Can I remind all posters that any libellous or potentially libellous posts will be removed. Rlfans doesn't have the money to fight legal battles. Posters have been sued in the past I kid you not.

You've been warned.

Has anyone but N&H & FA actually read the last 3 posts?

Don't worry, I know a solicitor with loads & loads of free time on his hands.

You "mean the one that does "pro bono" as part of a Sonny & Cher tribute act??

I thought it was a U2 act?

Flaming cheapskates......get a proper solicitor to post a proper solicitor's letter..

Rival relegation threatened club chairman doesnt want us to get points back as it would potentially hurt his club so he goes public to put some pr pressure on the rfl panel with a threat to throw his teddy out of the pram.....what a shocker.

only thing that lets him down really, if you agree with his sentiments or not (and I have some sympathy with him tbf), is this line;

" I would probably do the same thing " - M Carter.


Really? so what are you bleating to the press about then? stfu.

He needs to be careful - if the RFL actually do an audit covering the SL era, they may well decide to choose which club has done most for the game over that period.

Does Carter actually understand what has happened at Bradford? I am baffled by the story.



The implication is that if the debts were particularly great, then they would or could do it, to escape the debts. But surely the key point he is missing is that here we have a completely different and genuinely unconnected new owner. It is NOT a case of the existing owners, or some flavour or variant or associated company or entity, effecting some legal swerve.

It isn't whether or not there is anything to stop them going into administration, it's whether he would lose the club and everything, as Khan did, and it be bought from an administrator by some new owner, as Green did, with Carter no longer any part of the new business, and no involvement save counting his losses. Is that "getting away with" something? If so, what?


Omar Khan has not "got away with" anything. He's done his financial bollox in. The new owners would only get points back on the basis of the current rules and procedures to which you, and all owners, are subject.

Right. I know that legally, both administrations are completely separate events.

But when Mr Wilson wrote that a reduction in central funding (last minute take it or leave it demand to get us out of first administration) was one of 4 main reasons that the second administration happened, he was saying that the consequences of the first administration had a direct bearing on the second.

I would also think that the meeting which OK agreed to sell his shares but whoever was at the meeting forgot to get a binding agreement down would have an impact on the second administration.

Then the "accounting irregularities" would have a bearing.

These are not standard events in an administration. OKbulls managed to have all 3. And probably more we're unaware of.

Are these the kind of strands that we'll be trying to pull together for our appeal?

I expect so.

Well, the whole thing is a bit of a mystery to me. I can't find any procedure laid down anywhere for such an "appeal" so can't comment on the basis.

If the basis is some sort of "there was no alternative to administration" argument - why would that help? I mean, as it happens, our new owner ended up being the same guy as appointed the administrator but that, surely, is a one-off extraordinary situation, and whilst the history is I'm sure fascinating, I'm not sure what alternatives he felt he had whilst wearing his original hat as a creditor is relevant to the current owner.

My take on it is that the arguments may have been misreported. If not, then I don't immediately see how the circumstance that a debenture holder had to appoint an administrator to protect his debenture else HMRC would liquidate is relevant to league points. If someone wants to explain how it is, I am eager to learn. The statement on the RFL's own site says:


The circumstances (that HMRC would issue a winding up petition if payments due were not made) seem far from unforeseeable to me. They were also entirely avoidable, had the club simply paid what it owed to HMRC.

I can see how a business that was put into admin to protect it temporarily from creditors, but then emerged from admin having achieved that, and made arrangements to pay the creditors in full or to a significant degree, eg by way of a CVA, I can see how that would be relevant. But that's not what happened here.

All I can see is that all the noises ever coming out of Red Hall in relation to deduction of league points seem to major on the extent to which creditors are paid off. And that at least makes sense to me. Somewhere there is a Policy on how the RFL will look to apply sanctions following an insolvency event. Anyone got a link to that? It may shed further light.