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.

Why would you pay off any debt if you the club already had been deducted 6 points?

I can only imagine the howls of protest and screams of those with a victim complex intensifying massively should at any stage Bradford now get points given back.

I see no problem with points being given back for paying off debt. However, I would not give them back on the promise of paying off debt.

Sure if someone is coming in with x amount of money and is promising to pay the debt, then you could assume it will happen. If someone is coming in promising to pay off the debt, but we will need £500k upfront to buy the business and pay the debt, it's a different matter.

I do think it's all a bit fudge like. I'm not a fan of discretionary rules and the rules should be fixed 6 point deduction reducing on a percentage of debt paid. If 100% is paid then no deduction as no advantage gained.

As for who has the 6 points deducted, I feel the name smoke and mirrors should be applied rather than just plain smokey.

The 6 points is deducted from the Bradford Bulls on the sporting side. Who ever is the owner of the Bulls carries that forwards. Currently the administrator.

I know you are using word play to try and argue differently. But it's just words. When a club goes into admin mid-season, when they are bought out, they do not start as a new club on 0 points. They carry forward points gained by the previous club. This is because they buy all assets of the club tangible and intangible.

This is what I have stated all along, there is a financial side which is penalized by the club going into admin. But the sporting assets could build up an unfair advantage that is never penalized. The only way to penalize the sporting side is to have a sporting rule which is a points deduction.

Where as the law of the land can govern on finance it cannot govern on sporting rules. That can only be decided on by the sports governing body.

If a player is banned for x number of matches, if a club is docked points for fielding an ineligible player. These are not things a court of the land can account for.

The 6 points is a sporting penalty nothing more or less it has nothing to do with who owns the venture, just to do with gaining an unfair sporting advantage the same as fielding 14 players or passing the ball forwards.

It has been widly accepted in most sports, only some Bradford fans have argued that they should be treated differently to the rest of the sporting world. I think this is due to some ingrained belief that their place at the top table is sacred.

Ok, a hypothetical. Say a bulls fan wins the £35m Euromillions tomorrow night. Buys the club for £5m from the administrator, to clear all debts in full, with a 5% bonus for the uncertainty, and also gets the list of everyone who donated money (and left their name) 2 years ago and offers to pay them back - or donate equivalent to charity, and leaves the remaining £3.5m in the club as capital. And buys Odsal back from the RFL for £2m, giving them a £500k profit.

How many points should be deducted? According to the regulations...

And should the fan have a psychiatric assessment??

but 100% could still be paid, meaning Bradford could very well 'buy' themselves out of relegation. Im sure that will go down well.


The playing side doesnt exist as anything other than an activity of the Business which owns it.

You are here, arguing that the 'playing side' should be punished for the activities of the 'business side' but also that that the 'playing side' is a completely seperate entity which exists entirely independantly of the 'business side' these are mutually exclusive standpoints.


it isnt word play, its just not allowing you to both have your cake, and eat it. The new business does not buy all the assets, tangible and intangible. They simply buy some of them from the administrator, or they buy the entire company.


Then you need to treat the sporting side and business side as one and the same, which is incompatable with what you have said above.
The rules of the governing body need to be followed, they cant arbitrarily decide things. The rules of the governing body cannot contravene the laws of the land.

You are wrong.

It is entirely to do with who owns the venture for numerous reasons. 1. The punishment is for the actions of who owns the venture and is mitigated by the actions of who owns the venture. 2 The venture does not exist outside of the activities of who owns it.3. As you say here, this is a punishment for sporting advantage apparently gained by the actions of who owns the venture. They are unarguably and irrevocably linked.



I do wish that people wouldnt equate 'most sports' with soccer.

On another note, I've always wondered if there is a spike in lottery ticket sales in a town or city if their club is threatened with administration ie Portsmouth, Southampton, Leeds Utd, Swansea City etc?

Camelot would have the data I would think. Be an interesting social studies/sports dissertation for someone.

Yeah, really strange.

I do not think that is what they did. They reached 6 points on the basis of the BB 2014 plans and have been quite clear that there was no evidence of additional funding, it was only after the sanction decision was announced that BB 2014 withdrew. The penalty has been applied, but I can see no reason that the RFL should not consider a mitigation of that sanction in the face of changed circumstances in the form of a buyer that injects funds and addresses the debt.

Talking about having your cake and eat it...

...either the new owners want to take up the Bradford Bulls franchise and inherit a 6 point deduction, or they don't, have no points deduction but start off the "new club" in Champ 1.

Take your pick.

or option 3. Don't take over the club.

The team should also suffer the same as the owners as with not playing with poorer players (because the owners did not want to sell them) they are aiding and abetting the owners in all this.

Which owners?

I also think it is extremely harsh on the Bradford players to accuse them of aiding and abetting the owners in all this. They and the other staff are the primary victims in this.

You weren't doing too bad, but then you disgracefully plunged into that slanderous nonsense. I object. A number of differing views have been expressed but unless I missed it, I haven't seen a single Bulls fan post anything at all that could be summarised as the ridiculous "argument" you claim were put. Nor have I seen anyone say or suggest the notion that the Bulls "place at the top table is sacred". Shame on you.

Eh?



I do like your avatar btw, but now am left wondering whether it's an actual photo.

er...well they wouldn't be the new owners then in that case, would they?

no they wouldnt, and the club would liquidate.

Heard Mr Cummins being interviewed yesterday. He was confident that they could overcome the 6pts deduction especially if they[i 'bring in a couple of new players'[/i! Has no one told him the club's skint?

No, he doesn't know. You won't tell him, will you?

Which would mean a restart in Champ 1 for a new club by "new owners", assuming that there is still an appetite for pro or semi-pro RL in Bradford and the fans themselves get something going, or someone else does.

What cannot be allowed to happen is that the club (forget about legal entity smoke and mirrors we are talking about the heart and soul of Bradford RL here) gets a free pass to remain in SL without any ramifications.

It's all typical "business as usual" rhetoric (either that or it's simply delusion), he has to keep up the façade to keep the players he still has.

The only thing which cannot be allowed to happen is for the people of bradford to be left without a club, and a kids of bradford left without a pathway.

The idea that the most important thing is that whoever tries to rescue the situation is in someway punished for the actions of others is unbelievably petty and illogical.

"Without ramifications"? There have already been enough ramifications to sink a tanker. The club is decimated, almost terminally fukked and hanging on by a thread. And you think there are "no ramifications"?? Are you on a different planet or something? Is your receiver on scramble?

There are plenty of clubs, Leeds, Halifax, Dewsbury, Huddersfield you know all those other clubs with in 30 minutes drive.

Saying that the people coming in are being punished is not true. The points deduction is for going into administration, not for coming out of it. It's just these owners tried to play chicken with the rules. They should rightly be rewarded if they did rescue the creditors as the more debt is paid the less of a playing advantage was gained.

ps on the last post I did not separate the sporting side and the finance side. But I did say that both sides need to be treated equally. Until the points deduction any advantage gained from overspending was left uneffected.