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":

Of course we now know (and the RFL presumably knew then) that they were not in fact the cub's directors, as they owned nothing, they were directors of BB2014 which had won the bid but was only in a conditional waiting period, and being allowed to run the business effectively as caretakers for the administrator, in case a better bid came along.



These remarks are concrete proof that the 6 points was based on the RFL's dim view of what BB2014 proposed to do about debts/ business plans. NOTHING mentioned about OKB.

It is hardly semantics to point out that it MUST follow, like night and day, that if the RFL HAD been more impressed, then we would not have been docked the full 6 points. (For Bradford to NOT drop off debt as a result of the administration would NOT have significantly impaired the integrity of the competition, so a lesser or nil points deduction would logically be fair).

Otherwise, the RFL have tied the two things (proposals & plans / points penalty) together for no apparent reason. Which clearly isn't the case.

I see this as a fundamental and massively important fact, for the club and the fans. If I need to spell it out, it MUST mean that (if the process is to be done consistently and fairly) the RFL needed to do exactly the same routine with the new new owners - BBNL - and base a new decision on exactly the same sort of factors, as they announced prematurely would apply to BB2014 (but never did, as they never owned the club).

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....