Agree with you here FA. People seem to think that the only reason a club goes into administration is to clear down the debts.

The last 2 administrations of Bradford Bulls have seen us taken over by 2 separate owners (i'm choosing to forget the bit in the middle).

Why would the new owner have any impact of the spending of the previous regime?

Placing a club into administration, for the sole purpose of clearing debts, sounds like a club I know that has a WF postcode

I am sure some people are confused, but sadly others choose to pretend all insolvency events are the same.

A distribution penalty would perhaps act as a deterrent to those sort of "administrations" that involve a pre-pack or a CVA and basically same people as before end up back in charge, but having swerved a load of debt. I can entirely see the logic in sanctions in such a case, as you are sanctioning the same people as caused the mess, and if they knew in advance that they risked that sanction then it would be a factor they would have to take into account.

But in a case where factually new owners come in, there just is no logic in doing the same to them.

If you had bothered to read what i posted, which was that it was rich calling the rfl into account over stupid financial ideals, you might see that i didn't write that i was in any agreement with it.
Just because what the rfl has done makes little sense (was it the rfl's decision or that of the SL chairmen??) it doesnt take anything away from the fact that the club could have (if they had wanted) avoided all this in the first place. At some point someone must have seen a tipping point and thought "**** it! It'll be reyt!!) and here you are (not a d ig, we've been there also) so pointing the finger is a little dis-honest...IMO of course.

I didn't suggest you were. I just pointed out why your hypothetical club owners' thought (""hang on aminute! this could all go badly wrong, lets rein in our spending") would not be influenced by the prospect of sanctions on some unknown future third party.

"If they had wanted"? You mean you think OKB did not want to remain solvent? Well, that's a new one! Delberate bankruptcy! I can accept entirely they were shiit at running it, but can't accept they wouldn't have [iwanted[/i to avoid the ensuing mire!

When you are Bulls fan you can draw on the clubs direct experience of administrations - so it strikes me that in case of the Hood administration they took some dumb decisions with pricing - but had the records to show them they where heading up s**t creek and desperately tried to avoid hitting the rocks as they were aware of the consequences administration would bring - and hoped to keep control. In the case of the OK administration he was blissfully unaware that he had already sailed several miles up s**t creek at the time he was busy putting off potential investors. That's the problem with regulations even if you threatened some people with execution in Oklahoma they still wouldn't take any notice.

That execution - I note how well it went - and it is OKlahoma ...
.. you don't think ... surely not?

Maybe they should have put it in the executioner's contract that, if he got sacked for bodging executions, his successor would be fines a year's pay. That would have sorted it.

I have the misfortune to work for a Texan company and they think the Oklahomans are out and out commies for pussy footing around with socialistic lethal injections when the guy would clearly have been finished by a quick blast from a M60. When I saw all the stories about the mystery Texan millionaire interested in the Bulls I was thinking be careful what you wish for.

This is what you commented

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

There is no rule that allows (or disallows) any such appeal. But if you say the a right of "appeal" by someone =#BF0000(the new owners ) who have never actually had a ruling made against them, then please refer me to that rule. If you can, I will of course gladly accept its existence.

The wording of 4.7 covers Acquisition, Change of Control not just insolvency event.

[i In the event of a member ceasing to be a member upon notice from the Company by virtue of Acquisition, Change of Control or Insolvency Event, the Board, at its absolute discretion, shall have the right to readmit the member or admit a new member as a member on any terms as it sees fit, which for the avoidance of doubt, may include financial, administrative and/or sporting sanctions[/i

BB2014 had sanctions applied because of the OKB Insolvency event. Membership was conditional, and it terminated, not by Acquisition but through Change of Control. Control of the Club passed to BBNL who applied for/ readmission to membership, and the sanctions were applied. as for them being announced, dont you state in your last reply that the sanctions still stood? Isnt that enough, or does it need to be published in the London Gazette? And at the end of the day however they have been announced, BBNL seem to accept their existence, why are you so reluctant to do so?

You keep stating that but you are clearly wrong.

Nobody argues that the RFL couldnt apply that sanction to BBNL, simply that at no point have they publicly stated they have done, or publicly described any process they went through to do so.

The RFL can apply the sanction to BBNL, but they have to apply it to BBNL not to BB2014. BBNL clearly havent accepted this hence the appeal.

We all know.


Yes, we all know that too.


No, that is not so. You don't understand what "change of control" means. It refers to the fact that all the clubs happen to be owned by companies (although that isn't a requirement) and companies have controlling persons. The reference is thus to any change in control of the company

The reason for it is because those who control the company have to pass the fit and proper person test. In our case, OK was the chief shareholder, and passed the F&P. Then He was going to/did (debatable) sell his shares to MM & RW. He could not do so unless they were passed as F&PP. The mechanism is thus to ensure that a person like Whitcut who is not deemed a F&PP, could get in through the back door, simply by buying the controlling shareholding in the owning company.

You say (I think) that BB2014 had "conditional membership". I am not sure that this was ever the case, although I don't know. I believe it never was. To understand why, you have to understand a little of the mechanism for such things. This includes a written agreement between the RFL/SLE etc and the new owner which sets out the terms on which they are accepted to membership. OK signed his, despite it being onerous. But I would be surprised if MM & Co. did the same. On the contrary, I suggest they never did. The timescale supports this. On Thursday Feb 20 2014 it was announced that the administrator had accepted BB2014's bid. On Tuesday Feb 25 the news cam that M & Co. had walked as they refused to accept the sanctions. Thus, logically, they would not sign. And so, never actually held the golden share, if you like. So OKB remained in the hands of the administrator. And so it remained until march 26 when Green took over.


NO. That couldn't be the case unless Green bought the OKB shares and the club remained owned and run by OKB. It was 100% an acquisition. Green bought the assets from the administrator. It is not a "change of control" situation.


NO. BBNL applied for membership. They could not apply for readmission as they had (obviously) never previously been admitted.

What I am saying is that, unlike in the case of OKB, no formal or public announcement has ever been made formally setting out for the public in one place "These are the sanctions that have been applied to BBNL". Indeed, apart from answers to questions from the press, we the fans have been told nothing. Obviously Green and his fellow directors know the sanctions, but if you can show me where there is any public statement or announcement specifically detailing the sanctions, please do.

I believe that all we have is comments to the press in passing, presumably in answer to reporters' questions, to teh effect that
a) the 6 points deduction would continue to apply an
b) the distribution penalty against OKB "stood" - without anyone ever even putting a figure on what that meant since nobody knows how much had been "deducted" to date nor how much more had been "advanced" to the administrator on account of the distribution to keep the pot boiling.

It is not enough, no. I think we fans have a right to be told, in precise terms, what sanctions have been appliedto our club. As it stands, we have no clue what, in £££, BBNL's sanction is and so we don't know how it affects our distribution going forward.

And as for the 6 points, there seems to me a strong case for believing that no points were validly deducted, OKB could have been sanctioned but were not, BB2014 could have been sanctioned and were the target of the sanctions but never were the owners (and probably never were Members) and so no sanction could be applied until they signed up for membership.

Would you agree, if BB2014 were not actually a member, then they cannot be sanctioned?

Would you agree that, if the terms of the agreement to get a Membership need to be signed to be effective, and BB2014 never signed them, then they are not effective?

I think RAB has finally eclipsed the VT for painful semantic arguments and cliquey tedium. Good stuff chaps!

If we have been docked 6 points incorrectly, I don't think it's semantics.