Smokey, you really do seem to enjoy picking holes in peoples posts.
The points deduction will apply to whichever Bulls club/team/organisation which continues to ply its trade in SL.

We've had 118 pages here and the Club/Team etc has been done to death

i have exlpained why it makes a difference.

Rather than just being happy that Bradfords collapse might lead Wakefield to survive be default again, maybe understand there are wider issues.

I read it as the RFL having stated that the club (regardless of who owns them) are having to be docked six points because whilst other clubs have been in a similar position (either in admin or in danger of being in admin) they have all acted to reduce costs in order to avoid it happening again while Bradford have not. Wakefield have twice gone through a process of selling their better players and reduced costs following their time in admin, London allowed so many players and coaching staff to leave that it left them looking dead certs to go down but this cut the wage bill and they also got somebody else to host games and to cover backroom staff costs to avoid administration. During their financial woes and two periods of administration Bradford have not made such efforts. Sure some players have left but they have signed replacements and extended and improved contracts of others at the same time. Omar Khan agreed to operate with only half of the central funding in order for the club to remain in SL yet in a season when relegation was not an issue despite having money coming in reduced by 600k the club made no effort to reduce the costs of the wage bill to fit their now smaller budget. They kept going with the squad that they had and that they clearly could not afford. (The RFL may have told the rest not to pick off players for nothing when the Bulls were in admin but they didn't order Bradford not to sell anyone once he takeover happened to balance the books). Doing so rather than reducing outgoings as other clubs have (even when Bradford may not have had to cut so drastically as Wakefield and London) has led the Bulls back to administration.

When two other clubs have been in or close to administration and have cut costs and avoided administration despite leaving themselves in peril of relegation and a third has been in administration and done nothing to avoid a further period of administration in favour of keeping a squad that should finish higher up the table then that third club has to be given the message that such practice is unacceptable. The full deduction had to be imposed to send the message to Bradford and all other clubs that clubs cannot keep going regardless spending what they can't afford and then using administration as a way to avoid paying their debts. Particularly when other clubs are taking measures to avoid it despite it threatening their top flight status.

The six points are gone, no matter who buys the Bulls.

they said the penalty was applied to Bradford Bulls....not BB2014 or OK Bulls....

"“Throughout our dealings with them, the club’s directors were unable to provide any evidence of new capital investment into Bradford Bulls and consequently, the RFL Executive had no confidence in the business plan that was presented.


“At no stage was there a firm written commitment from the directors to meet the liabilities: in particular, HMRC would have been left with an unpaid liability of almost £170,000.


“In the last six months two other clubs have had to restructure their businesses, introduce new investment from owners and release players to avoid administration. For Bradford to effectively drop off debt as a result of the administration without a points deduction would have significantly impaired the integrity of the competition.


at no stage does it mention BB2014...it says Bradford Bulls or just Bradford

I think you're right, as the points have gone from the Table and I can't se ethem or any of them being reinstated, but your general point must be wrong. Part of what you quoted said:

The corollary of that must be that in the (extremely unlikely) event that a new consortium did not "drop off the debt" but paid it, then the intgrity of the competition would not be impaired and very plainly there would be no need for a points deduction on the stated ground.

The quote clearly directly links the two - you can't "drop off debt" without a points deduction, it says.

I do feel for the Bulls fans in this situation, the to-ing and fro-ing must be unbearable.

I have every confidence that Mr Moore's remarks regarding them being as good as relegated will be shown for the lousy statement it is - with a probably win on Sunday against London, it's really not a big overhaul. That's providing the playing staff stick around.


Its' strange hearing someone from the Bradford club discussing vultures - I wonder if they're the same ones that took Andy Lynch, Ryan Hudson and Michael Platt, along with an attempt to get Michael Shenton when they became free agents when we were on our knees facing life in the National League a few years back. To me there is very little difference. Clubs only have their own interest at heart, the rugby league family is a family to an extent, until another team can benefit.

That's the nature of the sport, and it's painful.

Just going off these forums it seems like OK bulls was a holding company for Bradford bulls RLFC,as always stuff like that always sounds like a con to me.

Is it possible that Bradford bulls2014 & bradford bulls RLFC were one of the same on a 28 day licence and thats why the points deduction came into force because it couldnt pay its creditors?

If thats the case then the points deduction will stay.

The problem is,the club has now gone back into administration so even though no one seems to have lost out "financially"another points deduction should be applied even though it will be the minimum

Don't forget homesick Hudson Smith, given dispensation by Salford to leave for personal reasons and return to Oz only to turn up wearing a Bradford shirt!

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Bradford Bulls are a trading name of one of these two companies at any one time (or both, or neither, but it still isnt an entity outside of its company)



So if not BB2014. Who is 'them'?

and as you have already agreed, the club can't have debt, so it can't have a liability to HMRC.

You are right that it doesnt mention BB2014, but it also repeatedly mentions 'directors' 'Administration' 'business' 'business plans'. Clubs do not have these, the businesses who own them do

While I agree it's probably hypocritical of Franny to say the vultures are circling as we did the same thing on our pomp, you can hardly blame him for doing everything in his power to keep hold of the squad. The marquee signing hasgone, our star half back has gone. After our 17 we virtually have kids. We are in special measures so can't sign anyone. Losing even more would be a disaster.

I still think that the RFL/SL missed a trick with this which has been detrimental to the game.
Whilst I have little time for soccer at least the scots did the right thing with Rangers.
The strange thing is that Rangers are losing money still!
A bit like the Bulls they still insist on spending money they are never likely to have.
It is always strange to listen to the mantra that sports clubs are now businesses but are never run like that.

No, not necessarily, you're assuming two way accountability which isn't necessarily the case, hence your corollary is wrong. Maths degree



Also the 6 points without knowing future intent of the buyers was because the rfl to "past events" into account did they not? I imagine the administrator (and the rfl) will still expect at least some (especially to her majesty's tax collectors as the rfl is always very keen on that) paid off as part of the sale of the club.

That's not to say I don't think the rfl will use the 2 points as a bargaining point for any perspective buyer for a significant portion of the debt.