Are you suggesting that all those SL chairmen, of clubs that have not gone into administration, would pocket the money themselves rather than re-invest? The next time the Bulls launch an appeal for half a million quid I'll bear that in mind & save myself a few hundred.

To re-invest is one of those strangely, inconsistently declined verbs:
I invest
You waste
He squanders
They spend on themselves, etc..

I'm sure they mostly invested in spending a bit more on their first team wage bill and, some may have invested in not having to put in more money themselves and, at least one, may have invested in making sure his house remained his own property...

If "re-invested in the game" meant support for the grassroots clubs, encouraging the youth game and building links with schools to get more people interested in and playing the game - then to me that is real investment in the future of the game, but as Bulliac points out the feeding frenzy on the money withheld from the Bulls would have gone to a few players and their agents, and to reducing bank borrowings at clubs

Tigers is wrong, but so is everybody else. Except me, of course.

I have explained it all before, but the penny seems exceedingly hard to drop.

1. There WAS no available "slush fund" - at least, not under the agreement. (The existence of which was finally admitted by RFL this week, when they pointed out that in another clause, OK had PG'd the entire distribution).

2. Under the agreement, the clubs would still have received a Brucie bonus - just not as big. It appears the Bulls were short changed simply because nobody could do the simple arithmetic, so instead of dividing the distribution in such proportions that the Bulls got half of what everyone else gets, which results in a larger sum for the Bulls, and is what was agreed, they instead took a pretend figure of what one full share was if everyone got the same share, then deducted 50% off Bradford's - and then realised this doesn't work out - you end up with an unexpected surplus namely one half share.

I know, despite to older members who went to skule and learend their summs seeming extraordinarily simple, such simple arithmetic - and working out why you obviously haven't arrived at the right answer - is too hard for many, brought up in the "everyone passes" generations. But without being rude, it is very easy.

And it indeed seems such a dolt was left in charge of the pencil and paper at RFL/SLE, so instead of recalculating and rectifying the error, or simply asking his dad, he/she left it at that and then the RFL/Clubs met to decide what to do with the bogus "surplus". And decided to keep it.

I have always been against the HMRC and creditors being shafted especially by administration dodges, but our was no dodge. Still, whilst recognising the importance of the grass roots etc or "investing in the game" as tigers naively puts it, I'm afraid that it reeks of hypocrisy.

The new owners are being berated from all sides for not agreeing to pay off HMRC and old creditors. People are slagging BBNL widely for having bought the club "cheaply" by buying clear of debts.

And people are using that to justify why half the distribution should not be received by the Bulls. The logic seems to be - you are stealing a march on other clubs, cos your club spent money it didn't have on players, and shaftedf HMRC and creditors. Therefore if you want to join the game, one way or another, you must pay".

And I recognise the validity of that argument, even if the details are more complex than msot realise, BUT:
There is NO GETTING AWAY from the fact that if you say (as did RFL) that sanctions are to be applied to the new owners which are more severe as the RFL is not satisfied with the proposals to repay creditors, and so BB2014 for example were purportedly docked six competition points for that specific reason, then - if you really mean what you say - it is THE RFL and THE CLUBS that are cheating creditors.

I am putting this in bite sized chunks so it is not hard for even the arithmetically challenged to follow; but most people would not, I think, have much problem - if BBNL paid both the HMRC debt off in full, and if BBNL paid off all old creditors, so nobody in the end lost out - getting a reduced or even nil comp points sanction. So, paying off creditors clearly = reduced sanction/competition points.

But if the new owner is also financially sanctioned, ie is hit in the pocket for a distribution share, i.e. real cash, then it is clear to me that ALL of that money should go first to HMRC and creditors. Not to the clubs, the RFL, or "the grass roots". Why should "the grass roots" benefit from a financial penalty for administration imposed on a non-party to the insolvency, because this new owner does not pay debt - yet the financial penalty is not then used to pay the same debt?

"Sorry HMRC/creditors, we tried to get the new owners to agree to pay, but they won't. So we are fining them £1.6m.
HMRC:" Oh, thanks. We were only owed £170k (or whatever), when will we get the cheque?
"Oh, you don't understand. If the new owners had paid you, great. But they paid us, and we have grass roots and clubs to spend the money on in preference to you, I'm afraid. Here's a penny whistle, though. Go with that".*

The old administration stands slated for spending their distribution money improperly money on players or whatever instead of HMRC/creditors and "this is bad". The Bulls received and used their distribution income, but paid others in preference to creditors.

However in my book the RFL and the clubs stand slated for receiving and using the Bulls' withheld distribution income, and doing just the same as the Bulls did, paying it to others in preference to creditors.

However laudable tigertot's "putting into grass roots" may sound, it is to me plain wrong to benefit the grass roots with money at the expense of shafted creditors and taxpayers.

And the bigger joke is, the RFL now maintain that OK and OKB owe them back THE WHOLE of all distribution money ever paid to OKB. Now I have no idea if OK will pay that, but if I were a creditor or HMRC I would bet a few quid that the RFL and the clubs will just treat that as another nice little earner for themselves too.

*=#8000BF I exaggerated for effect, to my knowledge the RFL did not even buy a penny whistle for HMRC

I assumed once the Bulls where purchased most of this was put to bed.

Is there still an actual on going process regards the points deduction???

I have no problem with the Bulls getting some point back, assuming some creditors are repaid as for me the whole purpose of the points deduction is as a punishment for overspending. (I know it's probably not the case) But I would prefer a system where the club gets a points deduction for going into administration and a points reimbursement for paying off maximum creditors when coming out of administration.

That way a buyer can improve their league status by paying off more debt. It also retrospectively evens things up in terms of the 'club' paying it's way.

Appeal hearing later this week (Thurs) by all accounts.

Thanks for the update

Yeah says in telegraph before millieum magic they want it sorted , some points back this week would be another huge boost after last two weeks games

Be a interesting appeal if get all 6 back I see teams moaning about it. Personally I feel lucky my team are in the top 6. If I was a Bradford supporter I be hoping for the 6, then a great chance of staying up. If get 0 points back then will be much tougher.Goodluck Bradford.

The way I read todays Argus, the appeal won't be heard before next week and the Magic Weekend. Then they will no doubt have to deliberate before releasing their decision. Incredible - they have known the appeal was coming and its still takes all this time to set up. Pi** ups and breweries spring to mind.

My opinion for what its worth is that if the Admin is proved to be a Force Majeure event as claimed then we get all six back, if not we get none.

Force Majeure
[French, A superior or irresistible power. An event that is a result of the elements of nature, as opposed to one caused by human behavior.

The term force majeure relates to the law of insurance and is frequently used in construction contracts to protect the parties in the event that a segment of the contract cannot be performed due to causes that are outside the control of the parties, such as natural disasters, that could not be evaded through the exercise of due care.

Not having a pop by the way but looked up the definition how does this fit.

My view is sort it on the pitch others including Wakey have gone into admin but not got 6 points so you may get some back I am not in the no points back camp it wouldn't bother me if you got all 6 back like I say the talking needs to be done on the pitch