|
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 509 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2009 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jul 2014 | Feb 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote Sesquipedalian="Sesquipedalian"Thank you William Eve'"
Jeeze Ses, its William Eve AKA little willie....and, as one would expect, its duff info; out if date as well. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4035 | Bradford Bulls |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2024 | Jan 2023 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote Sesquipedalian="Sesquipedalian"
I asked earlier, can you name me a recent example of a Super League Club entering Administration and NOT initially being deducted 6 competition points?'"
Not yet, but give it a week or two 
The point im making is that although there is precedence there is no current operational rule that specifies anything. It's all case by case. So If 6 can be reduced to 4, would it also not follow that 6 could be reduced to 4, 2 or 0? Depending upon the specifics of the case and level to which creditors are fecked or not?
To give u some context, I agree we should be dealt with by precedent and depending on the level of creditor payment or not in this case we should receive a points deduction. Because although it's not in the rules, I think it should be as a deterrent, and to be the only club to enter admin, not receive a deduction, and in a relegation year would not sit comfortably with me, no matter what the rules say or don't say. |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 659 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2014 | Feb 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote Duckman="Duckman"Not yet, but give it a week or two
The point im making is that although there is precedence there is no current operational rule that specifies anything. It's all case by case. So If 6 can be reduced to 4, would it also not follow that 6 could be reduced to 4, 2 or 0? Depending upon the specifics of the case and level to which creditors are fecked or not?
To give u some context, I agree we should be dealt with by precedent and depending on the level of creditor payment or not in this case we should receive a points deduction. Because although it's not in the rules, I think it should be as a deterrent, and to be the only club to enter admin, not receive a deduction, and in a relegation year would not sit comfortably with me, no matter what the rules say or don't say.'"
Common ground and common sense, at last!
My opinion fwiw, you can't completely ignore the Administration even if all the creditors were paid and there'd have to be unbelievable and extenuating circumstances for a points deduction to be less than 4. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 659 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2014 | Feb 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote Adeybull="Adeybull"
Salford committed an "act of insolvency" recently, by entering into a CVA. Remind me again what their points deduction was?
(btw, IMO the coreect decision was taken there. No brainer).'"
An Administration is far more serious than a CVA though or are you conveniently ignoring that |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 523 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2016 | Nov 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote Adeybull="Adeybull"Have you never heard of Google? Anyway [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/operational_rules[ihere[/i[/url
Btw, you will note the wording in those old regulations refers to "an act of insolvency". NOT "Administration".
Salford committed an "act of insolvency" recently, by entering into a CVA. Remind me again what their points deduction was?
(btw, IMO the coreect decision was taken there. No brainer).'"
Adeybull. I'd suggest you read the RFL's current Articles of Association. The Bye Laws and Operational Rules are part of these Articles. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... onal_rules
You'll see 'Insolvency Event' is defined at 4.10 of the Bye Laws.
You'll also see (4.7 of the Bye Laws) that these provide that the RFL board can deal with a club suffering an Insolvency Event, such as Administration, in any way it wants. "Make it up as you go along". This is why some are suggesting clearer defined penalties are published in advance for the future to make it all a bit more objective.
In the meantime though, the RFL will have to have regard to its previous decisions as they set a precedent (which needs to be broadly followed to avoid potential legal challenge).
So, back to precedent. The current penalty for going into Administration is 6 points deduction (but at its discretion, based on the facts of each case, the RFL board can take mitigating or other circumstances into account in imposing a lesser (Wakefield, Crusaders etc) or greater (eg Barrow) penalty). |
|
Quote Adeybull="Adeybull"Have you never heard of Google? Anyway [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/operational_rules[ihere[/i[/url
Btw, you will note the wording in those old regulations refers to "an act of insolvency". NOT "Administration".
Salford committed an "act of insolvency" recently, by entering into a CVA. Remind me again what their points deduction was?
(btw, IMO the coreect decision was taken there. No brainer).'"
Adeybull. I'd suggest you read the RFL's current Articles of Association. The Bye Laws and Operational Rules are part of these Articles. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... onal_rules
You'll see 'Insolvency Event' is defined at 4.10 of the Bye Laws.
You'll also see (4.7 of the Bye Laws) that these provide that the RFL board can deal with a club suffering an Insolvency Event, such as Administration, in any way it wants. "Make it up as you go along". This is why some are suggesting clearer defined penalties are published in advance for the future to make it all a bit more objective.
In the meantime though, the RFL will have to have regard to its previous decisions as they set a precedent (which needs to be broadly followed to avoid potential legal challenge).
So, back to precedent. The current penalty for going into Administration is 6 points deduction (but at its discretion, based on the facts of each case, the RFL board can take mitigating or other circumstances into account in imposing a lesser (Wakefield, Crusaders etc) or greater (eg Barrow) penalty). | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 14145 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 24 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2020 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote Wooden Stand="Wooden Stand"Adeybull. I'd suggest you read the RFL's current Articles of Association. The Bye Laws and Operational Rules are part of these Articles. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... onal_rules
You'll see 'Insolvency Event' is defined at 4.10 of the Bye Laws.
You'll also see (4.7 of the Bye Laws) that these provide that the RFL board can deal with a club suffering an Insolvency Event, such as Administration, in any way it wants. "Make it up as you go along". This is why some are suggesting clearer defined penalties are published in advance for the future to make it all a bit more objective.
In the meantime though, the RFL will have to have regard to its previous decisions as they set a precedent (which needs to be broadly followed to avoid potential legal challenge).
So, back to precedent. The current penalty for going into Administration is 6 points deduction (but at its discretion, based on the facts of each case, the RFL board can take mitigating or other circumstances into account in imposing a lesser (Wakefield, Crusaders etc) or greater (eg Barrow) penalty).'"
I have read the Articles. I'm even anorak enough to have a copy printed out at home somewhere. Your will see a CVA is included within the definitiion of an insolvency event. And concluded the same as you - it leave far too much grey area, which is guaranteed to start all this sort of nonsense off whenever any lot of fans feel their club has been penalised differently to another. Even though they will never have all the facts that the RFL did when it made its decision.
As you will see earlier somewhere, I actually agreed pretty well entirely with your proposal for [ugoing forward[/u - and added some refinements of my own. |
|
Quote Wooden Stand="Wooden Stand"Adeybull. I'd suggest you read the RFL's current Articles of Association. The Bye Laws and Operational Rules are part of these Articles. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... onal_rules
You'll see 'Insolvency Event' is defined at 4.10 of the Bye Laws.
You'll also see (4.7 of the Bye Laws) that these provide that the RFL board can deal with a club suffering an Insolvency Event, such as Administration, in any way it wants. "Make it up as you go along". This is why some are suggesting clearer defined penalties are published in advance for the future to make it all a bit more objective.
In the meantime though, the RFL will have to have regard to its previous decisions as they set a precedent (which needs to be broadly followed to avoid potential legal challenge).
So, back to precedent. The current penalty for going into Administration is 6 points deduction (but at its discretion, based on the facts of each case, the RFL board can take mitigating or other circumstances into account in imposing a lesser (Wakefield, Crusaders etc) or greater (eg Barrow) penalty).'"
I have read the Articles. I'm even anorak enough to have a copy printed out at home somewhere. Your will see a CVA is included within the definitiion of an insolvency event. And concluded the same as you - it leave far too much grey area, which is guaranteed to start all this sort of nonsense off whenever any lot of fans feel their club has been penalised differently to another. Even though they will never have all the facts that the RFL did when it made its decision.
As you will see earlier somewhere, I actually agreed pretty well entirely with your proposal for [ugoing forward[/u - and added some refinements of my own. | |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 509 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2009 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jul 2014 | Feb 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote Sesquipedalian="Sesquipedalian"Common ground and common sense, at last!'"
Aye, it took a while tho 
Thing is, AdeyBull and other Bradford fans have been saying this since this broke last week or whenever it was...Well done Duckman for finally getting the message across.
Quote SesquipedalianMy opinion fwiw, you can't completely ignore the Administration even if all the creditors were paid and there'd have to be unbelievable and extenuating circumstances for a points deduction to be less than 4.'"
I said to you last week that I thought we'd get a deduction and fwiw, I still do. Edit: I cant say how many because, unlike [isome[/i fans from rival clubs that will benefit, I don't yet know what teh new owners plans are and I dunno if there are extenuating circumstances in mitigation. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 6858 | Leigh Centurions |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2009 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2019 | Nov 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
LOL at bradford fans on this forum who,over the last few days have tried to turn this thread into a Wakefield thread about events in 2011? instead of talking about how Wakefield moved heaven & earth to avoid administration "again"in 2013.
And laugh out even louder at the governing body for overseeing this whole debacle for however long its been going on now
|
|
|
|
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jul 2018 | Mar 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Is it true that the ring-fenced Jarrod Sammut has just been ring-fenced by Wakefield?  |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Moderator | 12550 | Wakefield Trinity |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jul 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jul 2018 | Mar 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote Wildthing="Wildthing"www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news/wildcats-sign-sammut/2014/02/
Sure is. Just confirmed by the club.'"
Excellent news.
It is to be hoped that any savings which may arise from the departures of the former ring-fenced Carvell and Sammut can be put to good use... like paying off creditors for instance and avoiding a SL points deduction. |
|
|
|
|
|
