FORUMS > Bradford Bulls > Points deduction poll |
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 1722 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Oct 2010 | 14 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2018 | Oct 2017 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
53369_1372166245.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_53369.jpg |
|
| Quote: OFFTHECUFF "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.'"
Hearing and decision is the week leading up to the Wakefield game (1st June), according to our RFL poster
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 3941 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2010 | 15 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2024 | Jun 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: daveyz999 "Hearing and decision is the week leading up to the Wakefield game (1st June), according to our RFL poster'"
The sooner the better mate. Got a soft spot for Bradford, as always down to earth fans and i rather you stayed up though. But unless get a run of wins soon it will be very tough. Cheers anyway.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Moderator | 10969 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2023 | Jun 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
1271.jpg Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain
Build Bridges NOT Walls:1271.jpg |
Moderator
|
| Quote: daveyz999 "Hearing and decision is the week leading up to the Wakefield game (1st June), according to our RFL poster'"
Why do I have so little confidence he's got that bit right either....?
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 1722 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Oct 2010 | 14 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2018 | Oct 2017 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
53369_1372166245.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_53369.jpg |
|
| Quote: Bulliac "Why do I have so little confidence he's got that bit right either....?'"
He seemed confident (although confidence doesn't seem to be something he/she lacks).
The poster does seem privy to information, although I don't think he was expecting [imere fans[/i to know certain 'truths' relating to the recent on-goings, hence his contradicting posts and continual failed attempt to prove that Bradford Bulls (regardless of ownership) owed the RFL money for paying wages.
He has also gone quiet on the claims that the clubs received a share of the money held back from OK Bulls.
|
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 4035 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Sep 2024 | Jan 2023 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
30148_1289234681.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_30148.jpg |
|
| Well my poll thread has certainly taken an unexpected turn. Mr Dweeb, if not Blake Solly, is clearly someone from or connected to the RFL and has had sight of, or knows people personally, who have had sight of documents and conversations not in the public domain.
Which they are now using on here to paint the RFL's side of events as having no blame or fault or any wrongdoing whatsoever. (even if some of the "help" was in of itself clearly counter productive)
Disappointing. Im not getting involved in a semantic argument with anybody, but the two points that stand out for me are;
- "Urban myth" that other teams got our allocation shared??!?
- Did the RFL or did they not suggest admin as Bb2014 say?
One side is clearly lying.
The whole affair has beaten me down, and I suspect Im not alone (anyone suprised at the low attendances this year needs to give their head a shake btw), I now fully expect the "independent" appeal panel to side fully with Mr Dweeb and the RFL and uphold the 6 points. We'll struggle on, pick up a couple of wins but it wont be enough to avoid the inevitable. I suspect on 2nd of June we will need to begin preparations for competing in tier 2 next season. And to be frank, I'm almost past caring, (very definately the wrong word but im not sure how else to put it when you care so much that you just want he suffering to end) just get the appeal done, get this season done, and hopefully we can move on and rebuild with a sustainable club in the 2nd tier and look to get back up at some point in the future.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 322 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2014 | 10 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Sep 2014 | Sep 2014 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: daveyz999 "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)
Quote: daveyz999 "You do realise the RFL pumped in money to keep Bradford Bulls in operation via the administrator? BB Holdings are nothing to do with any money handed to he administrator. The reduction in funding to OK Bulls was nota payment for BB Holdings liabilities. OK knew the terms, how was he bullied in any way into accepting them?'"
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.
Quote: daveyz999 "Have you got any copies of this correspondence?'"
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.
Quote: daveyz999 "The sanction was against OK Bulls. The 6 point deduction was notified to BB2014 and it was made clear that this would be a condition of any takeover'"
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.”
Quote: daveyz999 "The original plan was that OK Bulls would receive Sky money in the 2nd year of new ownership. Ok requested that this be brought forward so 50% was received in year 1. This was agreed that, if OK Bulls were to enter administration within 2 years, the whole amount would be due to the RFL. OK Bulls received £900,000 in year 1. OK personally guaranteed the £900,000 would be repaid should the business go into administration. The money was given to OK Bulls, but the business is not liable for the debt, so the RFL is technically not a creditor.'"
I do hope you are the one defending the RFL at the appeal hearing.....'"
|
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 322 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2014 | 10 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Sep 2014 | Sep 2014 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: SmokeyTA "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'"
The sanction was applied to OK Bulls. BB2014 had the opportunity to reduce that sanction upon takeover. As no creditors were to be paid, the maximum sanction was upheld. Quite simple really. The sanction applied to OK Bulls remained in situ and was upjheld upon the takeover by BBNL.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 9986 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2005 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2019 | Aug 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
13747_1541715311.jpg [b:3g5rrn89](and I feel fine)[/b:3g5rrn89]:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_13747.jpg |
|
| Quote: LeagueDweeb "The sanction was applied to OK Bulls. BB2014 had the opportunity to reduce that sanction upon takeover. As no creditors were to be paid, the maximum sanction was upheld. Quite simple really. The sanction applied to OK Bulls remained in situ and was upjheld upon the takeover by BBNL.'"
I can't believe I am getting involved in all this but....
Was it? Was the sanction applied to OK Bulls? When were "OK Bulls" who no longer owned the Bulls told of this sanction? And when were BB2014 told that they were taking on the sanction applied to another owner regardless? Before they agreed to take it on, or after?
|
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 1722 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Oct 2010 | 14 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2018 | Oct 2017 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
53369_1372166245.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_53369.jpg |
|
| Quote: LeagueDweeb "You do realise the RFL pumped in money to keep Bradford Bulls in operation via the administrator? BB Holdings are nothing to do with any money handed to he administrator. The reduction in funding to OK Bulls was nota payment for BB Holdings liabilities. OK knew the terms, how was he bullied in any way into accepting them?'"
I do realise money was pumped into BB Holdings. What I don't realise is how the debt could manifest its way onto the new owner of the club?
Again, now we have gone through another 2 admins, the debt to the RFL still appears to be there. The RFL have somehow guaranteed their cash, above any creditor, even the taxayer.
Quote: LeagueDweeb "Have you got any copies of this correspondence?'"
I do indeed.
Quote: LeagueDweeb "The sanction was applied to OK Bulls. BB2014 had the opportunity to reduce that sanction upon takeover. As no creditors were to be paid, the maximum sanction was upheld. Quite simple really. The sanction applied to OK Bulls remained in situ and was upjheld upon the takeover by BBNL.'"
BB2014 agreed to repay all creditors (with the exception of OK) over a 5 year period. The creditors were then notified of the plan put forward by BB2014 confirming the same. The owners (at the time) withdrew their offer as the RFL failed to consider their offer of payment as a way of reducing the debts.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
//www.pngnrlbid.com
[quote="bUsTiNyAbALLs":9q9d2t35]Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.[/quote:9q9d2t35]
[quote="vastman":9q9d2t35]My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.[/quote:9q9d2t35]: |
|
| Quote: LeagueDweeb "The sanction was applied to OK Bulls. BB2014 had the opportunity to reduce that sanction upon takeover. As no creditors were to be paid, the maximum sanction was upheld. Quite simple really. The sanction applied to OK Bulls remained in situ and was upjheld upon the takeover by BBNL.'" except that just doesnt work does it. You can't apply a penalty to OKbulls for the actions of BB2014 and you certainly cannot apply a sanction to OKbulls and actually apply that sanction to BBNL
The sanction cannot have been 'in situ' because it was applied to an entirely separate member. Any sanction applied to BBNL would have to be an entirely new sanction.
That sanction was also publicly justified by BB2014s actions and business plans, are you now telling us Ralph Rimmer lied in his statement explaining the reasons for the sanction?
You can apply all the sanctions you want to OKbulls, they aren't members of the RFL any more, nobody would care.
You clearly contradict yourself, you state the penalty was applied because no creditors were to be paid, that was a BB2014 action not an OKbulls action and at the point the penalties were applied definitely not a BBNL action?
Whichever twisty turny attempt at covering this Fack up you make, you cannot escape the simple truth that OKbulls were sanctioned, for the actions of BB2014 but that sanction applied to BBNL.
In other words a clusterfsk.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 1795 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2011 | 14 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Apr 2021 | Jan 2021 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
54218_1349939535.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_54218.jpg |
|
| Summary:
OKB were penalised 6 points for an insolvency event which under RFL membership rules had to apply to this 2014 season irrespective of who controlled the club. (membership bye-laws 4.6 final sentence). Self-evidently, being insolvent OKB could not mitigate the 6 points by paying off creditors. BB2014 proposed to pay them off in the expectation of full mitigation, however withdrew (seemingly after the business plan underpinning those repayments was examined). Enter BBNL who as a condition of RFL membership accepted the penalty and the right to appeal against it. That appeal is not mitigation based on paying creditors back, but uses force majeure as its basis. The nature of that force majeure has not been publicly declared, so open to conjecture.
It is also worth noting that under the membership bye-laws the RFL can pretty much decide what penalties - sorry, conditions of membership - they want to dish out, and can disregard any precedents if they so wish. The main issue is not what the RFL have blatantly done according to the rules, ie correctly applying the points deduction to the 2014 season, but the transparency of the process by which they determine the conditions of membership (ie penalties attached to membership being granted). If they do not follow precedents, then that whole process behind such a decision should be open to scrutiny, including by the fans.
Tweedldweeb makes it sound as if the OK refund was a side deal, but I cannot see how it could be. Penalties, and all conditions thereto, are surely part of the conditions of new/continued membership? Even the necessity for a PG would be a condition. Which wouuld mean that to invoke the PG, the RFL would first have to demand repayment from OKB, and upon not being satisfied, invoke the PG. Having some statutory accounts for OKB would have been helpful in this context, as if it was a condition of OKB membership then it would have been in the balance sheet as a contingent liability, and on the fundamental accounting principal of grossing up, OKB's Pg would also have been declared as a contingent asset.
I hope that clears things up.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
//www.pngnrlbid.com
[quote="bUsTiNyAbALLs":9q9d2t35]Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.[/quote:9q9d2t35]
[quote="vastman":9q9d2t35]My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.[/quote:9q9d2t35]: |
|
| It doesn't clear anything up because it is the same clearly and demonstrably wrong nonsense you have been peddling for weeks that has already been shown to be clearly and demonstrably wrong.
Your timeline isn't even right.
The weird thing is, you along with everyone else understands the RFL could apply a sanction as a condition of membership, yet for some reason you insist this didn't happen, but that the original points deduction stands.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 1795 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2011 | 14 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Apr 2021 | Jan 2021 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
54218_1349939535.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_54218.jpg |
|
| Quote: SmokeyTA "It doesn't clear anything up because it is the same clearly and demonstrably wrong nonsense you have been peddling for weeks that has already been shown to be clearly and demonstrably wrong.
Your timeline isn't even right.
The weird thing is, you along with everyone else understands the RFL could apply a sanction as a condition of membership, yet for some reason you insist this didn't happen, but that the original points deduction stands.'"
As you are not substantiating your first point, theres nothing to comment about.
The RFL reserve the right to defer applying the penalty, so that they can help the insolvent club out. That clearly happened in this case. They can declare the penalty whenever they want, subject to it being declared in time to be applied to the current season, or if offseason, the following season.
For the sake of clarity, the RFL could and did apply a sanction to BBNL as a condition of RFL membership. This has the effect that the original points deduction stands, as does the right to appeal it.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 28357 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
973_1515165968.gif Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_973.gif |
|
| Quote: martinwildbull "....
The RFL reserve the right to defer applying the penalty, so that they can help the insolvent club out. That clearly happened in this case. '"
The problem is that the wording of the relevant passages seems to be too much for you. The RFL do not reserve the right to defer a penalty at all. They can choose not to serve the Notice that terminates the insolvent member's membership.
One link you need to make is the one between "sanctions" and "Member". As if there is no member then sanctions cannot exist in a vacuum, and for that rather obvious reason, none could be applied.
The way it works is, in steps
When? On what date? Where is it reported? Link? For the sake of clarity, I will not accept you simply baldly stating "the RFL did apply a sanction to BBNL". You have nothing at all to substantiate that claim. I
In any case that sanction could not be the 6 points, as that was announced pre-BBNL. So if BBNL was to suffer a 6 point sanction then the previously announced one would need to be lifted, and a fresh sanction imposed on the new owner.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 418 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2013 | 12 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2020 | Feb 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| This is definitely a losing the will to live moment???
|
|
|
|
|
|