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.

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.

This is definitely a losing the will to live moment???

A succinct appraisal.

The RFL made the administrator aware of the figure guaranteed by OK as it had actually been paid to OK Bulls as part of the licence deal and would therefore be shown as revenue for the business.

OK Bulls is not liable for the sum of money, OK is. Therefore the RFL is technically not a creditor of OK Bulls, but of OK.

When did the RFL ever announce a sanction against OKB, then?


And so the RFL have nevertheless claimed £900k+ as a creditor, presumably fraudulently?

rlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/26339196rl

This paragraph quoting Mark Moore;

"He said the club was having to operate on only half the central distribution funding, with the rest of the Super League clubs sharing the other half"

This is not new. Everyone, including those that don't care, knew/know that money was being shared out across other SL clubs.

As for the new owners owing money back to the RFL for moneys paid in the previous regime, it's just wrong. ALL other creditors lost out, yet the RFL are still claiming back their cash. You try to make out that the RFL may have saved a winding up order, yet in reality the RFL have the ability to reclaim their money as they are the rule makers. That money should have been wrote off when the new owner took over - The RFL was just a creditor at this point and should not claim any preferential treatment.

There is no evidence of this distribution whatsoever. OK Bulls were on a reduced distribution in order for the RFL to recoup monies paid in sustaining BB Holdings. This money could not be written off.

The RFL is not claiming ay preferential treatment. It is not a creditor of OK Bulls, it is a creditor of OK. OK guaranteed that if OK Bulls were to enter administration within two years of him taking over the licence, he would repay money advanced in year 1 of his tenure.

I'm not quite sure what Mark Moore's point is. It appears he was expecting BB2014 to simply pick up a liability free business that would have the same central funding as every other club and not have to carry over a competition points sanction.

When he learned that this was not the case, he chose not to purchase the business from the administrator.

The RFL has lodged that sum as it has a guarantee provided by OK. In order that the RFL can pursue OK for repayment, it has to show that funds were paid to OK Bulls and should be part of any financial statements upon liquidation of OK Bulls.

It is in effect, a technical safeguard to prevent Ok from claiming the funds do not appear in OK Bulls financial statements so there are therefore not repayable.

Answer these simple questions please, Mr Dweeb? Since you must be very well acquainted with all the particulars of what happened, I would expect you will have the numbers readily available if not commited to memory?

1 - At the date BBH was placed in Administration (26/6/12), how much of the 2012 Sky/central funding allocation had been paid by the RFL to BBH over and above what BBH was due to receive anyway on a monthly basis up to 26/6/12?

2 - How much did the RFL pay to to Joint Administrators of BBH in the nine and a half weeks weeks between 26/6/12 and 31/8/12, the date OKB took over the business?

3 - If the RFL had paid more to BBH up to 26/6/12 than was due on a normal monthly basis (see Question 1), why was that excess - which will have been an advance agaist future payments, and therefore a creditor in the books of BBH - not recorded as a creditor in the list of creditors prepared by the Joint Administrators?

4 - What (if anything) was the value of [Sky money/central funding due to a SL club for 2012] less [amounts paid to BBH prior to 26/6/12] less [amounts paid to the Joint Administrators 26/6/12-31/8/12]?

5 - If the answer to 4 was > nil, what happened to that residual amount?

6 - You state the RFL paid Fees charged by the Joint Administrators. How much did they pay, and when? And why is there no reference to any such payments in the Joint Administrators' filings at Companies House?

7 - Please state, for the avoidance of doubt, how much the RFL paid to BBH, BBH (in Administration), The Joint Administrators for fees, any other parties directly where BBH (in Administration) would otherwise have been responsible and OKB (if anything) for the 2012 funding season (which I think runs from the previous November?).

8 - Please state how much more the value in 7 was than the funding due to a SL club for the 2012 funding season?

9 - Please compare that value with the c.£1.3m confiscated from OKB and BBNL, and explain the justification for the retention by the RFL of any difference.

I'll just check out my copies of all the documents filed at Companies House and/or issued to creditors while you put your answers together, so we can cross-reference where necessary.

Thnaks in anticipation.

I think Blake might now be on a conference call........