So what are the figures, pray tell?

I don’t accept your basic premise. But if the RFL pay money for RFL purposes then we call that “expenditure”. It isn’t a case of “writing it off”, they do what they think they can and should do. Why should anyone else repay them?


I see, so now you say the RFL had also lied about this to the administrators. Why would the administrator lie about that? I mean, what in that particular case would be the point?


You are being perverse. Or which bit of “the requirements of the RFL” mean there was no such requirement?


No, legally MG is not SSG. Stop trying to plait fog.

No, they are legally separate and distinct self-contained persons. Why keep repeating rubbish? Your repetition will not reverse the effect of incorporation in English law. Once incorporated a company is as much an individual legal entity as MG. The whole point of incorporation is to create a separate legal personality which is therefore responsible (eg) for its debts. MG would not, for example, be remotely responsible for SSG debts. Why is that, if MG “is” SSG”? Anyway I refuse to entertain this idiotic line of “argument any further, if you can’t understand that a company is legally a person then I can’t waste any more time teaching you. You can’t educate pork.

Heheh so you can’t actually come up with what offence would in your view be committed. Piszpoor attempt at a swerve.



No, you need to learn how to use a thing called a “calendar”.

All I can say is “liar”. There most certainly is, and it is defended. Why pretend you know something, when you actually know nothing about the point? Idiot.


I have provided a direct reference from the press report (which has not been contradicted). Though that was not the source of my reliable information. I think it is your turn to produce something to the contrary, don’t you, if you want to persist in your delusion?

I am stating the fact. It was reported in the press but the facts are as I have said. Accept it, or don’t, but as you have NOTHING to the contrary (and could not have, since the contrary is not the case) perhaps you should give some serious thought to listening to people who know what they are talking about.


No, it is not a disagreement, I am stating the facts and you are issuing hopeless contradictions despite it just being pure supposition on your part. You do not have an arguable position, worthy of meriting a “disagreement”. You have nothing.


Neither. You should read what people who know what they are talking about say, and learn from it, instead of vainly churning out stuff which you know is just speculation by you, as if you had some information on these things. You don’t.

So why did they lodge a claim around £900k the evening before the creditors meeting, and which they were allowed by the administrator to vote?


No, it is the direct evidence of those present. Whitcut is not claiming to be spreading

Heheh. Very good. But that isn’t how it works. You – whoever you are- do not get to decree what is “unfounded” just because you say so! How absurd! How on earth would YOU know whether Whitcut’s claims were founded or unfounded? Are you a parrot, that sits on his shoulder? Did you have him constantly bugged? Come on, we’d like to know!



It happened and has been reported. How much do you need? Why are you doubting it?

Unless the Law has changed in the last few days - MG isnt BB/SG

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 is a landmark UK company law case. The effect of the Lords' unanimous ruling was to uphold firmly the doctrine of corporate personality, as set out in the Companies Act 1862, so that creditors of an insolvent company could not sue the company's shareholders to pay up outstanding debts.

As insults go, that's pretty low.

Admittedly, just about everything from the last few pages has gone right over my head; but I must say it's been jolly good bants, chaps!

I dont think that anyone would argue with the doctrine of corporate personality. It is its applicability outside corporate law that is more the issue. For example Directors cannot under the Health and Safety legislation blame the corporate personality for any failures. The points penalty etc are all within sports law, the applicable laws being the RFL rules which all participants agree to as a condition of that participation. Those rules apply to all forms of ownership, including associations as well as limited companies. Whatever the de jure legal form of the businesses, there is no doubt that MG is the de facto controller of them. And it has to be the case. whilst SSG may have a legal personality, it is not a person, and so cannot of itself do anything. Hence other areas of law go past that legal personality and operate on the people that control it.

So who is it a creditor of? It need to be against the appropriate organisation, yet you seem to think that (by law) you can keep requesting payment from any regime, regardless of who owned the club at the time the debt was run up. This is poor form, again, as I state earlier the RFL believes that they are more entitled to reclaim their money over HMRC. When in fact the RFL uses their power of being the rule maker and demands the new owners pay what is owed by the old owners. Anyone who doesn't agree to this fails to be given acceptance by the RFL to run the club (Bully tactics)



I disagree. I know that this correspondence has been passed to other chairmen of other SL clubs, who already have a pretty low opinion of certain 'goings on' at Red Hall. Surely the RFL would prefer to quash all allegations, but instead, they (you) would rather it just quietly went away.



I'm pretty confident that this is not the case, especially given the fact that this was the reason the new board quit the club. If they were aware of the 6 point deduction, then took over the club, to then quit because they received a 6 point deduction, well you see my logic. Also, why would the 6 point deduction apply to any other party? This is making an assumption that no bidder would pay back any monies owed, which is a big assumption to make.



rlhttp://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/11178165.Former_Bulls_boss_pursued_for___905_000_by_Rugby_Football_League/rl

Also, I thought you said earlier that the RFL was not a creditor of OK Bulls? Yet in the press release above there are direct quotes from Solly himself stating that the RFL lodged with the administrator that they were owed £900,00

“They (OK Bulls Ltd) are entitled to contest the claim, but we have to let the administrator know what we think is owed to us.”

I do hope you are the one defending the RFL at the appeal hearing.....

So to recap on this point, the RFL put in a late claim for £900K, were (surprisingly) allowed to vote to that figure, there were reports in the press of this happening, OK stated this to be the case, Balke Solly insisted the RFL were a creditor and that was reported too.

Yet our new friend simply claims the RFL isn't a creditor. Puzzling behaviour, as is the dweeb's sudden explosion into life, reminiscent of a supernova, never previously seen. Like a supernova, the output is largely uncontrolled and impervious to fact and reason. My theory is that dweeb is in fact from the Planet Dweeb, which is in a parallel universe that has fleetingly made contact with ours, and on his planet, none of the factual events here on Earth did in fact take place. This would explain, for example, Dweeb's potato-like inability to assimilate even blatant facts. If I am right, then as the connection is broken, Dweeb will disappear as quickly as he came, and blissfully complete his existence on his world, where rugby balls are square, Mother Theresa chairs SLE and Nigel Wood models for Primark swimsuits.

You've not read The Dweeb, then!


The simple proposition refuted was MG "is" SSG (or presumably, for that matter, that he "is" BBNL). He isn't, but you'll not convince the Dweeb

Think he would prefer a pie to swimwear to be honest, or several after being slammed as a disgrace to his profession earlier

Too many words in this thread now. It hurts my head. Can someone synopsise for me please?

According to the dweeb, the points penalty was applied to OKbulls, yet clearly and publicly the RFL, Ralph Rimmer specifically, stated that the factors within the decision were the businessplan and contribution to previous creditors by BB2014.

So whomever this person is, expects that it is acceptable and normal and all within the plan, to penalise OKbulls for the actions of bb2014 who never owned the club and apply that penalty to completely new member in BBNL

The RFL should really learn it's much easy to admit your Fack up and start again, than try to defend an obvious Fack up

You're wasting your time FA - the man has the ability to write but clearly has no ability to read and comprehend.

What was that old expression, something about there being none so blind as those who [idon't want[/i to see?

And so it is because tonight, Matthew, Marc Green [sizeIS[/size OKB. And SSG. And BBNL. And BB2014. And Astra Zeneca. And HSBC. And....

So when is the decision on the points deduction?The sooner the better, as could cause lots of friction if bulls stayed up by a point, if given all 6 back. Even with all 6 back, it will be still difficult with the squad.