Ses hasnt been right once ITT...just t'other day he was insisting there was an an automatic sanction for Insolvency Events


Congratulations on proving him wrong and AdeyBull [iet al [/iright. Again

2014 was part of the super league licence period......Bradford were forced by a majority of other SL clubs to give up half their central funding to remain a SL club..

Now part of the licence criteria is to have a capacity in excess off 10,000.
does this mean that Wakefield and London are no longer deemed suitable for superleague as they cannot at this moment accommodate 10,000 fans, If the criteria no longer applies as we are now having P & R then that should also apply to Bradford and they should receive their full central funding.

what do you think guys...if Bradford are still being unfairly penalised then any other club who is failing to meet the minimum standards should also be penalised as well.

btw...MY best-attempt solution to this nonsense going forward - as I have already said on here before:

Anyone buying or owning an RL club, that is to be a member of the Rugby Football League, has to lodge a bond with, and in favour of the RFL. That bond to be equal to, say, 200% of the expected or recent historic maximum third party creditors in a financial year. Or 100% plus 100% of all potential employee liabilities. Or similar.

That bond to be drawn upon in the event of insolvency, or protracted failure to pay creditors on time (HMRC, salaries) or within a reasonable period (otherwise).

A wealthy club owner can put up his own assets as security - effectively providing a secured personal guarantee for the bond. Will be no issues at all for them, since they are likely bankrolling their club anyway.

Non-wealthy club owners will need to try and buy a performance bond or similar, as is common with e.g. construction etc contracts.

To avoid discouraging non-wealthy but capable and genuine owners (like, say, a supporters trust, or capable small businessmen) who can neither pledge their own assets, or obtain an insured bond at a sensible price, the RFL run a scheme which subsidises isured bonds, partially paid for by the RFL and for which the owners (a) pay a monthly fee and (b) agree to submit to a much higher level of ongoing financial supervision, including where necessary an RFL-appointed non-executive financial-type director, all costs to be borne by the club.

The level of bond required to be reduced and removed as soon as a club's net assets exceed a certain threshold. So the likes of leeds, for example, would be free from any obligation.

Loads of detail to be finessed there, but surely some structure like that would enable anyone who was capable and competant to be able to consider running a RL club? WIthout fear of having to pay for past owners' mistakes or for losing their own livelihoods in the event of genuine failure?

very easily, the creditors issue is with the previous owners not the new ones. You are punishing the new ones, not the old ones,

What's stopping owners running up huge debts then putting the club into admin is that they will lose all the money they put in. That's the deterrent, taking points off a club they no longer own isn't a deterrent. Do you think Omar Kahn is sat there saying 'well, I'm cool with the hundreds of thousands of pounds I lost but god forbid they take points off a club i dont own'?

No sanction you levy on Bradford now could have any effect on how Omar Kahn ran the business. Just as no sanction you could levy on Andrew Glover would have affected how Ted Richardson ran Wakefield

The only people left after calamities like this are the fans. Fans should be punished. First, relegate their club and then flog each fan with the cat 'o nine tails. Where's the problem?

Some of the wierder ones might actually enjoy it.

Are you f**k!! Lol. What a cock.

You may have a point

I know the threads moved on a bit, but if my memory serves didn't Rodney walker loan a large sum (£160,000?) to the old wakey regime? I believe he was one of the creditors who was paid back first and in full.
I can't remember where or when I've got this from, I just seem to have a memory of it so perhaps someone could confirm or otherwise please (please don't attack me for posting this; I accept I could be totally wrong!)

You know what the biggest problem in these guys just not "getting it" is? Over and above those who just want to see Bradford screwed to improve their own club's chances of avoiding the drop? They can't get their heads around the distinction between an entity - be it company or club - that is incapable of any thought or action by itself - and those who own and/or direct it.

Maybe they would go out and give a car a damn good thrashing, because a previous owner ran up an HP debt on it and did not pay the garage for servicing it. That will REALLY teach that nasty car a lesson, won't it? And it will REALLY encourage its new owner not to do it again, won't it? Except, he never actually did it in the first place; a previous owner did.

Indeed, giving the car a well-deserved thrashing is, if anything, only likely to impoverish the new owner, and make it much more likely he will end up doing the same as the previous one.

(c) Adeybull's Car Analogies - available on Amazon and from all good bookstores.