More Bullmania

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"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 toThe 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