If you don't like it, don't go bust (again). The space below is for you to point out that "you" didn't actually go bust...



If you are happy to accuse the other 13 clubs of theft, I don't feel quite so bad for referring to the "fine" as a bribe to let Bradford stay in SL.

Incidentally, do you have any evidence to support your assertion that it was in fact a fine?

Seems fair enough.





OKB were told that if they wanted to be admitted to SL then they would have to -in basic terms- forfeit one year's distribution. So effectively, forfeit £1,600,000 or thereabouts.

Financial sanction; fine; penalty; all perfectly reasonable descriptions. What would you call it? A voluntary charitable donation?

The "share out" still remains a mystery to most of us and it would be helpful if there was a clear explanation as to the reasoning behind it and exactly why this was agreed to (by all parties)

They had a choice. They took the 'Liberal Democrat' option and then failed miserably to budget according to their income. 6 points is really the minimum deserved considering it's twice in as many years.

Yet again you and you fellow apologists try and excuse Bradford's self destruction by blaming others.

PS I'd bet a pound to a penny that if they'd been given the 'extra' money they would have still overspent by the same amount.

you do realise that when you use the word 'they' you are referring to two completely and utterly separate groups of people dont you? That they are completely independent of each other? Its almost like you believe 'Bradford' is a guy who has done all these things rather than simply a brand going between different businesses.

I don't think that HMRC are able to pursue monies that they are owed from any business that has gone bust, other than taking their place in the line of creditors but, as mentioned, they are trying to clamp down on sporting clubs going pop any continuing (under a new umbrella or otherwise) and the governing bodies of different sports have some obligation to do what they can to assist them in trying to prevent "another Portsmouth"

Then lets have a rule that acts as a deterrent to, and punishment for it, rather than what we have now which is an utterly pointless token gesture against the wrong people.

So what do you suggest ?

Blacklisting and banning of any persons involved in taking a club in to admin (in a real decision making capacity, not the marketing manager, programme seller or tea lady) and the holder of the golden share to be personally liable for a £100k fine should the club go in to administration.

Although the blacklisting aspect is perfectly sensible, the 100k fine would be somewhat more problematic and in most cases, would barely be a slap on the wrist.
In the recent cases of admin, the main people involved have probably lost in excess of the figure that you mention so, this is no deterrent.

Also, now that we are back to promotion and relegation a 100k fine compared to the potential gain (of a SL place), doesn't even register.

Perhaps, if "the golden ticket" is sacrificed for failing members, maybe there would be fewer cases of insolvency ?

Glad to see you are keeping up your utter bollox spouting standard, but nowhere have I tried to "excuse Bradford's self destruction".

You just want to pretend that nobody else and nothing else was in any way involved, though. In the actual real world, the collapse was, factually, the result of many factors. It is reasonable to discuss them. You introduced the emotive "blame".


I'm sure you would, but that's just the sort of pointless purely academic "bet" that adds literally nothing to any discussion.