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?'"

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "You don’t say … as opposed to all the other SL clubs, who presumably decline to take their full allocation of Sky money as the season goes on… ?

Eh? You’ll have to restate that question in a way that makes sense.

We knew the RFL would pay wages etc to keep the club ticking over, and if necessary the RFL/SLE (through “Neonrain”) would even have acquired the club albeit on a temporary basis, the obvious reason being the integrity of the comp as opposed to one club dropping out. Do you think this is an insight or something? It isn’t.
Is that a fact? Well, I think I had better get off to the optician after this post because I am looking at them and clearly hallucinating. They stateIt's a statement of fact that the money paid to P$A was over and above the full allocation already taken by the club. You seem to think this amount of money should have been written off?'"

But you’re just stating the bleedin’ obvious, to the point of banality! And you are also skating over the fact that new owners, while not saving the old company (and so technically having no responsibility for its debts) nevertheless are expected by the RFL to offer to make payments despite tis total lack of obligation, and their proposals are part of the factors considered in deciding on sanctions.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "There was no expectation from the RFL. Any proposals put forward for dealing with liabilities were entirely the decision of prospective owners'"

You clearly don't! It states "[iAs part of the agreement and to meet the requirements of the RFL the purchasers are to make an offer to all ty does not say anything to the contraryrade creditors in the sum of 100p in the £[/i".

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "The RFL had no requirement regarding payment to creditors, and your letter says nothing to the contrary '"

Oops!

So, come on, was the administrator lying? Well?

Absolute tosh and nonsense, as if BBNL chooses to pay anything to anyone, then it is not part of the affairs of OKB. At all. MG is not involved personally for the first thing. Secondly, the payment would be from BBNL not MG personally. Thirdly neither MG nor BBNL are in any way a party to the administration.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "MG is SSG. He agreed the debenture deal. He placed OK Bulls into administration.'"

If for example Acme Pies were owed £1000 by OKB and BBNL want to continue to trade with Acme Pies then they might choose to make a payment equal to what Acme Pies were owed by OKB. This would not concern the administrator. He only distributes such funds (if any) remaining when he has got in THE DEBTS DUE TO OKB. Anything BBNL chooses to pay is clearly not in the category of debts due, because BBNL does not owe a penny of OKB’s debts. Which is kinda the whole point, as you yourself sort of pointed out, of MG Not buying and keeping alive OKB.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "You seem to be struggling with the fact that MG is SSG & BBNL. The scenario you paint above would be what a CVA would cover. A route MG chose not to employ as it would have meant spending money he did not wish to. He would have been aware of the level of funding required to ensure a reduction in the 6 point penalty, but instead chose to set up BBNL and begin with zero liabilities /quote]

But, as you’re seemingly a lawyer, if BBNL did choose to make the £1K payment to keep Acme Pies sweet, please enlighten us all what offence they would have committed?

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Perhaps you ought to read up on Insolvency?'"

If I felt sorry for Acme Pies, and sent them a cheque for £1K, would I be in jail too?

When Bullbuilder and others collected money and paid effectively some cash in lieu of wages to those who were working for nothing, and should have been paid by the club, did that make each person who put coppers in the bucket a criminal as well?

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Oh dear, you are being rather silly now'"

Were all the buckets delivered to the administrator so he could divide them between all creditors? We're gonna need a bigger jail.
We all know that the RFL plainly announced sanctions against BB2014, based on BB2014’s business plans etc. They announced so. We all thought BB2014 had bought the assets only it turned out that they actually hadn’t. But the penalty was announced aimed at BB2014 and not at OKB. BB2014, it turns out, obtained a licence to run the club from the RFL for 1 month. So they were RUNNING the club and had a licence to do so and as such were a temporary member, even though it turns out they did not own the club, although they had signed a (conditional) contract to do so. The end result was the de facto 6 points disappeared off the League table whilst BB2014 was operating under a temporary licence and therefore undoubtedly it was BB2014 which was sanctioned. However the sale fell through, the licence expired, and the operation of the club thus reverted to OKB, which was being run by the administrator. He appealed against the decision in that capacity, i.e. as the person running OKB, and did so in order to preserve any right of appeal as this might enhance the price he could sell the assets for, but the sanction was clearly not applied to OKB.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "No sanctions were announced against BB2014. The points deduction was made against OK Bulls and would have had to have been accepted by any potential new owner. It is exactly the same situation as the points deduction from BB Holdings. A points deduction was applied PRIOR to any change in ownership. You need to check your information.'"

No! OK owned the business until he sold the shares (if he did, that remains in litigation). The shares are of course not exactly worth a lot but the administrator RUNS the business and can SELL the business or parts but he never OWNS the business.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "There is no litigation in regard to any sale of shares of OK Bulls'"

I don’t think anyone on here claims BBNL were proposing to make any or any substantial payments to OKB creditors, simply because I’d have thought it would have been public knowledge if they did, but the fact is you are speculating, as no announcement has been made one way or the other. It would be interesting, when comparing the comments made by RFL re debtors, and indeed the quote from the administrator's letter that referenced RFL requirements, to know why different requirements would apply now.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "There is no speculation on my part. In order for any reconsideration of thepoints deduction to have taken effect, MG/BBNL would have had to make payments to creditors via the administrator. This has not and will not be happening.'"

As you so often do, you have it the wrong way round. The administrator tried to say OK was only owed £400K. (Without speaking to OK). OK insisted on a creditors meeting. At that meeting OK produced documentation evidencing his financial input and the administrator eventually revised and admitted OK’s claim at the increased figure of £1m approx.
The struggle is exclusively yours. The concept of a company being a legal person is one you need to get your head around. Until you do you’ll just keep looking increasingly silly.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Feel free to provide any evidence of this, such as a revised statement of proposals or any documentation/statement from the administrator'"

I have corrected so much of your misinformation that it seems pointless to repeat, as if you didn't bother to read the corrections first time, why would you now? Or maybe you just haven’t read it. But sticking just to this particular piece of your catalogue of misinformation, I am stating the facts, and you have it wrong. The position was summed up in a T&A report following the creditors meetingTo clarify, you are citing a newspaper report as evidence for your claim? Perhaps you could provide a link?'"