Why May? What are we waiting for?

Someone else to go into administration so we can all forget about it?

But they didn't, and that's just one of the obvious inconsistencies.

I hesitate to add any facts for your information any more, as it seems to annoy people, yet posting incorrect "facts" (not aimed at you btw) weirdly does not seem to have the same effect.

But many on here and the VT will tell you that the club - meaning OKB - were docked 6 points pretty much automatically "for going into administration". They reckon it's the deal. Go into admin, that's like your fixed penalty.

if that is true, then why didn't it happen?

OK Bulls went into administration on 31 January 2014. No sanction was applied to it. Not then, not ever.

It was on February 25th, 5 days after BB2014 had been announced as the winners of the auction, that the 6 point penalty was announced and implemented. And it is certain, however many times the misinformants want to claim this is some sort of fixed penalty, that it is no such thing, but that it was arrived at only after taking into account the proposals and plans of BB2014 i.e. NOT as a quid pro quo "for OKB going into admin"the club’s directors were unable to provide any evidence of new capital investment into Bradford Bulls and consequently, the RFL Executive had no confidence in the business plan that was presented. '"

Interesting points FA. I don't have the legal knowledge to state with certainty that you are correct, but I certainly follow your logic.

That got me thinking, unfortunately I do not have a link but I am certain at a significant point in the process, during the RFL/Mark Moore war of words after BB2014 withdrew there was a statement from the RFL (I believe by Blake Solly but not 100% certain). That statement was in advance of the most recent bid process and stated that debt would be addressed through the administration.

If my recollection is correct, does that mean that the RFL had approved that course of action with the Administrator. If it did then was that decision effectively taken jointly by RFL Administrator? If that was the case are BBNL being punished for an RFL decision? Or am I missing something?

A Club is docked the equivalent of 3 wins (6 points in SL, 9 points in Championships) for going into Administration.
This can be commuted back, say to 4 points, dependent on the way in which the Club comes out of Administration and in particular the degree to which it results in old creditors being paid off (if at all). The RFL announces the penalty when it becomes clear whether or not there are grounds to apply a reduced sanction.

What about if the club was placed into administration on the guidance received by the governing body, with the promise that the club would not receive a points deduction?

If you have that in writing you have a case. On the flip side of that think Mr Carter has an even bigger case after being refused the admin route and threatened with expulsion and therefore cutting costs and having to dip into his own funds.

Of which there is no proof. The fanciful ramblings of a man revelling in his own white Knight status.

Show us the letter where he was told this.

He's said this in tv and paper interviews. I am sure if weren't true then he would have been up before the RFL being asked to explain this. After all the RFL are pretty quick to challenge any chairman that goes up against them just ask the humberside lot.

People say lots in interviews. There is no evidence of this anywhere.
The RFL did what they always do. Ignore it and pretend everything is rosy.

Although this time, RW has effectively accused either Solly/Rimmer of being racists, or the RFL as a whole as being a racist organisation.

They will have to respond to that ASAP.

Although - probably after lunch....

I thought about explaining why you were wrong, then remembered you were just making stuff again because you wanted attention. Someone should explain to you the difference between good attention and bad attention.

The thing about the Michael Carter/Wakefield red herring is the deliberate lack of detail coming from Mr Carter.

Months ago Wakefield fans told us that Michael Carter was told if they go in to admin the would be relegated to C1. This over the months has morphed in to what we see now where it seems Mr Carter approached the RFL with a plan to simply write off debt they could pay but didnt want to (we now know this as fact because.......well..... they have paid them)and were told if they could end up in C1

This wouldnt have happened by a forced demotion by the way. It would have happened because when Wakefield 1873 ltd (which i think is the holding company name) went in to admin, it would lose its member status, The RFL and other clubs could insist that the new member who took that status didnt take Wakefields place in SL, but started at the bottom of the pro-pyramid as any NEW member would. Because thats what they would be, a NEW member, like BBNL are. Even though in Wakefields case the Owners and Controlling persons would have been the same.

Thats not even a guarantee that Wakefield would have seen that punishment, simply that it was a possibility under those circumstance.