More Bullmania

Quote: bewareshadows "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.'"

Well down Beware, the fact no one has bothered to reply to your post probably show it's a well balanced view that no one can argue with

Can I just point out to the other posters who state Bradford "made no effort to cut cloth" as I've said a few
Times we made many office staff redundant, reduced hours. Reduction in pay.

We have lost Bateman, Platt, Langley, Naughton, Lulia, Whitehead, Murphy and L'estrange.

Yes we brought in Carvell, Ferguson George and Gaskell and Henry. Now with the exception of Carvell and possibly Ferguson the rest won't be on as much as the players we have lost.

Now Carvell was brought under the Khan regime half way through last year. The whole squad were told they could leave if they chose. If Carvell was on a £100k
+ wage at the bulls, only the top clubs have the money to pay that. But I'd imagined most are up to the cap so maybe no one was interested or couldn't afford him. We can't just sack him.

Wakey fans make out they were Holier than thou, how many winding up orders did you have last year. Thankfully for your clubs sake you sound like you got yourselves an honest businessman as chairman who won't over spend who managed to get the club off the previous regime without and fuss. Unfortunately this did not happen for us.

Unfortunately our regime overspent, the new directors came in and stated straight away they need to cut and they did! Unfortunately they could not get a deal in time until a security firm called in the administrators to get the deal done. The bulls did not deliberately go in to admin to deviously clear their debts. If they brought the club earlier I am very confident they would not have put the club into administration.

We DESERVE a points deduction, but I just thought I'd correct people who say we didn't make any effort to make cuts and deliberately went into admin because they are wrong.

As you were...