The first part is just wrong, Bradford's licence review explained that the club faced problems,

The 2nd part contradicts your own argument, any punishment to Marc Green now does not punish a club for going into admin nor act as a deterrent because it punishes the wrong person. It's not only shutting the door after the horse has bolted, it's shutting the door after the horse has bolted, died, gone to the slaughterhouse and been BBQ'd as a tesco burger.

You can trot out this same old crap time and time again, it isn't going to change anything. Only if the RFL read your posts on RLFANS and then do a big u-turn on their policies will what you are proposing be implemented. Why keep regurgitating the same old posts when at the end of the day, there are only 2 things certain about Bradford's punishment.

1. They have been given a 6 point deduction.
2. They are appealing said points deduction.

IMO only after the appeal will they review their policies (if they actually feel the need to) and maybe change the way they deal with insolvency events.

I am sure Smokey can respond for himself, but what a strange question!

If other posters keep repeating incorrect and frankly befuddled claims, why do you think those mistakes shouldn't be corrected, if someone wants to correct them?

Why don't you berate the people who keep repeating the same mistakes and misinformation instead? There would at least be some point to that.

I don't get this argument that a points deduction for the Bulls isn't a deterrent because it doesn't affect the people who ballsed up in the first place. Surely, the idea behind all punishments is, partly, to serve as a deterrent to others. One of the reasons I don't break into and burgle my neighbours' house is because I don't want to go to prison ie. the prison sentence that's been handed down to others is a deterrent.
"..... pour encourager les autres" as Voltaire said.

I am sure the RFL are just stalling until they can come up with a mind boggling, complex, logical sounding reason to give Bradford the points back. Knowing the history of 'punishing' the so called bigger clubs, I cannot see them wanting Bradford in the lower leagues. Watch out Wakey.

But if the perpetrator isn't punished the it isn't a deterrent.

You don't burgle people becauseif you got caught robbing you go to prison and you don't want that, that is a deterrent. If however you're neighbour was burgled and instead of looking for you (the robber) the police simply put the next person to enter your neighbours house in prison that wouldn't be a deterrent would it.

Omar Kahns business went into admin, nothing you do to Marc Green is a punishment or deterrent to the company which went into admin.

If say Adam Pearson were contemplating putting hull fc in admin, threatening to punish the next owners isn't a deterrent is it.

So by both your and FAs logic the Bradford Bulls RLFC should not have any sanction because it's not the same Bradford Bulls RLFC as the one which failed. By that measure they should also start at the bottom of the League structure or are you wanting your cake and want to eat it!

Of course ok bulls have been punished, the value of their asset tie the Bradford bulls is massively diminished.

Do we really believe that if the points deduction had not been in place that the price that the new owners paid for the company would not have been significantly higher ?

The points deduction was not against Marc green and it is not his punishment, but he knowingly bought the company fully aware that it was a three legged horse.

Spot on!

No, it is just you have comprehension issues.

I have never said there should be no sanction against a new owner.

I have always said that the decision on what -if any - sanctions must be made based on the new owner's proposals. Then there is a point.

Wasn't it Marc Green who forced them into admin to protect his debenture as a winding up petition from HMRC was looming?

Is Marc Green the new owner of the company running the Bulls?

Based on the answer to both questions above being "YES", it seems a bit rich for them to be basing an appeal on a "force majeure" event, when it was the current owner who seems to have set the chain of events in motion

... would be hypothetical, because it's not.