Points deduction poll

Quote: Adeybull "Probably worth another flying visit to make an observation or two here.

1 - Please state precisely what the "huge amount of funds [the RFL] had to pay the administrator to prevent liquidation" was? Since you would clearly seem to know.

Quote: Adeybull "This refers to the period of administration handled by P%A partnership. The RFL funded the club every month, all money being over and above the allocated share of SKy money which the business had already been given'"

The Administration Order was granted on 26/6/12. OKB acquired the assets from the Joint Administrators on 31/8/12. Statements made at the time made it clear that the RFL was continuing to pay - to the Joint Administrators - the monthly Sky monies due to a SL club. The Joint Administrators sacked the non-playing staff, and ensured they incurred no costs beyond those that were absolutely essential. A lot of people volunteered their services for free. They continued to receive gate receipts, plus the gate receipts payment from Leeds.

Quote: Adeybull "See above. It is also worth noting that the RFL had to begin funding OK Bulls at the time OK stepped down. You may be interested to learn that, for example, Gerry Sutcliffe had no intention of ever investing any of his own money into OK Bulls, and he also believed the RFL should have paid the £170,000 HMRC debt as they were funding the club. This opinion came to my attention via a copy of a recording of a meeting with Gerry Sutcliffe. '"

So, are you asking us to believe that, over a NINE WEEK PERIOD the RFL had to pay the Joint Administrators a further c. £1.3m? To "prevent liquidation"? When, in any case, the Joint Administrators were legally charged with trying to secure a going concern sale if possible, and there were clearly parties interested in acquiring the going concern from quite early on?

Quote: Adeybull "In terms of the OK Bulls administration, at least 5 months of central funding had to be put into the business to allow it to continue to operate. Don't forget that the business had almost zero cash flow, other than match day gate takings.'"

And nowhere in any of the reports of the Joint Administrators do we see any reference to any such receipts? Certainly on this scale. Even if what the RFL paid over that period was NEW money, it beggars belief that it could be anything approaching £1.3m - does it not?

Quote: Adeybull "The RFL isn't a creditor of Ok Bulls. The funding received by the business in both periods of administration is included in the financial statements and accounts of both administrators. Had the RFL not stepped in with central funding, both BB Holdings & Ok Bulls would have been liquidated within 1 month of entering administration.'"

Unless you have more information on this allegation than you have already shared, what you say would seem to be totally absurd.

2. Even if WAS some factual basis to what you say, and if perchance the RFL WAS recouping a seven-figure sum it had had to pay to "persuade" the Joint Administrators - then the RFL would have RETAINED the money confiscated from future owners. Wouldn't it?

Quote: Adeybull "In terms of OK Bulls, funding that had been used to sustain BB Holdings was retained, hence the reduced funding available to OK Bulls.'"

NOT ALLOWED ALL THE OTHER CLUBS TO APPROPRIATE IT AND SHARE IT AMONGST THEMSELVES.

Quote: Adeybull "This is an urban myth'"

And take a seven-figure hit in it's annual accounts.

Is there any part of that argument that is not irrefutable?

Is there any way that subsequent events did not totally debunk your assertion?

3 - Strange that someone chooses to come on here, just now, at this particular time, seeking to try and justify the actions taken by the RFL (acts of both commission and omission)? Acts which which, with the clear benefit of hindsight, would seem to have been instrumental in bringing about the present disastrous (and quite likely irretrievable) situation? And giving the clear impression of seeking to rewrite history to attempt to retrospectively justify some of the absurd and seemingly irresponsible actions that were taken?

Quote: Adeybull "The actions of the RFL require no justification. It is the actions of the owners of the operating companies that require justification. The RFL has more than adequately supported the Bradford Bulls, not only in terms of securing the Odsal Stadium lease for the next 140 years, but in terms of funding both businesses in order that they could function as Super league clubs whilst in administration and continue to do so once new operating companies had taken over the business.'"

4 - I also note, in passing, that a guy who will assuredly know where the bodies are buried, and whose recollection of the actual events would surely make VERY interesting reading (and clear up what the hell actually DID happen and what is still happening), has just been appointed - internally - to a new, ongoing senior role within the RFL/SL structure. So I guess that's a ship that will never dock, at least for the foreseeable future?

Quote: Adeybull "It is abundantly clear what did happen. The board of BB Holdings operated the business using an unsustainable business model that required them to seek substantial assistance from the RFL. The board of OK Bulls operated an unsustainable business model that again required assistance from the RFL to ensure the club survived.'"

If a club owner puts his club into administration, then buys the assets off the administrator and carries on through a phoenix company, then the points deduction should not be six points. It should be much more. Because he has secured a big financial advantage at the expense of creditors. Indeed, I would argue any such proposal should not even be allowed to proceed.

Quote: Adeybull "The six point sanction was applied to OK Bulls. MG did not own the business when he placed it into administration. MG did not buy the assets from the administrator. He was the sole preferred creditor and the assets were transferred to BBNL in settlement of the debt owed by OK Bulls.'"

But where totally unconnected new owners seek to make a go of it, buying the net assets off an Administrator, it is patently ABSURD to severely penalise THEM - both in competition points AND massively financially - for something they were in no way responsible for. Indeed, I can think of little that would be more likely to deter precisely the kind of prospective new owners the RFL should be seeking to attract!

Quote: Adeybull "You must remember that OK secured the assets, players & goodwill of an admittedly huge Super League brand for just £250,000. He was able to do so because the RFL had funded the lengthy administration of BB Holdings. OK was fully aware of the central funding available prior to agreeing to take over the club. The RFL was unable to simply write off the money it had pumped into the club during administration. It is absurd that anyone should think this would be acceptable.'"

Absurd. Totally absurd.

And, before anyone says "ah, well the new owners will have paid sod all for the net assets, precisely because they knew they would be so penalised", let's kill THAT nonsense off quite easilySee above'"

So the new owners are effectively paying a sum of money for NET LIABILITIES. AND with severe future penalties to overcome. Can someone tell me who the hell in their right mind, acting commercially, would want to do that?

Quote: Adeybull "The administrator valued the assets of BB Holdings at £3m. OK was able to purchase these assets for less than 10% of that valuation. OK was fully aware of all terms prior to buying the assets and taking over the Super League licence'"

Would you?

FWIW, I am expecting that, when history comes to be written, the actions of the RFL over a protracted period (including approving OK as an appropriate new owner) will be seen to have turned an ongoing crisis (a cris, let's be clear, caused entirely by incompetant and irresponsible club managements and ownerships not the RFL) into a total unmitigated disaster.

Quote: Adeybull "To be clear, you are blaming the RFL for OK being allowed to take over Bradford Bulls? On the other hand it's the RFL's fault for allowing him to take over, and it's the RFL's fault for him agreeing to the terms of the takeover?'"