And, as I said, the RFL takes into account all the relevant circumstances following the Insolvency Event before deciding the sanction. That's why some Clubs get 6 points deduction, some get 4 and others have got a lot more (Barrow).

It was the ADMINISTRATOR that sold Bradford Bulls to BB (2014) the same day (or was it the day after?) OK Bulls went into Administration. Bit hasty, it seems in hindsight.

But is willing to actually play by the rules of the competition. So he ain't all bad.

but hardly what is necessary. Im not sure 'accepting a 6 point penalty' is a very good indicator of the buyers ability to fund and sustain the club .

and the ADMINISTRATOR who insisted on a 28 day licence to review any other bids, including Richard Lambs, which was inferior.

So you DID read and understand this when I quoted it! All that time arguing against my points and now you're quoting them

Steve O'Connor's take: www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/ru ... rd-6746627

Steve O'Connor's take: www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/ru ... rd-6746627

Don't wish to be rude.

But when I suggested you read the RFL Articles, you said you didn't need to.... (something about your computer folders being full of such stuff).

Then, in the early hours of the next morning, you demonstrated that you had had a look and quoted a few extracts (in a bit of a misleading way, I have to say).

But a quick skim through in the early hours doesn't give anybody an expert knowledge.

Quote ="frankbooth64"Steve O'Connor's take: www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/ru ... rd-6746627'" Good, well thought out argument, and came across well. Quote “I don’t think this is the RFL’s fault. It just seems there have been a number of administrations that have failed to get to grips with the issues. “The danger is the RFL get caught in the crossfire and are painted as the bad guys.” '" I think this is precisely what has happened!

Quote ="frankbooth64"Steve O'Connor's take: www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/ru ... rd-6746627'" Good, well thought out argument, and came across well. Quote “I don’t think this is the RFL’s fault. It just seems there have been a number of administrations that have failed to get to grips with the issues. “The danger is the RFL get caught in the crossfire and are painted as the bad guys.” '" I think this is precisely what has happened!

I'm not arguing that.

Your claim was that "...club owners dont make money from RL?", clearly phrased to mean that you believe that club owners do make money from RL. If all profits are re-invested in the business, where is Caddick's slice?

Oh, my aching sides...

What gauge of knitting needle are you using today?

It doesnt say all profits ever.

Also capital expenditure will increase the value of the business (you would hope) so 'Caddicks slice' even if he never took any profit out of the business and reinvested everything into capital expenditure would be in the value added to business.

i.e buy a business for £1m, make £1m a year for ten years, reinvest that £1m a year in capital expenditure, sell business for £11m (as a very simple example).

Am I the only one wondering how players contacted to BB2014 can play for OKBulls on the weekend?

Nope I'd like to know this also - especially given they're against London, and likely relegation candidates themselves

then change the habits of a lifetime and try not being


Which is true. I am familiar with the documents and have copies. I know the fundamentals of what's in them and know where to look. The quotes were to provide direct evidence to conclusively rebut spurious points made by various posters including you. I didn't need to read the Articles, but quoted for the benefit of those who clearly do.

As always, HTH.

You're not.

Reaching for the Paracetamol, so far as I know OKB remains a member of the RFL and of SLE. I haven't read anywhere of its memberships being revoked.

I'm not sure the contracts would be an obstacle. But if the players' registrations are held by BB2014... ?

What an unholy mess. No doubt the RFL are jumping about with paperwork for some temporary complex fudge as we speak.

And I never used the word "ever". I was referring to the news article you quoted which detailed Leeds' profits for one year, all of which were re-invested. It's not my fault that you didn't make it clear that you were alluding to a wider principle, namely
which is a reasonable scenario, though I imagine Chris Caisley had a similar plan when Bradford were a force. Now there's nothing left to crystalise...

and lets be honest, do they want to?

Let me check I'm up to date:

Okbulls are a member of sle, and hold a super league licence. This couldn't be transfered over because the rfl control the licences, and assumedily would only grant one to bb2014 after the sale was complete.

The administrator jumped the gun slightly, and transfered over all the assets of okbulls to bb2014 (causing the carvell issue) before the auction process was completed. This is presumably because Moore and co were planning on using the clubs funds to buy the club, so needed access to the assets before they could pay for them.

Bb2014 were granted a temporary 28 day super league licence to start the season. This was presumably going to transform into full licence after the sale was complete.

So bb2014 hold a temporary licence and the players for however long is remaining of the 28 day licence (it was the start of few so can't be long?) - what bb2014 doesn't have is any directors or money, and is essentially a failed shell company. But should be able to compete until that licence runs out.

Has bb2014 been placed in administration?

not quite, what seems to have happened is that the OKBulls went in to admin, BB2014 then tried to buy them, this was accepted by everyone except the administrator who needed to give 28 days for any other party to come forward. So everything was transferred over to BB2014 who were given a 28 day licence by the RFL to meet the demands of the administrator.

That 28 days seems to have expired because the administrator had accepted the BB2014 offer and rejected the other offers. Whilst that deal was being completed the RFL handed down a 6 point penalty, this led BB2014 to withdraw their offer to buy the assets so you would assume everything reverts back to OKBulls.

However it has been confirmed that by RHP that the players (and staff) were Tupe'd over to the new company, questions arise over whether they can be tupe'd back to a company which is insolvent.

it wasnt really that the administrator jumped the gun, more that OKBulls couldnt trade, BB2014 could, and with the season starting the assets needed to be with a company who could trade so that games could be played etc. So a temporary fudge was found whereby OKBulls would transfer the assets and staff to BB2014, BB2014 would be given a 28 temporary licence, and the administrator would spend 28 days trying to find a better buyer for OKbulls 2014.

Its also worth noting that it was confirmed by RHP that any other buyer would need to purchase OKbulls and not just the assets to transfer to a newco as BB2014 did.

it doesnt seem that BB2014 has been placed in to administration yet but they have withdrawn their offer to buy the club so may not have to pay for anything

Why can nothing ever be simple? Why are we trying to break new ground in contract & employment law that hasn't been remotely considered before? And why is it fudgey? I prefer caramel.

Is this where Chris Caisley rides in on a white steed to argue employment law and possibly win one?

As if that could ever happen! there is more chance of someone purchasing Nigel Wood's old underpants. I mean, honestly!


If their offer was still pending and they withdrew it before it was formally accepted then no, they don't owe the administrator anything. But there is the unresolved matter of having all the employees that were - we were told - TUPE'd over to them.

And that is the key question.
I for one can't see how they can. Now we could have a situation were a player is contracted to BB2014 but has his registration held by OKBulls.

I can see the RFL fudging it by using the excuse 'They are all one club with that being the Bradford Bulls' as a reason to return the registrations.