As far as I am aware the RFL have not yet made a decision on the penalty that will be impossed on Bradford. So there are some hefty assumptions going on that they will get off scott free.

I've yet to see any rule stating administration will result in relegation. I'm not going to go into who has said what to whom as quite frankly very few of us where there.

There is a rule about not paying debts to HMRC, but this is treated seperately to administration. It has it's own little area in the rule book and there is no numbered sanction on it.

So it's entirely possible that both case are correct.

Wakey could have been going into Admin due to debts, but that may have included debts to the HMRC and they may very well have been told if you can't pay the HMRC you will have to start at the bottom again.

Bradford have been through an Admin process but have said they are working with creditors, which ( I don't know) could include the HMRC.

In terms of administration the situations are the same, but in terms of the extra blurb in the regulations one gets caught by the HMRC the other does not.

We will never know unless someone asks the RFL what exactly has happened in each case. But given that regulations cover a multitude of offenses, you can't say they are both the same if they are not.

Does anyone on here actually know the full in's and out's of both Wakefields and Bradfords Situations. Can they say that they have sat down with both situations and found they both cover the same set of rules?

Whilst the internet is awash with rumours and facts, separating out those two to decided whether they are both the same situation is imposible.

Whether a reporter will have the nouce to ask the RFL such a detailed question I doubt, as they tend to ask very general questions about the state of the game when they do get to interview someone at the RFL.

You do realise, with all your lawyerly knowledge, that Omar Kahn still owned the company put in to administration yes? So on top of Bradford Bulls now deciding to simply go in to admin to avoid debts they could pay, we know have a more interesting accusation, Omar Kahn has fraudulently conned Omar Kahn out of lots and lots of money

HMRC LIABILITIES
A3:1 ....


It may be considered Misconduct to have HMRC liabilities, to fail to submit certification, to
submit incorrect certification or to Under Report to HMRC and such Misconduct may also
be considered to be a matter which impacts on the integrity of competition....



This is the section that could have been used IF Wakefield where to go into administration. There is no description of any penalty in the whole section. IF Bradford have agreed to pay off the HMRC debts, then again they would not fall foul of this particular rule.

The section about administrations I've not been able to find, I'm assuming it's in Appendicies E but they are not there when I last looked,.

There isnt an identical situation to compare it to, it doesnt exist, its a complex and unique situation which required a complex and unique solution. Trying to shoehorn resolutions in to vague terms isnt fairness. If we were being fair we would examine the situation on its own merits rather than desperately trying to find broadbrush strokes to draw false comparisons. The only reason that this is happening is certain fans of certain clubs see it as an opportunity for their club to gain an advantage on the field. Thats it.

Liabilities exceed income and assets. You can either increase income or strip liabilities. Players are not assets unless you can get a price for them. We did it by predominantly reduce liabilities, albeit there were some prices paid for some players.

Did the Bulls do everything to reduce their liabilities? Given that the playing squad is a fair reflection of what was on the park last year, with useful additions, like George, Carvell and Gaskell, it seems that reducing liabilities didn't go as far as possible. They could have, for example, chosen to not take on any more liabilities.

So it's never as simple as "debts they could afford to pay". It's whether you are prepared to be left with whatever you have got once the debts are paid. With the Bulls, "what you have left" seemed to include Omar Khan, and that was maybe the problem. So ask Omar Khan what his view of the administration is.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz

It was Omar Kahns company that went into administration, my guess is Omar Kahn isn’t too happy with that, But the only person with any responsibility for that and the only person who could have avoided that is Omar Kahn.

Again you ignore the possibility that reducing liabilities can also reduce income. It isn’t as simple as either increase income or reduce liabilities as you state, its increase income in relation to liabilities.

What kind of accusation is that? What on earth are you accusing him of? This is getting serious.

Sorry. Just thought I'd see how effective it felt as a tool of argument. Fairly unsatisfactory, as it turned out.

Im accusing him of being the owner of OK Bulls ltd. Though thats less an accusation more a matter of public record. Unlike others i havent felt the need to start throwing out baseless accusations.

No just poor assumptions and numerous changes of direction, you clearly are a lawyer as it is the only profession that could sustain this amount of smokescreen

Im not sure why either of those things are relevant, Omar Kahn owned the OK Bulls at the time they were put into administration, he could, had he had the means and motive, stopped that happening, besides criminal accusations at Ryan Whitcut (which I will stay well away from) Where could Omar Kahn possibly have been conned? If Omar Kahn didnt know about the Admin, he has only himself to blame, these things are public for that reason.

Who are they? Brendan Guilfoyle who was the Bulls administrator previously? Omar Kahn? The three New guys?

Again, you wilfully ignore that a cut in expenditure can result in a cut in income. It isn’t income you need to increase, it isn’t outgoings you need to decrease, neither in isolation are evidence of sustainability. It is the relationship between the two which is important. There is no point in Bradford cutting their wage bill by £500k, only to their season ticket sales fall by £600k.

You seem convinced that Smokey is right and yet all other parties are wrong, because they fail to agree with your version of events, even though you were not present.

Given that Wakefield had be in admn. only 3 years ago, it seemed perfectly reasonable for them to be told that a further episode of insolvency would mean relegation to a lower league.
It is your own refusal to accept this circumstance that is allowing you to peddle the usual "Smokey is always right" nonsense and yet, to all of he people present at the meeting , the message was clear.
"IF YOU ENTER ADMIN YOU WILL BE RELEGATED" and this I why the Trinity fans are up in arms.
Of course, any conversation between Mick Carter and the RFL wont just have ben a single question, that isn't how the world spins but, this was the information given to the fans who attended the meeting and if you wish to change history, I suggest that you rent a time machine and see if you can go back in time and change what was said.

Alternatively, we could all choose to believe your own version of events, instead of the Chairman of Wakefield Trinity.
I know who I believe

The ignore user button is great.

[iThis post was made by SmokeyTA who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.[/i

So much better.