I do think that no one knows whether the two situations are the same. Without that knowledge it's impossible to say that the principle is the same.

I'll put it as simply as I can. The debt with Wakey may have been principally with HMRC. So a Wakey Admin would be because of this debt (assumption).

Not paying HMRC maybe why the RFL said if you go into admin you will be in C1. Nothing to do with administration, but to do with who the money is owed too.

The RFL have made a special provision on the site, separate to Administration about owing money to HMRC.

The Bulls have said they will work with creditors, which I ASSUME means to pay them apart from OK. So the debt to HMRC (assumption) will be paid.


So where Wakey were looking at 2 principles .
1. Administration
2. not Paying HMRC

Bradford may only be looking at 1.
1. Administration

It's the RFL's tough stance on not paying HMRC that would have lead to bigger trouble for Wakey with there admin.

This is a BIG assumption as I don't know whether either club planned to pay or not pay HMRC. But I do think that not Paying HMRC has more of an effect than not paying other creditors. AS the RFL have made special mention of this specific debt above all others.

Just a little question from me - Did Omar Khan buy the lease for Odsal and if so,who has it now?

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/25743/rfl-to-evaluate-bulls-bidReminder[/url

What does it actually state in the games rules regarding varying types of administration?

Ask the video ref!!!!

Bradford were always going to be in trouble again, it was apparent pretty early on in OK's reign that they had no real idea how a sports club should be run, or how to budget for each season. Anyone who had any dealings with the club during this time will have left with a pretty sour taste in their mouths at just how poorly the club were treating such people as Sponsors, fans and fundraisers. Makes you question just what kind of checks the RFL actualy do with regards to business plans of the member clubs.

With regards to points deduction by way of punishment for entering administration, then i feel thats just and fair. Even if the only person not getting paid is OK then that still leaves the club with unpaid debts and therefore should result in the club recieving a 6 point penalty for the new season ( or 4 points based on how much debt they repay ).

This is based on the way other clubs have been treated in similar circumstances.

Widnes- Points deduction ( and refused entry into SL based on same Administration )
Barrow- Points deduction ( resulting in relegation )
Wakefield- points deduction
Crusaders- Points deduction ( Removed from SL )
Bradford- points deduction

I see no reason for the same rules not to be applied again. The belief that punishing the new owners is not fair is not in any way a good or reasoned argument against a points deduction after administration. Any club that has been run so poorly that they need to take such drastic measures to avoid paying their debts should be punished by the league for those actions. Each time a club does this it weakens the position of every other club associated with the league and sport as it makes the sport look less viable as an option for investing money, Sponsoring etc.

Wakefield fans on here are in some ways rightly up in arms about the way Bradford have gone about this, recruiting expensive players ( i understand the coming and goings down at Odsal better than many ). The argument that Bradford will not sell as many tickets because they didnt sign Carvell on a good wage is absolute rubbish, they are making a strategic choice now to run the same risks again for the coming season. Bradford are still in a tough place, and wasting money on Carvell is not the solution, it just tells me they have not learned their lesson. And gives the middle finger to clubs like Wakefield for trying to do it right.

Bradfords main problem in all this is the fact that over the last few years they have worn out the goodwill of the local comunities, leaving only the hardcore to survive on. Its also still caught up in its past glories, and believes itself to be a bigger club than it is, which is part of the downward spiral that will constantly lead to problems without much luck and great decisions at Boardroom level to counter it. A problem Widnes suffered from for many years, sometimes looking back means we are not spending enough time looking in the right direction, forward.

No right thinking RL supporter would want Bradford to cease to exist, but as a club they must find their level and work hard at living within acceptable budgets its no good spending £1.4M on players if you can only afford £800k. And if you can only afford to spend £800k and thats not enough to stay in SL, then im afraid your at the wrong level and need to aim lower.

Lastly ( i promise ) the RFL is not helping matters here with their murky stadium deal and seeming to be in deeper than any of us would wish with regards to the Bulls. And again here we should not think that the Bulls have done well out of the RFL, as often as not it looks like their help has caused problems for Bradford as opposed to helped. This is the same RFL that does not have the greatest reputation for being transparrent, fair or verry good with anything they do.

Its not nice but fair is fair.

Agree with most but I disagree with the above.
Carvell was signed half way through last year probably on a very big contract. The Bulls have lost players, star players as well as home grown that a lot of time effort and money was spent developing them.

L'estrange, Lulia, Bateman, Whitehead and Langlry were probably the higher earners at our club. Platt wasn't on peanuts. Plus Muprhy and Naughton.

We've brought in Carvell (big earner) Ferguson, Gaskell George and Henry. None of whom apart from maybe Feeguson will be ok as much.

The whole squad were told they could leave when the new directors first started trying to purchase the club, Carvell is still here which suggests no one offered him a deal good enough to convince him to move. We can't just sack him.

A lot of effort was made to cut costs, people lost their jobs, reduced hours, etc

Under the new directors they are businessmen first and foremost and stated straight from the off we need to make £400k. No outlandish statements that the Bulls are back, they have said all along we need to balance the books. Hopefully we can finally move forward and never have a Repeat of this.

They said they needed 400k to balance the books a while back. If they'd kept their powder dry and held back for a couple of days, then they would have only needed to find 100k as they've just been granted 300k EXTRA funding for this year as part of the "acceptance" of the TV deal. Still, the NEW (or is that NEW, NEW, NEW) owners have a nice debt free club, Sky cash in the bank, a decent enough squad, a ground where they pay 2 tenths of SFA in rent and a get out of jail free card that is their tenancy arrangement with the governing body.

Rugby starts soon and we can all get on with predicting scores, slagging of away fan numbers and moaning about Stevo and Wiggy.....but I would like to proffer my sincerest gratitude towards the Bradford Bulls for making this a very enjoyable off season.
Bucket anyone?

Strong rumours that Carvell is coming back to Hull. Maybe the first of a few to leave?

You have his wage left under the cap?

Didn't your coach say you were still trying to sign players, but your up to the cap so it will take players to leave before they can come?

Carvell will be on a wedge, so it's gonna take a good few from hull to leave surely?

If you were a cynic, you could almost convince yourself that the two things were connected.

I've looked for this and this is my point, I can't find anything anywhere written in the current rules about administration.

I have not read line by line, but done a quick adobe search of the finance part and there is literally nothing in there about it.

However the appendices don't seem to be loading and I think it maybe in there.

The last time I saw anything about administration it was always a 6 point penalty with a reduction based on how much debt you can repay.

The discussion about harsher penalties comes from Wakefield who say they were told that administration would relegate them. My point is that it may have been more than just the one rule as the RFL has made special mention of HMRC debt.

Like I said though we don't know as the rules on administration are not listed anywhere I can find. And we have no idea what the RFL actually said in full to Wakefield or what they have decided in regards to Bradford.

This is what had caused a stink. Interestingly the Wakefield chairman was on radio Leeds and made no mention of Wakefield been told in no uncertain terms hey would be relegated if went into admin.

Even more interesting on the Wakefield board some posted what the Wakefield chairman (who posts on their board) posted in November

And it never should have. The issue of what the RFL said to Carter or what he said at a fans forum is a red herring in my view - the real issue is the 6 point penalty, reduced to 4 based on satisfying creditors. That's what the rules say to the best of my knowledge and that's the precedent that's been set; it seems reasonable therefore to expect that it will also apply in this case.

Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"Didn't your coach say you were still trying to sign players, but your up to the cap so it will take players to leave before they can come? Carvell will be on a wedge, so it's gonna take a good few from hull to leave surely?'" I have no idea how much cap we have left, what Carvell is earning or whether we would have to release anyone, but the story is here: www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Exclusiv ... story.html

Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"Didn't your coach say you were still trying to sign players, but your up to the cap so it will take players to leave before they can come? Carvell will be on a wedge, so it's gonna take a good few from hull to leave surely?'" I have no idea how much cap we have left, what Carvell is earning or whether we would have to release anyone, but the story is here: www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Exclusiv ... story.html

A bit more than a red herring surely? Many Wakefield supporters(including mods from your own board) have taken what Carter said as proof that the sport is corrupt and biased.


Not sure the RFL have suggested any different. FWIW, I believe the Bulls will be given a points deduction.

Quote ="Mr. Zucchini Head"I have no idea how much cap we have left, what Carvell is earning or whether we would have to release anyone, but the story is here: www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Exclusiv ... story.html'" There's a fair bit of flex in the cap system - loopholes that can be exploited within the rules. With the £300k windfall, Carvell possibly refusing to be transferred to the newnewco, and Hull's propping options looking a bit thin, I suspect Hull have chosen to increase their wage budget without necessarily increasing their cap spend.

Quote ="Mr. Zucchini Head"I have no idea how much cap we have left, what Carvell is earning or whether we would have to release anyone, but the story is here: www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Exclusiv ... story.html'" There's a fair bit of flex in the cap system - loopholes that can be exploited within the rules. With the £300k windfall, Carvell possibly refusing to be transferred to the newnewco, and Hull's propping options looking a bit thin, I suspect Hull have chosen to increase their wage budget without necessarily increasing their cap spend.

Including the Wildcats supporters trust who have said it in an open letter.

Quote ="Mr. Zucchini Head"I have no idea how much cap we have left, what Carvell is earning or whether we would have to release anyone, but the story is here: www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Exclusiv ... story.html'" Seems you've upset them with it www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/news/art ... ff-warning? I am starting to hope you do sign him, the Bradford board need to get a reality check reading that. They always do like to paint the other team as the despicable evil masterminds picking on poor old Bradford, and I'm starting to struggle to feel sympathy for them.

Quote ="Mr. Zucchini Head"I have no idea how much cap we have left, what Carvell is earning or whether we would have to release anyone, but the story is here: www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Exclusiv ... story.html'" Seems you've upset them with it www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/news/art ... ff-warning? I am starting to hope you do sign him, the Bradford board need to get a reality check reading that. They always do like to paint the other team as the despicable evil masterminds picking on poor old Bradford, and I'm starting to struggle to feel sympathy for them.

"And we would ask all clubs to act in a right and proper manner, in keeping with the family spirit of rugby league."

No, really! It really does say that!

Maybe they could keep to the spirit of paying their bills and having a budget inkeeping with their income?

That doesn't even make sense. Vultures waiting to snap up players from clubs in crisis is low (can someone please leap to point out when Bradford did this in 1974 as if to nullify the point). Crow-barring some tenuous link to Bradford's finances is poor.

I tend to find a reason to slag off Bradford comes up quite regularly so theres really no need to jump in so soon. I know you're itching.

I now expect that if Carvell goes to anyone but Wakey it'll be a RFL conspiracy.

Reading the statement it sounds like the Bulls have had no official approach from Hull and its all been done through the media. Bradford obviously trying to stop this to stop any player been unsettled and asking clubs to put official bids and offers to the players.

I suspect if Carvell wanted to stay at Bradford he'd be in the media saying so already. There's a bit of negotiation in public going on IMO.

That’s how things work when the your club is an also ran. You’ll get used to it soon enough.