor does not necessarily preclude an investor from having significant influence” (emphasis added).

V helpful ta.

You could take £50 million as enough money..
If they are both loaded it could be the shot in the arm needed.
About 4 or 5 class players to bring in now.

Sorry for going off topic bowlingboy do you know when the challenge cup game against kells will be being played?

At this stage morals and integrity can go do one. If there's someone with a bit of brass willing to invest let them get on with it and let's get a team on the field to support. If it winds the hand-wringing cloth-cutters up then so be it.