Make that nearly 30 bob now

See RHP is now a director too.

He'd not be doing that unless he was confident?

Might be a daft question, but who actually had the power to put the holding company into administration? If Omar Khan still had control of the shares, was it his decision?

Not a daft question at all.

A creditor, a debenture holder, the directors, or the company itself can make application to the High Court for the company to be placed in administration. I presume in this case it was the directors, which would be Calvert and Watt, who applied, but it need not have been.

The high Court places the company into administration, and the appointed administrator (a qualified insolvency practitioner) is also an officer of the court.

All the above except a creditor can do it outside of the court as well. I am assuming this will have been done through the High Court, but all these assumptions can only be verified once the relevant information is on public record.

Where's Mystic Mick in all this. It's not what he was preaching was going to happen before crimbo.

now now there's no need to be a big meany. Remember I'm a moderator so technically can have you killed. In any case I've gone on record as saying cas are my 2nd team by a country mile. My comment was perhaps aimed at a slightly smaller part of wakefield District.

I'd take the points deduction. Then when/if we stay up the one or two posters who want us dead and buried will whine we got all the referee decisions or we had too strong a squad lol

Much obliged Adeybull, and thanks for the insights. I was looking into the operational rules for the RFL and I can now find no mention of administration or any penalties for financial impropriety, I'm sure there used to quite detailed sections on it. Do you (or anyone else for that matter) know if the RFL have any current codified and published laws/rules for administration? If they now don't exist in the operational rules, which would be convenient for the rfl to take each case on its merits, I would like to know where the people clamoring for points deductions are getting their copy of the rules from (other than precedent). It appears to me we all need to await clarification from the RFL before making rash assumptions that satisfy only our internal need to prove our own point of view.

Have the RFL told the Club one thing and now doing another?? I remember past times when this has happened to the Clubs detriment!! www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/29 ... ford-bulls The RFL understands that the Bradford Bulls have today been taken into, and out of administration. This is a breach of the RFL byelaws and therefore the Board will seek further clarification in the matter before considering the appropriate course of action.

Have the RFL told the Club one thing and now doing another?? I remember past times when this has happened to the Clubs detriment!! www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/29 ... ford-bulls The RFL understands that the Bradford Bulls have today been taken into, and out of administration. This is a breach of the RFL byelaws and therefore the Board will seek further clarification in the matter before considering the appropriate course of action.

Right, rlhere we go.rl. The clraifications start here.

1 - It was not the directors who appointed the administrator - it was the moneylender, the debenture holder. Were the directors in agreement? Maybe one of us can ask them? But the fact that it was NOT the directors could prove extremely significant for what action the RFL takes.

2 - Blake Solly of the RFL makes it clear that a pounts deduction is NOT mandatory, and the nature and extent of any deduction will depend on the circumstances. Presumably, whether any unfair advantage to the club accrues as a result, e.g. by avoiding paying creditors?

3 - Confirmation that the moneylender's loan was taken out in the period between when OK and the other four stood down, and Moore et al were appointed. In thois period, Whitcu*t was the sole director. Which explains how he was able to commit the club without anyone else knowing about it, seemingly.

4 - Confirmation that the board is aiming to avoid a points dedcution by working with creditors.

5 - Confirmation that the Licence transfer will require RFL approval (shoots down the garbage Wooden Stand posted earlier about the Licence being an asset of the club...)

6 - A considerably less negative tone from the T&A.

7 - OK professes he does not know what is happening.

They often make statements like this, then never follow it up.

Look at the one the RFL made when they found out Huddersfield and Kopout had lied to their faces. They brought out a press release saying they would look at the statements provided, then it all just went away!!

If you don't see why that is still wrong I feel sorry for the other more open minded and less moron like Bulls fans you in part represent.
When a Cas fan and Wakefield fan agree you are over the top with your comment it must be pretty clear.

Anyway, by the looks of things, although the admin move may not be great it sounds like the best move all round.

Although I hope RFL apply the rules appropriately on points deduction, to keep everything fair, I'm glad the Bulls will be playing next season and hope the fans get a good exciting season.

I've added a load of clubs to my not going away list after comments from their fans on the Internet going to save myself a fortunate. I've pretty much got Saints, Warrington and Cas left now and won't be going to London or Catalans due to time constraints/lack of funds.

I don't know what the future holds regarding points deductions, from a Bulls fans view I hope we can avoid the 6 points handed out last time. I suspect with our small squad that handicap would leave us in a pretty big hole to climb out. And a punishment that would seem overly harsh if what has been reported so far turns out to be the truth.

Moving forward I just hope these guys are as good as their word and do finally run the club properly now they have broken away from the mess at OK Bulls.

Thank goodness the action on the field begins again soon.. (Hopefully)

If the rules are not specifically written down, and each admin event is taken case by case, then obviously as a Bradford fan I hope we avoid a points deduction and if all creditors are in agreement with plans put in place then we might have a fair argument.

However, speaking as just a rugby league fan, its been pretty clear that the intentions of the RFL over the past few seasons when dealing with us, wakey, crusaders, london etc, is that a points deduction is there in the case of admin events to deter such events. We have gone into (and out of) admin, again, and no matter what the arrangements put in place I would expect us to get a points deduction. And the fact that it is a relegation year where we will be inconvenienced by such a deduction is no-ones fault but our own and we shouldnt bitch about it.

I think we should take a points deduction, hopefully not the full 6 points, 2 or 4 depending on the level of agreement with creditors, which will complete the "clean slate" (otherwise our already battered reputation might never recover if we are perceived to have got preferential treatment to stay in SL) and then I think with our squad we still have more than a fighting chance of avoiding relegation. If Wakey/Cas/London had been into admin this month, not got a points deduction, and then stayed in SL at our expense by a few points I would consider it grossly unfair. I see no reason why it should be any different because its my club. Just IMHO before I get shot.