My thoughts. Green seemed defensive. Carter came across very well and can't really disagree with Carter said. Seems very level headed.
The sky money is a separate issue. End of day he is right, it is unfair if we went into admin and didnt get punished.

Just watched Boots N All,did I miss where Carter thanked the Bulls for donating 100 grand to them.Me thinks Carter chooses to ignore that fact

The Bulls have every right to appeal if it's in the rules. Every other side -like Green said- signed up to the same rules at the start of the season. Therefore, every team has to abide by the appeals panel's decision. They'll either find in our favour or not in our favour. It really is as simple as that.

Carter just looks unprofessional crying like a spoilt brat. But let's get this straight he's put his own house up for capital to keep wakefield going. We all know now you should live within your means wakefield are clearly not . They've been in admin twice already. Unprofessional in the extreme to gamble like that. Cut your cloth carter before crying to the media. He'll reap what he's sowing alright

We had a fairly well balanced viewpoint from Marc Green, who as you said was a bit on the defensive side which is quite understandable in the circumstances.

Carter on the other hand, didn't do his silly campaign against us any favours, for which I personally am quite happy about.
For example the amount they owed HMRC was in excess of £300k, and I assume the other £250k was to stave of the 9 CCJs, plus I understand Sir Rodney Walker loaned them cash.

Reported in a Wakefield paper last August>
Wakefield Trinity Wildcats were half-an-hour from becoming a Championship One club according to chairman Michael Carter.
In an exclusive interview with the Wakefield Express this week, Carter explains how close Trinity came to going into administration and falling out of Super League.
Looking back on the moment in August when he and director Chris Brereton took over at the club, Carter said: “We were half-an-hour from going into administration. Me and Chris were sat there at the point where we had to sign up to get a loan from the RFL and we both thought: ‘Are we going to do this or not?’ We believed what we could do at the club and we believed that we could take the loan and pay it back over the next 18 months but it was that close.

And previous report from Andrew Glover.
The Wildcats were faced with a winding-up petition from HM Revenue and Customs over an unpaid tax bill of more than £300,000 and their financial difficulties resurfaced recently when Glover revealed the club had been the subject of nine county court judgments.
Unquote:

Of course the putting up the Houses is a bit of a Red Herring, how is that anything to do with our appeal? When Carter has stated that they knew it could be paid off in 18 months. From the money coming into the club?

ie Full Sky money of £1.2 million per year, an extra £100k fromthe share out of Bulls sky package, plus of course the additional £300k from the pre Sky payment this year and a further £100k in July.
Grand total £1.7m !

Mr Carter I am not impressed with your assessment????

Carter put his house up not to keep us going but against not being able to fulfil his obligations to the RFL.
As for living within you means, don't think you can preach.
Carter said that they spend half of the 300,000 extra money on repaying the loan to the RFL, I would say that's pretty responsible.
The Bulls have right to appeal but they are in a no lose situation regarding the points deduction, it can't be increased only reduced.

Wakefield weren't living within their means then you just said it. You reap what you sow.

Cut your cloth accordingly and stop looking for credit it's what you are supposed to do.



If your supporters club are going to write ill informed letters about the rules being followed you can't then whinge about the rules being followed. Trying to attempt to sway the independent panel's decision could backfire.

I just don't see how he can keep a straight face when the grounds of your appeal is force majeure!

surely the only way you can justify getting points back is by paying some of the creditors. If that was the basis of your appeal, then I don't think there could be any complaint about you getting 2 back

Depends what the circumstances of the losses were. Which is why it's going to appeal. Which, as a member club/chairman, Wakey/Mr carter have already signed up to abide by their decision.

The cost of the appeal is met by the party making the appeal, so it is incorrect to say there is no downside.

Sorry didn't realise you've been involved with the management of the bulls and know everything that went on.

So what part of the sorry mess was unforseen and unavoidable?

I guess it was forseen and unavoidable you Wakie lot would be on here talking crap

Dunno. But Mr Green thinks it was unavoidable, and he wasn't the owner at the time, although as the debenture holder, he put them into administration. So he must have demonstrable concerns which he feels will hold up at a tribunal.

And as members of SL, all 14 clubs are contractually bound to abide by the appeal decision. So thats ok as well.

We have been in admin and ended up selling some of our players.
To ensure we didn't go into admin last year, MC did cut our cloth accordingly.
As for calling Wake unprofessional, I think everyone and his dog knows we have been run badly for ages.
Bradford now have been in admin twice in about 3 years and the only player you lost first time round was Kopczak and you moaned like mad at that.
Didn't see any major cost cutting after this and this is probably why you are now where you are.
The letter that was wrote maybe ill informed but isn't this why MC asked for clarification from the RFL on what the consequences of administration are?
To get a Super League licence your finances had to be vetted by the RFL, yet 3 or 4 months into the first season you went into admin.
Marc Green can put his case forward for the Bulls and whatever the outcome of the decision is, the RFL needs to have in place in black and white, the penalties for entering admin and not play guessing games.

Tricky0.2309 I asked the same (good) question when the appeal was announced, or rather that the RFL agreed that there was a basis for an appeal to go ahead. From that wording it would seem to me that the RFL check that there are grounds for an appeal and that its not frivolous. However as you point out it is not obvious what the force majeur was. the only thing I can think of is OK not fufilling his obligations under the deal struck to transfer ownership, under which the trio presumably would have taken on responsibility for payments, including to HMRC. They did make their position clear, no ownership no responsibility and had indeed already resigned once over the issue, for an agreement to then be brokered by the RFL. All conjecture, anybody else any idea of what the force majeur or uncontrollable external event was?

No one is preaching, maybe just pointing out that it's best if people in glass houses don't throw stones.