So in essence you are saying that because the RFL advanced circa £300k to P&A, there was a punishment of £1m which was distributed among the other Super league clubs?

Any evidence of this being the case? Or is it just another chip on the shoulder urban myth?

G'day Blake

Dweeb is now reduced to doing his best Violet Elizabeth Bott impersonation of going off in a huge sulk, stamping his little feet because the nasty men are asking him hard questions.

Dweeb has posted NOTHING but this sort of rant for several pages now, and it is clear he is a busted flush, so Dweeb I suggest back in yer box unless and until you calm down enough to at least try to frame a response to something like 30-odd specific and sensible direct questions posed to you.

Tip 1: Responding to any question with some other waffling rhetorical question doesn't count.

Tip 2: Replying with "What questions haven't I answered" doesn't pass muster either. The answer is basically "none so far"
But you could start with my question as to your claim that RFL is not a creditor of OKB and whether their claim of around £900k in the administration is therefore fraudulent. Like all the other questions, you either skirt round them, like some border collie on amphetamines, or else pretend they were never asked.

There is enough in the press over the pas 2 years stating the clubs shared the Bulls share of the central funding.

If this was not the case, the RFL would have set the records straight, as the decision to let the clubs decide what happened to the cash makes them look weak and unbiased.

Do you have any proof which backs up your argument that the Bulls share of the central funding did not go to the SL clubs? Thought not!

You've lost the plot, Dweeb.

The administration receipts and payments account is a matter of public record. I am looking at it now. The figures are as I stated. Are you accusing P&A of presenting an incorrect or even fraudulent report? I have accused them of all manner of things, but deliberate falsification of a legal document would never be one of them.

All you have done is seek to justify why the RFL confiscated c.£1.3m off future, and blameless, owners, without providing ANYTHING to support the reason for that amount.

Yet it was YOU who stated, right at the start [i"It wasn't a fine as there is nothing in the operational rules regarding financial punishment. It was the RFL recouping the huge amount of funds it had to pay the administrator to prevent liquidation".[/i I think I have demonstrated that it most definitely cannot have been that. Which makes you either mistaken, seriously disingenuous or a liar.

You seem to be acknowledging, absent any rebuttal, that the confiscation WAS connected with the buying of the lease. Yet are silent on the consequence that I pointed out.

You are also resorting increasingly to the last refuge of those who are losing the argument, and putting up increasing numbers of straw men. Kindly cease attributing to me - and others - statements we have not made, and opinions we have not expressed. It is dishonest, and frankly undermines any remaining shreds of argument you may have.

You state that had the RFL not made loans to BBH in 2012 then bought the lease, then there would have been no club.

No.

BBH would have gone into administration.

HOW THE HELL do you know that no-one would have come in for the club, to acquire the assets and carry on? Given that that is precisely what has happened TWICE since then, with the club in a FAR wporse position AND with the masive financial confiscation hanging over the head of any new owner, it BEGGARS BELIEF that no-one would have come in!!! Indeed, the common asumption was that no less than Mr Caisley would have done precisely that and maybe indeed was intending to do precisely that.

You allege the rent was not paid post-purchase - another new allegation. Fine. So where the hell is the RFL as a creditor in the list of creditors at date of administration that I am looking at? Surely the rent will have been invoiced? Like any normal commercial business would do? And anyway, at £78k p.a. we are hardly talking huge amounts. And

For the avoidance of doubt, I have not, ever, anywhere, blamed the problems of the club on the RFL.

I have stated[i
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 crisis, let's be clear, caused entirely by incompetant and irresponsible club managements and ownerships not the RFL) into a total unmitigated disaster.[/i



I really hope that you are just an apologist for the senior officials at the RFL, and not actually one of them as has been alleged. Because, if you are inded one of the latter, then it sadly demonstrates just what sort of people are running the show.

Are you seriously suggesting that that "redistribution" did not happen? That all the other clubs have colluded to make up a story about sharing Bradford's sky money?

How bizarre!

Oh, and one last point.

If, as you allege, the confiscation from the subsequent purchaser was effectively to recover funds that the RFL had advanced to BBH and not recovered, then would it not be fair to say that this would just HAVE to be taken into account by a subsequent purchaser in the purchase consideration?

And that, therefore, the consideration was likely to be considerably less than it might otherwise have been?

Which meant that additional funds that might have been available to pay a dividend to the creditors were not there?

Because the RFL had engineered a way to get paid in full?

Now that might be a bit more complicated than a normal "fraudulent preference", and therefore a little harder for an administrator or liquidator to recover. But I suspect such an action could be well open to legal challenge?

And, just think: All the trouble that could have been avoided, had the confiscated funds been placed into a trust to provide for settlemement of the creditors...

Not only that Adey, but if the Bulls are in the process of paying back the 1.3 million to the RFL, then this must cover almost 2/3 of the overall debt attached to the last (or one before(even 1 before that)) administration, meaning we should be due some points back in our appeal!

Unless, the RFL are suggesting that they are not an actual creditor (just a pretend one that wants its 1.3 million back).

Must admit, if What Dweeb says is the official RFL line, then if I was HMRC or one of the other major creditors, I would be asking my lawyers to check out what might be deemed to constitute a "fraudulent preference". But I suppose the action of the RFL distributing the confiscated share to the other clubs, giving them the same net outlay and therefore not having actually enjoyed any preference, would be the defence?

Funny, that.

Well, at least we've learnt how many times the same unsupported, demonstrably taken apart rubbish can be reposted and it appears to be ad nauseum.

If the Dweeb is they guy from the RFL working on the case, we now know why there has been no work done in the case of the lies told to the RFL enquiry into the Kopczak transfer, which blew open after Keith Mason took the club to court; he's spending too much time on the internet!

Adey, are you solar powered?

Rarely post but read most days, had to come on to say welcome back Adey, great posts re Mr Dweeb.
PS If Mr Dweeb is part of the RFL, I think one of his colleagues ought to take that shovel off him sharpish.

The dangers of trying to be a good Samaritan - if you see an animal dying of self inflicted wounds just put it down - it will save a lot of trouble down the line.