So that's settled then.


So whose next for administration.

Bradford

I agree with this. Unfortunately the usually 'quick to answer questions' Chairman at wakey is unusually quiet on the matter. I'd really like to hear what he thinks about this and whether he intends to make public the details of the alleged conversation with the RFL where Wakefield were told they would be relegated should they enter administration.

Really?

You aren't looking in the right place then.

He tweeted today that Wakefield will clear their debts in a honest manner - a clear dig at the Bulls ducking their obligations again.

Marian Koukash tweeted in agreement at the suggestion that Odsal should be dumped.

Mr Koukash would say the sky is Blue if it gets Salford the press he wants.

I think we have all learned to take him with a pinch of Salt, only he alone knows what he truely thinks. He says a lot in public just to up the PR of Salford. And so he should, but I take it as seriously as I take anything I read in the Sun.

I haven't seen the tweet but I don't think a tweet in the direction of the Wakefield chairman is quite the press he wants,needs,craves or desires.

However,it does seem that 'HMRC Liabilities' and 'Special Measures' do not apply to Bradford Bulls.

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/interactive_operational_rules?section=A3Worth Writing Then ?[/url

If todays results are anything to go by, Bradford wont need a points deduction to get relegated

I don't know if the following link relates to the Watkins Review and whether or not it has to be ratified by the RFL or the Super League clubs,but 6 points may not be the limit.

[url=http://www.loverugbyleague.com/news_13574-punishment-for-club-insolvency-set-to-increase.htmlOctober[/url

12 points penalty would be good.

I think every team but my team should have a 12 point penalty, just because it would be convenient for my team. Bradford should also take over responsibility of paying for my teams players wages as part of the debt agreement, and my team should get first refusal of any player brought through there academy in the next 100 years.

It seems this thread came to agreement, a 4/6 point penalty is appropriate in the circumstance, that should be the end of it, but now people are just fantasising about what else they'd like to inflict upon them.

If the alternative is relegation, then surely even 12 points is preferable?

a 12 point deduction is relegation in all but name

It's not about what's "preferable" - there's no precedent for them to be automatically relegated, so it's about what punishment fits the crime. Past convictions have been spent, so it's similar to the Wakefield situation, so the punishment can be the same as the Wakefield situation, until new evidence comes to light to suggest it was worse than that, then there is no need for a worse punishment, even if said worse punishment is "preferable" to some imaginary worst case scenario.

As PAW points out a few posts earlier, the RFL review said the penalty would be 12 points.

Whether that was actually adopted, who knows, but the 6 point precedence is established and is the minimum Bulls should expect.

I've seen the tweet and there's a a bit of a dig granted. I'm probably jumping the gun in wanting a full and measured statement regarding the conversation with the RFL regarding wakey's potential administration. I just fear that the longer it goes on, the less likely we are to hear one. Also, I suppose it is only fair that we wait and see what if, any, punishment is meted out regarding Bradford.

Quote ="dboy"As PAW points out a few posts earlier, the RFL review said the penalty would be 12 points. Whether that was actually adopted, who knows, but the 6 point precedence is established and is the minimum Bulls should expect.'" And the maximum - had the precedent been the maximum that is allowed to be set, it should of started with Wakefield. Example: Internet trolling has the precedent of being punished by being banned from the forum. Instead you should accept life imprisonment, because it's better than execution (and before you say that you can't be jailed for posting on the internet- you can www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25886026 (different circumstance I know but same principle))

Quote ="dboy"As PAW points out a few posts earlier, the RFL review said the penalty would be 12 points. Whether that was actually adopted, who knows, but the 6 point precedence is established and is the minimum Bulls should expect.'" And the maximum - had the precedent been the maximum that is allowed to be set, it should of started with Wakefield. Example: Internet trolling has the precedent of being punished by being banned from the forum. Instead you should accept life imprisonment, because it's better than execution (and before you say that you can't be jailed for posting on the internet- you can www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25886026 (different circumstance I know but same principle))

Nice link which doesn't seem to give the RL quite at much wiggle room as they may need.
Also, what happened about Fax/Fev being put on standby when there were problems a few months ago.
IIRC there was talk about them taking the place of any SL club that failed in respect of their finances.
Of course this would be totally impractical with the start of the season so close but, I felt sure that a warning had been given ?

I read that too earlier today.

However if the Administration is a paper exercise to effectively take OK away as the shareholder, then the other liabilities such as to HMRC will have been addressed.

I'm not sure how OK is going to take that. But I imagine with the little I know the conversation has gone this way.

OK has loaned money to the Bulls to keep them afloat. There seems to have been little capital input. After the previous shenanigans a few weeks back the BOD's have looked at the books, cuts have been made and they can run the club and pay the debts with the cuts that have been made, but they cannot also repay the loans that OK has put into the club when he was talking about putting in Capital.

So Bradford cannot pay all the debts with OK included but they can without his debts.

BOD "look we cannot pay your debts and the club will not last the season paying everyone back including you"
OK " Tough I loaned money to the Bulls and if someone wants to buy the club they are going to have to pay me"
BOD "Look no one is going to pay these loans, the club will fold, go into administration and if someone does buy them it will only be once the debts are wipped including your loans, similar to when you took over"

OK "I did not come in to end up losing money"
BOD " so how about a halfway house, the club is transfered to us for no fee (nominal fee) via an administration, we will promise to honour all the debts apart from your loans, however if in the future the club gets into a better position we will also make some payment towards your loans too"

This kind of covers this statement..

"It had not proved possible to resolve the ownership of the company with the previous owner and, as a result, the company's financial position had become untenable."

This statement covers the latter part

All players, employees and assets have been transferred to the new company, who will continue to function as Bradford Bulls under new directors Andrew Calvert, Mark Moore and Ian Watt, alongside chief executive Robbie Hunter-Paul.

The club say they now intend to approach the RFL to discuss the future and seek to avoid a points deduction, as the board of directors have stated their intentions to continue to work with creditors.

Whether OK is included in those creditors is something we do not know, but if he is not it would be unusual as the majority shareholder for him to agree to wipe out his own holdings, unless he just wanted to cut his losses.


I will stress the above is the way I see a theoretical conversation going, but that phrase intentions to continue to work with creditors seems to indicate everyone but OK is covered by the new regime.

That's a nice story, you should turn it into a script and send it in to the BBC or better still a Holywood producer, they might turn it into a fantasy movie.

Barrow were deducted 29 points in 2011 for financial infringements concerned with exceeding the salary cap and back-hand payments to players. This resulted in immediate relegation down to Championship 1. "RFL chief executive Nigel Wood says the punishment should serve as a warning to clubs that do not adhere to the league's operational rules."

It does seem that certain clubs get "preferential" treatment when it comes to these matters. As George Orwell could have said "All RL clubs are equal, but some clubs are more equal than others".

How does that relate to Bradford and their current situation? This is a genuine question, how does a issue regarding the salary cap and a club blatantly flaunting those rules have any baring on a club changing ownership?

We did to AVOID admin.
Bulls have taken admin, as a means of reneging on their debts in order to keep their first team intact.

Wakefield's way out was not the ONLY way, but it IS the RIGHT way.

The Bulls way is most definitely not!

The Bulls have said they intend to honour the debts though

No they have said they will discuss them

If they intended to honour their debts, they wouldn't have needed the protection of admin.