Probably, but don't remember really. However if you asked me in twenty years time which clubs do I remember being in trouble in the past. The Bradford debacle will be top of the list. Actually we might all have forgotten about RL in twenty years time the way things are going. There are currently two clubs in SL who have a net worth of around -£10million

Nothing there for me to disagree with. Crucially though they are all appointed to carry out a specific task with clear terms of reference that do not require them to consider the consequences their decisions may have on other aspects of the appointers operations. Staying with the example of the RFL disciplinary its why they use ex referees rather than current ones, why they appoint chairs with a legal background, who do no other work for them, rather than use the in house legal team and Its why they can be described as independent in the commonly understood sense of the word.

If the test for independence is simply, are you being paid and have you been appointed, nobody will ever pass it and we may as well have left Jeremy Hunt to get on with deciding what nice chaps the Murdochs are. We could have saved a fortune and not taken up the valuable time of Leveson, Jay et al..





I responded originally to a poster who described a scenario where a sum of money beyond this years entitlements had already been paid to Bradford, it suggested that an agreement to deduct an equivalent amount from next years SL entitlements had been included as part of the overall sale price but that no such deduction would or could be made if Bradford were not in SL next year. I said, simply, should that be the case an apparently clear conflict of interests would exist, with a minor moderation I stand by that. I don't suggest the scenario described has the RFL board having a preferred outcome but it does have a clear financial benefit if Bradford stay in.

The one supposition I can now see I am making is that some or all of those charged with making the decision would be sufficiently senior to have an interest in or responsibility for the financial performance of the RFL.

So you're criticism of the independence is that the RFL consider the entire impact of a decision on the game as a whole, and not simply a decision purely on the narrow, immediate, issue at hand, you want any body which makes a decision within our game, to make a decision on one part of the game and not consider if it is disproportionally damaging for the another part? Frankly the fact the RFL can take a high level overview for the entire structure, as well as looking at the narrow frame of a specific question is a good thing if anything.

If something as important as government can, within it, have three branches which are necessarily independent, even though they are paid and appointed by the state, why cant the game of RL have an independent RFL board, entrusted by SL (Europe) ltd to independently administer a licence application for the joining of SL?

No, you are supposing the RFL, have a preffered outcome for applications to join SL (europe) ltd and you still are.

You would sound less disingenous if Wakefield and Widnes went pop 20 years ago, rather than 1 year ago and 5 years ago.

If you are going to forget about it in a year like you have Wakefield, it makes you wonder what you are getting yourself into such a tizzy about.

If you are going to specifically remember this incident in 20 years, having forgotten about Wakefield after only one year, we would have to wonder why that would be, and probably question whether there was some kind of bias at play.

There is a slight difference between Widnes' & Wakefield's position compared to Bradford, with Bradford it seems not attempting to pay off the debts they owe. I think that may be why Bradford's situation should be remembered

Were you under the impression that Wakefield and Widnes paid off their debts?

Yes. What exact level of payment back I don't know, do you believe they didn't pay any debts at all?

Andrew Glover did pay off some of the debts the old company owed, which lead to a four point deduction rather than the standard six. I’m not party to how much he paid off, others may be.

No, not at all, Neither was i under the impression that eithe Mr Glover, or Mr O'connor stepped in to pay off debts rather than buy a club.

The only material differences between Wakefields administration and Bradfords administration are the time it took, and the time of year it happened.

He did pay off some, others went unpaid. And he did it to get a lower deduction and benefit his club, not out of some altruistic sense of moral judgement which lead him to over pay for a club in administration.

From memory the amount paid for Wakefield by Mr Glover was very very low, in the tens rather than hundreds of thousands, he did buy it for the lowest price he could, not for the value of outstanding debt.

That isnt a criticism of him

Are you saying that the buy-out of Wakefield was not creditor approved?

Just looked it up - it seems it wasn't creditor approved, and Mr Glover repaid some of the debt from a sense of honour.

Right, I withdraw my accusations of bias.

It wasnt a CVA, it went through the same process as Bradford, with a new company being formed, buying the assets of the old one, and the old one being liquidated.

I don't know whether to be more or less appalled. I suppose being [iconsistently[/i weak is better?
Hmmm, yep, it is.

Bradford have to stay then I guess - which is convenient, at least.

Licensing is still poop though - can't believe it took me this long to notice.

Why the suggestions of the mini-round then? straw that bent the camel's back? The obvious Rangers comparison?

Blanket apology for drawing false distinctions. Grudging thanks to Smokey for the correction. Sickening.