|
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 33944 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2016 | Mar 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="roofaldo2"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?'"
What do the operational rules state on administration?
What did the operational rules state on SC infringement?
Surely going into administration is ' batantly flaunting ' rules ?
The change of ownership has no bearing, it is the way it was ' engineered ' |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 1196 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Sep 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Starbug"What do the operational rules state on administration?
What did the operational rules state on SC infringement?
Surely going into administration is ' batantly flaunting ' rules ?
The change of ownership has no bearing, it is the way it was ' engineered ''"
Cue long winded, waffling retort from "insert bulls fan username" to bore you into submission! |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 17983 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2011 | 14 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Saint Simon"The Bulls have said they intend to honour the debts though'"
"Working with their creditors" is not the same as honouring ALL of their debts.
As others have pointed out, Mr Khan and the Inland Revenue would appear to be the major creditors.
Do you think that both of these parties (plus all of the other creditors) will receive all that they are owed.
If this were the case, they would not have gone into admin. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1999 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2007 | 17 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Jul 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="roofaldo2"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?'"
My point was that certain clubs seem to be treated in a more preferential way than others by the RFL. I'm not suggesting that the Bulls should have a 29 point deduction, but just that all clubs should be treated in the same way when it comes to transgressing operational rules.
Btw, when did it become mandatory for a club/company to go into administration in order to change ownership? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 8487 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2020 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"And the maximum - had the precedent been the maximum that is allowed to be set, it should of started with Wakefield.
'"
The situations AREN'T comparable. Wakefield never went into administration. The situations differ completely.
Wakefield needed money for whatever reason - debts/under-capitalised. They sold half their squad and made cuts to cover the shortfall and got out of their hole through nothing but more than hard work.
Bulls went into administration following a period of cuts. They didn't sell any of their players bar one and clearly over-spent budget-wise based on what has been said, hence the need to make such cuts. Regardless of circumstance, the Bulls into admin and broke the rules.
Sadly, I envisage a situation whereby the owners play the 'it wasn't our fault, this was done under previous ownership, we had no choice' card and look to get away with it.
It isn't fair to other clubs around them that have paid their bills, stuck to budgets and not spent money massively above and beyond what they didn't have. Therefore, it is only fair that a points deduction be given, however, I can only see it being to appease the other clubs. On the flip side, it won't be a significant penalty as to hinder the Bulls too much and also to take sympathy with the new owners and so they'll probably get a 2 point deduction as a slap on the wrist.
That said, they should be getting the full weight of the operational rules given that it's the second administration in as many years. |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 7182 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2011 | 14 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="dboy"If they intended to honour their debts, they wouldn't have needed the protection of admin.'"
The new board of directors tried buying the club BEFORE admin. Unfortunately Khan played hard ball and him and the new directors are taking legal action against each other as far as i am aware as well as Ryan Whitcut. An agreement was in place for the new directors to take over BEFORE admin until Khan changed his mind. As i understand it the RFL have been involved in these talks the whole time. There aren't some devious dirty hand tactics to avoid paying off debts.
I hope we pay off as much debt as possible. If not 6 point penalty, 4 points if we pay off some of the debt. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 33944 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2016 | Mar 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Bull Mania"The new board of directors tried buying the club BEFORE admin. Unfortunately Khan played hard ball and him and the new directors are taking legal action against each other as far as i am aware as well as Ryan Whitcut. An agreement was in place for the new directors to take over BEFORE admin until Khan changed his mind. As i understand it the RFL have been involved in these talks the whole time. There aren't some devious dirty hand tactics to avoid paying off debts.
I hope we pay off as much debt as possible. If not 6 point penalty, 4 points if we pay off some of the debt.'"
' Hardball ' meaning he wanted some money back? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 8487 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2020 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
So who put the club into admin?
If it was Mark Moore and co then surely that would indicate that the club had changed hands before admin? Otherwise, surely it would have been the decision of OK, as he technically still owned the club.
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5214 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2006 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2024 | Sep 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Fully"So who put the club into admin?
If it was Mark Moore and co then surely that would indicate that the club had changed hands before admin? Otherwise, surely it would have been the decision of OK, as he technically still owned the club.'"
It was the security firm who whitcut took a loan out with (which, according to reports was without oks knowledge) and have a 1% stake in Bradford as backing for the loan. Aka it was a royal mess up by the previous regime, but they didn't put it in administration, and the new regime bought them from the administrators. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 20966 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2003 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2015 | Feb 2015 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5214 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2006 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2024 | Sep 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="Fully"The situations AREN'T comparable. Wakefield never went into administration. The situations differ completely.
Wakefield needed money for whatever reason - debts/under-capitalised. They sold half their squad and made cuts to cover the shortfall and got out of their hole through nothing but more than hard work.
Bulls went into administration following a period of cuts. They didn't sell any of their players bar one and clearly over-spent budget-wise based on what has been said, hence the need to make such cuts. Regardless of circumstance, the Bulls into admin and broke the rules.
Sadly, I envisage a situation whereby the owners play the 'it wasn't our fault, this was done under previous ownership, we had no choice' card and look to get away with it.
It isn't fair to other clubs around them that have paid their bills, stuck to budgets and not spent money massively above and beyond what they didn't have. Therefore, it is only fair that a points deduction be given, however, I can only see it being to appease the other clubs. On the flip side, it won't be a significant penalty as to hinder the Bulls too much and also to take sympathy with the new owners and so they'll probably get a 2 point deduction as a slap on the wrist.
That said, they should be getting the full weight of the operational rules given that it's the second administration in as many years.'"
www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadw ... istration/
Not what it says here ...
Interesting no one was calling for wakefields license to be auctioned off then (at least in Wakefield)
Hence yes, you were in administration, so Wakefield should have been handed the maximum penalty in the operational rules? What about crusaders? (They also got 6 and arguably but the game in much bigger disrepute ... ) |
|
Quote ="Fully"The situations AREN'T comparable. Wakefield never went into administration. The situations differ completely.
Wakefield needed money for whatever reason - debts/under-capitalised. They sold half their squad and made cuts to cover the shortfall and got out of their hole through nothing but more than hard work.
Bulls went into administration following a period of cuts. They didn't sell any of their players bar one and clearly over-spent budget-wise based on what has been said, hence the need to make such cuts. Regardless of circumstance, the Bulls into admin and broke the rules.
Sadly, I envisage a situation whereby the owners play the 'it wasn't our fault, this was done under previous ownership, we had no choice' card and look to get away with it.
It isn't fair to other clubs around them that have paid their bills, stuck to budgets and not spent money massively above and beyond what they didn't have. Therefore, it is only fair that a points deduction be given, however, I can only see it being to appease the other clubs. On the flip side, it won't be a significant penalty as to hinder the Bulls too much and also to take sympathy with the new owners and so they'll probably get a 2 point deduction as a slap on the wrist.
That said, they should be getting the full weight of the operational rules given that it's the second administration in as many years.'"
www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadw ... istration/
Not what it says here ...
Interesting no one was calling for wakefields license to be auctioned off then (at least in Wakefield)
Hence yes, you were in administration, so Wakefield should have been handed the maximum penalty in the operational rules? What about crusaders? (They also got 6 and arguably but the game in much bigger disrepute ... ) | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 6858 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2009 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2019 | Nov 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadwick-lawrence-solicitors/wakefield-wildcats-exit-administration/
Not what it says here ...
Interesting no one was calling for wakefields license to be auctioned off then (at least in Wakefield)
Hence yes, you were in administration, so Wakefield should have been handed the maximum penalty in the operational rules? What about crusaders? (They also got 6 and arguably but the game in much bigger disrepute ... )'"
If i'm understanding things right,aren't these new operational rule that have been brought in, precisely because of Wakey in 2011 and Bradford 2012? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 8487 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2020 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadwick-lawrence-solicitors/wakefield-wildcats-exit-administration/
Not what it says here ...
Interesting no one was calling for wakefields license to be auctioned off then (at least in Wakefield)
Hence yes, you were in administration, so Wakefield should have been handed the maximum penalty in the operational rules? What about crusaders? (They also got 6 and arguably but the game in much bigger disrepute ... )'"
That link is referring to Wakefield's administration of beginning 2012. Prior to Bradford's last administration.
That is not what happened earlier in 2013, which I believe is what you are referring to.
Wakefield were given a penalty of 4 points for the above admin, as Bradford were given 6. Wakefield chose to honour some debts under the change of ownership and received a lesser penalty as a result. Bradford didn't, hence 6. Crusaders honoured some creditors so they got four points - not six.
Wakefield of 2013 never went into admin and they - to this day- remain under the ownership of Spirit of 1873 Ltd, the same company that bought the club from administration a couple of years ago.
The only way Bulls would - and should - get away with a penalty is if they honour all the debts. However, why go into administration if that was the case. Therefore, a 2 point penalty should suffice - clubs can't state they weren't punished (only not punished enough) and Bulls aren't hamstrung.
Fair is fair and there should be no favouritism. Otherwise, I can envisage a vast rift between some clubs and others. That wouldn't be good for the sport on the back of a World Cup. We've had too much damage and administration again only drags up the dirt we've done so well to get rid of. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5214 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2006 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2024 | Sep 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Fully"That link is referring to Wakefield's administration of beginning 2012. Prior to Bradford's last administration.
That is not what happened earlier in 2013, which I believe is what you are referring to.
Wakefield were given a penalty of 4 points for the above admin, as Bradford were given 6.'"
The time Wakefield did enter administration was what I was alluding to (or so I believed.) Wakefield neither entered administration nor received a points reduction for any of the goings on over the off season (or I've missed a dramatically huge piece of news!) my apologies for any confusion, my point was merely 6 points is the precedent for entering administration - and unless there's anything to suggest that this was more severe, there's nothing to suggest there will be a more severe punishment.
There are a lot of arguments to suggest Bradford should of followed the path Wakefield took this winter, but without full details, none of us can really make a like for like judgement. A lot of Wakefield fans seem to be calling for a greater than 6 point deduction (which whilst understandable is a somewhat selfish view as it aids them greatly) - but they have been in this boat too, and should MC (who I've gained a lot of respect for reading his posts on here) have been someone else, could of been in a similar position themselves (and almost were up to a point)
I'm not arguing that Bradford shouldn't get a points deduction, merely that it should be in line with those that have happened previously. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5214 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2006 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2024 | Sep 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="j.c"If i'm understanding things right,aren't these new operational rule that have been brought in, precisely because of Wakey in 2011 and Bradford 2012?'"
I have no idea - I recent through all the proposals yesterday (because I'm cool) now we have some figures to work with to see precisely who would be getting how much compared to now. I don't remember seeing anything about more substantial penalties (merely that they should be considered as far more severe events) certainly no figures for points deductions or the like - but even so would those rules not come into place in 2015? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 8487 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2020 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"The time Wakefield did enter administration was what I was alluding to (or so I believed.) Wakefield neither entered administration nor received a points reduction for any of the goings on over the off season (or I've missed a dramatically huge piece of news!) my apologies for any confusion, my point was merely 6 points is the precedent for entering administration - and unless there's anything to suggest that this was more severe, there's nothing to suggest there will be a more severe punishment.
There are a lot of arguments to suggest Bradford should of followed the path Wakefield took this winter, but without full details, none of us can really make a like for like judgement. A lot of Wakefield fans seem to be calling for a greater than 6 point deduction (which whilst understandable is a somewhat selfish view as it aids them greatly) - but they have been in this boat too, and should MC (who I've gained a lot of respect for reading his posts on here) have been someone else, could of been in a similar position themselves (and almost were up to a point)
I'm not arguing that Bradford shouldn't get a points deduction, merely that it should be in line with those that have happened previously.'"
My apologies - it seemed like you were comparing the two situations between Wakey and Bulls over last few months.
In term of the points deduction, I think all clubs should be treated equally and with consistency. IMO, any form of insolvency should be met with a penalty regardless of circumstance because there's always guaranteed to be someone missing out, somewhere, whether it's a previous owner or a sponsor, or a creditor.
In the case of OK, he came in and bought the club and for whatever reason loaned the club money. Perhaps he expected more from the Bulls fans for whatever reason; clearly it didn't work and so to cover his back from going into a black hole he secured a loan to the club in order for him to get his money back as and when. Whether this ties into the club getting back to full Sky money would be interesting.
Either way, the new owners now don't want to pay that loan clearly seeing it as causing issues for the club. I don't agree with that - regardless of what else has happened. OK is entitled to protect his investment - see Directors' loans elsewhere. I'd be shocked if Cas went into admin to get rid of loans to the club made by JF. Although, I guess there's a difference in that we own a major asset in our ground, to which the loans are secured.
In this sense, they are starting with a bank balance of zero and benefit from losing that historic debt (no repayments to be made). From reading the various threads, I kind of get the points being made by Bulls fans but I still don't believe it makes it right by any stretch of imagination. Not when other clubs play by the rules (why should Cas, Widnes et al) start level with a club that over-spent?
In terms of penalties dished out, again, paying back creditors is a significant part of what penalty a club gets. Pay nothing - get highest penalty, pay some get a lesser penalty. It's for that reason I've compromised and said a 2 pt pen should be fair.
In the Policy Review document it states this:
Quote "It is further recognised that those clubs who do undertake an Insolvency Event (and accordingly “drop off” debt) have secured a competitive advantage over their rivals which demands that some level of sanction continues to be imposed."'"
OK's loan is a debt - Bulls are doing precisely that.
Under the new proposals it is proposed to:
Quote The current maximum sporting sanction, following an Insolvency Event, of 6 Super League/9 Championship points should be increased to 12 Super League/18 Championship points. Board discretion to reduce this penalty on application from a club should be removed.'"
media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Policy%2 ... 202013.pdf |
|
Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"The time Wakefield did enter administration was what I was alluding to (or so I believed.) Wakefield neither entered administration nor received a points reduction for any of the goings on over the off season (or I've missed a dramatically huge piece of news!) my apologies for any confusion, my point was merely 6 points is the precedent for entering administration - and unless there's anything to suggest that this was more severe, there's nothing to suggest there will be a more severe punishment.
There are a lot of arguments to suggest Bradford should of followed the path Wakefield took this winter, but without full details, none of us can really make a like for like judgement. A lot of Wakefield fans seem to be calling for a greater than 6 point deduction (which whilst understandable is a somewhat selfish view as it aids them greatly) - but they have been in this boat too, and should MC (who I've gained a lot of respect for reading his posts on here) have been someone else, could of been in a similar position themselves (and almost were up to a point)
I'm not arguing that Bradford shouldn't get a points deduction, merely that it should be in line with those that have happened previously.'"
My apologies - it seemed like you were comparing the two situations between Wakey and Bulls over last few months.
In term of the points deduction, I think all clubs should be treated equally and with consistency. IMO, any form of insolvency should be met with a penalty regardless of circumstance because there's always guaranteed to be someone missing out, somewhere, whether it's a previous owner or a sponsor, or a creditor.
In the case of OK, he came in and bought the club and for whatever reason loaned the club money. Perhaps he expected more from the Bulls fans for whatever reason; clearly it didn't work and so to cover his back from going into a black hole he secured a loan to the club in order for him to get his money back as and when. Whether this ties into the club getting back to full Sky money would be interesting.
Either way, the new owners now don't want to pay that loan clearly seeing it as causing issues for the club. I don't agree with that - regardless of what else has happened. OK is entitled to protect his investment - see Directors' loans elsewhere. I'd be shocked if Cas went into admin to get rid of loans to the club made by JF. Although, I guess there's a difference in that we own a major asset in our ground, to which the loans are secured.
In this sense, they are starting with a bank balance of zero and benefit from losing that historic debt (no repayments to be made). From reading the various threads, I kind of get the points being made by Bulls fans but I still don't believe it makes it right by any stretch of imagination. Not when other clubs play by the rules (why should Cas, Widnes et al) start level with a club that over-spent?
In terms of penalties dished out, again, paying back creditors is a significant part of what penalty a club gets. Pay nothing - get highest penalty, pay some get a lesser penalty. It's for that reason I've compromised and said a 2 pt pen should be fair.
In the Policy Review document it states this:
Quote "It is further recognised that those clubs who do undertake an Insolvency Event (and accordingly “drop off” debt) have secured a competitive advantage over their rivals which demands that some level of sanction continues to be imposed."'"
OK's loan is a debt - Bulls are doing precisely that.
Under the new proposals it is proposed to:
Quote The current maximum sporting sanction, following an Insolvency Event, of 6 Super League/9 Championship points should be increased to 12 Super League/18 Championship points. Board discretion to reduce this penalty on application from a club should be removed.'"
media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Policy%2 ... 202013.pdf | |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 659 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2014 | Feb 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadwick-lawrence-solicitors/wakefield-wildcats-exit-administration/
Not what it says here ...
Interesting no one was calling for wakefields license to be auctioned off then (at least in Wakefield)
Hence yes, you were in administration, so Wakefield should have been handed the maximum penalty in the operational rules? What about crusaders? (They also got 6 and arguably but the game in much bigger disrepute ... )'"
Irrespective of what it says there, in actual fact Wakefield had 6 points deducted which was reduced to 4pts because Spirit of 1873 paid off a very large chunk of the money owed to creditors
This time around Wakefield, while still under the ownership of Andrew Glover and with CEO James Elston still running things (into the ground), were poised to enter Administration for a second time when the RFL intervened and informed Wakefield that they'd be demoted from SL down to Championship 1 if they went ahead with the Administration.
This prompted a Boardroom takeover and eventually saw Andrew Glover and James Elston leave, new Chairman Michael Carter then delivered the devastating news to Trinity supporters. A £400K defecit eventually became £600K, to balance the books approximately 28 of 32 back room staff lost their jobs. This was coupled with the sale or transfer of a whole host of prominent 1st choice and junior players.
Kyle Amor, Justin Poore, Tim Smith, Ben Cockayne, Oliver Wilkes, Paul Aiton, Frankie Mariano, Liam Kaye, Danny Cowling. We also relinquished our contractual hold on Chris Tuson who we'd signed from Wigan.
The end result of this was that Wakefield balanced the books and avoided Administration whilest also honouring their obligations to all creditors. The action has come at great cost with us having decimated our Super League team resulting in a sharp decline in season ticket sales and almost everyone tipping us for relegation.
Contrast this with how Bradford have behaved and then say that it's fair if they avoid punishment for their actions! |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 7182 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2011 | 14 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Sesquipedalian"Irrespective of what it says there, in actual fact Wakefield had 6 points deducted which was reduced to 4pts because Spirit of 1873 paid off a very large chunk of the money owed to creditors
This time around Wakefield, while still under the ownership of Andrew Glover and with CEO James Elston still running things (into the ground), were poised to enter Administration for a second time when the RFL intervened and informed Wakefield that they'd be demoted from SL down to Championship 1 if they went ahead with the Administration.
This prompted a Boardroom takeover and eventually saw Andrew Glover and James Elston leave, new Chairman Michael Carter then delivered the devastating news to Trinity supporters. A £400K defecit eventually became £600K, to balance the books approximately 28 of 32 back room staff lost their jobs. This was coupled with the sale or transfer of a whole host of prominent 1st choice and junior players.
Kyle Amor, Justin Poore, Tim Smith, Ben Cockayne, Oliver Wilkes, Paul Aiton, Frankie Mariano, Liam Kaye, Danny Cowling. We also relinquished our contractual hold on Chris Tuson who we'd signed from Wigan.
The end result of this was that Wakefield balanced the books and avoided Administration whilest also honouring their obligations to all creditors. The action has come at great cost with us having decimated our Super League team resulting in a sharp decline in season ticket sales and almost everyone tipping us for relegation.
Contrast this with how Bradford have behaved and then say that it's fair if they avoid punishment for their actions!'"
But Bradford did try to cut their cloth . A lot if wage cuts from top to bottom, redundencies, reduced hours. We lost around 4 of our best players and few others. Yes Carvell has come in and will be a top earner. I can't see the rest been on as much money as the ones who left. We will defintely be spending less than last year! Bradford didn't deliberately go into admin, like I've said previously the new owners said rigt from the off before Xmas that they needed to cut £400k. They said players could leave if they chose.
Unfortunately thy haven't been able to reach an agreement to purchase the club and the security firm which has 1 of 100 shares in the club called in the admin blokes to get the deal done.
I still think we Deseve a points deduction but I dont believe we deliberately chose to go into admin to wipe off Debts. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 2276 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2011 | 13 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| So Bradford will be paying HMRC to avoid the winding up order and Bradford council?
No they won't as that historic debt (A considerable sum) is linked to OKBulls, a company that has conveniently been taken in to administration and no longer exists 
No Bradford bulls didn't deliberately go in to administration of course not  |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|  At this thread,
Interesting isn’t it, that the people we have seen running about criticising franchising and the fact the RFL have used the underlying business as part of a clubs ability to be an SL side, the people who have said for years and years that its only what happens on the pitch that matters, that the only criteria for being SL is winning enough games, that it is wrong for the RFL to interfere in business matters and that business matters shouldn’t dictate which division you are in are the same ones now running about screaming i demand points, relegate them, get rid they haven’t been run well enough as a business to be in SL. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 5086 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2022 | Nov 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Thank you Mr Supercilious!
I think you'll find that what the majority of people who are "running about screaming" want is a governing body that treats all it's member clubs with the same respect and applies the same set of rules to all.
How can anyone justify the governing body allowing/encouraging one club to go into administration whilst punishing others (or threatening to) for doing the same thing. Are we to understand that the RFL are completely against any club going into admin (as they should be IMO) unless it is a decision they have made to protect one of it's favourites - because that's how it appears.
The criticism of franchising was mainly for the same reasons - ie the rules were not consistently applied to all clubs. Franchising would and should have been the solution, not the return to boom/bust of promotion and relegation. But, it had to be applied fairly, consistently and openly. That should apply to all of the RFL's dealings with it's member clubs but it never seems to does it?
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Fordy"Thank you Mr Supercilious!
I think you'll find that what the majority of people who are "running about screaming" want is a governing body that treats all it's member clubs with the same respect and applies the same set of rules to all.
How can anyone justify the governing body allowing/encouraging one club to go into administration whilst punishing others (or threatening to) for doing the same thing. Are we to understand that the RFL are completely against any club going into admin (as they should be IMO) unless it is a decision they have made to protect one of it's favourites - because that's how it appears.
The criticism of franchising was mainly for the same reasons - ie the rules were not consistently applied to all clubs. Franchising would and should have been the solution, not the return to boom/bust of promotion and relegation. But, it had to be applied fairly, consistently and openly. That should apply to all of the RFL's dealings with it's member clubs but it never seems to does it?'"
No-one is justifying anything.
I also wouldn’t put much trust in a rumour that Wakefield were told they would be relegated if they went in to admin, nor would I pay much attention to those trying to paint a picture of hypocrisy between what Wakefield were rumoured to be told would happen in their circumstance, and what may or may not happen with Bradford.
It is your choice how it appears, you are choosing to see ‘favourites’ and you are choosing to see teams being treated differently. You have chosen to believe that Wakefields situation is exactly the same as Bradfords, you have chosen to believe that Bradford are a ‘favourite’ and you are choosing to fit everything around that because it suits you and feeds in to your belief that poor little Wakefield are hard done by. Its nonsense, its typical Rugby League chip on shoulder nonsense. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 659 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2014 | Feb 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"No-one is justifying anything.
I also wouldn’t put much trust in a rumour that Wakefield were told they would be relegated if they went in to admin, nor would I pay much attention to those trying to paint a picture of hypocrisy between what Wakefield were rumoured to be told would happen in their circumstance, and what may or may not happen with Bradford.
It is your choice how it appears, you are choosing to see ‘favourites’ and you are choosing to see teams being treated differently. You have chosen to believe that Wakefields situation is exactly the same as Bradfords, you have chosen to believe that Bradford are a ‘favourite’ and you are choosing to fit everything around that because it suits you and feeds in to your belief that poor little Wakefield are hard done by. Its nonsense, its typical Rugby League chip on shoulder nonsense.'"
What utter cods wallop!
No one choosing how this appears, it is what it is and recent actions and decisions by the Bulls and the RFL are what they are. You can choose to ignore it if you want and others can choose not to ignore it but you can't change what's happened and whats happening now.
Wakefields communications with the RFL aren't public knowledge but I highly doubt that the Chairman of Wakefield Trinity would make the statement he did regarding being told we'd be relegated if entering Administration if it hadn't happened. Equally, had he spoken out of turn or lied then I'm pretty sure someone from the RFL would have publicly refuted his claims. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Sesquipedalian"What utter cods wallop!
No one choosing how this appears, it is what it is and recent actions and decisions by the Bulls and the RFL are what they are. You can choose to ignore it if you want and others can choose not to ignore it but you can't change what's happened and whats happening now.
Wakefields communications with the RFL aren't public knowledge but I highly doubt that the Chairman of Wakefield Trinity would make the statement he did regarding being told we'd be relegated if entering Administration if it hadn't happened. Equally, had he spoken out of turn or lied then I'm pretty sure someone from the RFL would have publicly refuted his claims.'"
The chairman of WTW gets no benefit from presenting the RFL or Bradford in a fair light, he gets no benefit from presenting Wakefield as a party treated fairly. There is a big difference between the RFL saying ‘go in to admin and you will be relegated’ and ‘go in to admin and you are risking relegation, and an even bigger difference to ‘go in to admin and if you don’t come out of it properly we may not be able to keep you in SL’. All three can be paraphrased as ‘The RFL threatened to relegate us if we went in to Admin’ which as a statement panders to the chip on shoulder brigade who choose to ignore their clubs failings and the help their club receive, and choose to highlight other clubs failings and the help other clubs receive. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 2276 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2011 | 13 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"The chairman of WTW gets no benefit from presenting the RFL or Bradford in a fair light, he gets no benefit from presenting Wakefield as a party treated fairly. There is a big difference between the RFL saying ‘go in to admin and you will be relegated’ and ‘go in to admin and you are risking relegation, and an even bigger difference to ‘go in to admin and if you don’t come out of it properly we may not be able to keep you in SL’. All three can be paraphrased as ‘The RFL threatened to relegate us if we went in to Admin’ which as a statement panders to the chip on shoulder brigade who choose to ignore their clubs failings and the help their club receive, and choose to highlight other clubs failings and the help other clubs receive.'"
Oh dear |
|
|
|
|
|
At this thread,
