Fair points IMO. The RFL must take action or concede that they are a corrupt organisation without any integrity.

The date shown in the London Gazette with HMRC was the 16th January.
There has been some spin from the club since that date.
After signing 6 players in the off-season it is beginning to look arcane,arbitrary and appalling.

if anyone other than former directors or owners of OK Bulls are owed money by OK then it must be treated as going into admin and a points deduction must be applied.

Has the RFL been paid rent for Odsal or is that another debt to be shared by the other clubs....???

More bulls**t more like

On the contrary, Khan has lost every penny he put in the Bulls, wouldn't you call that a "punishment"?

Other debt shared by clubs? I don't remember any clubs paying our debt.

Anyway for what it's with I wouldn't complain about the points deduction.

I have argued long and hard on this very forum that the actions taken so far by the rfl weren't necessarily proof of favour towards Bradford. I would find it very very difficult indeed to continue to do so should they avoid a points penalty for the latest farce.

It is not normal to enter administration during the takeover process, and would suggest underhand tactics were the best possible reason why this has occurred. Worst case being flagrant disregard for business practice, and a deliberate attempt to avoid debts known to the club.

This saga has been running for the best part of 3 years, yet not once has the club been seen to manage it's debts or reduce it's expenditure in any reasonable way, and continue to add to it through player signings which should be well beyond them in this situation.

I'm annoyed this has been allowed to happen yet again (in whatever capacity, even a minute of administration is far more than this club should be allowed to get away with) - I'd find it hard to imagine what state I'd be in should my club be under the threat of relegation.

In your quest for total equality, were Wakefield also fined one year's Sky money? If not, will they be voluntarily putting that amount in so it's fair?


What smokescreening is that?


It pretty much was, though. The deal to buy the club failed as Omar Khan wasn't paid the agreed money and the whole thing developed into a legal dispute which meant the club couldn't function as the people running it didn't own it. The pre-pack certainly resolved the impasse.

I would, doubt he would give a fsk about a points deduction for a club he doesn't own though.

Bradford weren't fined any money either. They offered it as a sweetner to keep them in SL

Did Wakefield have to form a new company to continue trading? No - therefore was it the same company who held a license since the last round of licensing? Yes. Therefore was there a need to apply for a new license? No. Did Bradford form a new company? Yes. Did the company that applied for a license exist at the end of the licensing period? No. Therefore did the new company need to apply for a new license? Yes. Should there of been conditions to this? Yes. Were there? Yes, an amount of the sky money.

I'm not sure why this is hard to understand, Bradford fans go on like this is the worst crime the rfl has ever committed. Do you want to know what the alternative was? Not allow you back into super league and then you'd of got NONE of the sky money - suddenly half isn't seeming so bad.

Other company's go into admin - though I don't think I've ever seen any company in any industry get in such a right royal mess as Bradford have here.

No the solution isn't to just go into administration - there are plenty of company's ran by people who don't own them - almost all company's in fact. I see plenty of mergers and takeovers every day, not once have I seen the company placed in administration for it. It's not a normal solution.

It would be an absolute outrage if Bradford isn't deducted 6 points for going into Administration.

If Bradford get away with this it would be open season for any club to overspend and then go through these re-structuring shenanigans.

There no objective definition of "genuine"creditors and any other sort of creditor.

Part of the punishment of points deduction is because the fans of the club have had the benefit of having players play for them (and secure wins against other clubs who've played within the rules) who they couldn't in hindsight afford. The fans have to have that balance redressed by suffering the points deduction.

If the RFL let Bradford get away with this, the only reason will be the conflict of interest of owning the Odsal lease. After all the fantastic work by the RFL recently, it will be a big shame if they blot their copybook on this one.

Btw, I understand the concept of "pre-pack" but I really hope for his own sake that the Administrator got the best deal. If the upcoming sale of the assets (including a Super League licence) been advertised, would, for example, the Featherstone owner have bid more?

I'd expect the owner of ok bulls to continue the reported legal action to obtain the reported agreed consideration for the shares.

so in the first few years of super league Bradford bulls was the bees knees wining just abought every thing and had massive gates, were has the money gone it does not pay to be the best I take it, if you then get into a right state later

Your point would have more impact if Trinity had been afforded a secret £750k RFL loan too, which would've prevented the club going into administration in the first place. They had asked for a lower amount but were refused.

It's outrageous that there appears to be no repercussions for the club going into administration barely 1 week before the start of the season. There needs to be consistency otherwise it breeds the smell of corruption! www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/wak ... -1-3054178 1/2/11....Wakefield, too, face a points penalty for breaching the RFL's insolvency regulations but are aiming to secure their long-term future under new owners and will be hoping the latest development will not do irreparable damage to their bid to land a new Super League licence in July.

It's outrageous that there appears to be no repercussions for the club going into administration barely 1 week before the start of the season. There needs to be consistency otherwise it breeds the smell of corruption! www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/wak ... -1-3054178 1/2/11....Wakefield, too, face a points penalty for breaching the RFL's insolvency regulations but are aiming to secure their long-term future under new owners and will be hoping the latest development will not do irreparable damage to their bid to land a new Super League licence in July.

I don't think it was the worst crime ever, I just thought it was stupid. Massively handicapping the club who are trying to get back on their feet (I would say this snout any club) As the license period as finished I would have though we would have had our full Sky money this year but oh well.

While the situation is poor, I've seen much worse examples. Luton town, Leeds Utd, Bradford city.

From a bulls fan the good news is we are now under new owners and hopefully can now move forward. We are nt in admin looking for a buyer. Could be much worse.

And I'd expect that the RFL will in fact impose the points deduction for going into Administration. Given the increased funding for top end Championship/SL2 clubs under the new 2x12; 3x8 structure, the RFL will have confidence that, even if Bradford is relegated at the end of this season, they will still play at (and be able to pay the rent for) Odsal in 2015.

So what will Bradford be living off now?

Thats the big question. If the Bulls are out of money now, just as all the season ticket money and sponsors money has come in, the rest of the season is going to be more than a struggle.

I can see the begging buckets coming back out in a couple of months

No they won't need to, when the debts mount up again just repeat the process.

all well and good, but where do they get money to run the club now? can't see any suppliers offering them credit. As a tradesman myself id be asking for cash upfront for any work.

But the licence period isn’t over, I thought we were in the 3rd year?

When it came to light that Bradford were getting reduced monies, the explanation was peddled that it was in fact a sweetener suggested by the Bradford club!

So for the second time in a couple of years it appears Bradford will be keeping the majority of their squad, when it’s obvious they can’t afford it.

What a sorry state of affairs when the original powerhouse of SL is trying to wriggle out of a points deduction, for not being able to afford an average team

.

I can't be d in attending to the wealth of ill-informed comment on here, any more than I have time to acknowledge the considerable number of informed and constructive posts. So some quick comments from me then I'll let you all carry on with it.

First and foremost, it is pretty clear this is primarily about getting control of the club off Omar Khan, when it appears he had gone back on his agreement to transfer it. Had I been taking over the club, the first thing I would have done is sought to transfer the whole undertaking to a new vehicle, to quarantine it from whatever nasty might be lurking from the previous administration.

Khan is far and away the biggest creditor, so the biggest loss will fall on him. As I see the 'Vark posted earlier, he has lost every cent he put in. But that is the risk you face as a club owner. The only reason he is a creditor is because he put jack sh it in as share capital. It was virtually all loans, although he sort of forgot to tell the fans that when he was collecting theoir plausits and adulation. So, if he loses his investment, is that a reason by itself to punish the Bulls? Thought not.

Everything seems to point to the new company settling the rugby liabilities of the old company. I am assuming this must include things like HMRC and the loan from the council (although I would imagine the council would proceed against OK first as personal guarantor of the loan, if indeed that he is as has been reported). The employees have all been TUPEd across anyway, and as I understand it the rugby creditors are fairly limited because not many businesses were too keen on advancing the Bulls credit. Wonder why...? SO if all this lot get settled, is that a reason by itself to punish the Bulls? Thought not.

There is a big "IF" in there, of course. Should it transpire that they do not, then as well as me being pretty angry I do not think anyone could convincingly argue against points deduction or worse.

Then there is a strange loan due to a moneylender, which is secured by a debenture. If only part of what I hear about this loan is true, some individuals (not the current lot) may have some very serious personal worries. But I am assuming it will get repaid from whatever Newco paid the administrator for the assets. SO if he gets settled - no matter how distasteful folk may view his line of business - is that a reason by itself to punish the Bulls? Thought not.

Where I suspect there may be a grey area is if there are any liabilities, including any which may or may not have crawled out of the woodwork recently, which are not related to the rugby or are "questionable" I prefer not to comment much on hearsay, let alone repeat it and risk it being actionable. But the more I hear, the more I wonder if the administrator may have an interesting job ahead in investigating the conduct of past and latest directors (as he is obliged to do)? Personally, I would be relaxed about any of these being left with the administrator, but I accept others might well choose not to see any distinction. At least until or unless more facts and truths came out. Now I do not know if there are any such alleged liabilities lurking, so I am only speculating here.

Everything we hear from the new lot suggests they have cut costs - and a LOT of people - and secured additional income streams so that the books should balance for this coming season. I am far more confident that this lot can do it than any previous lot I have dealt with there. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, of course. I hope, and want to believe, that this will indeed be the case.

I can fully understand how all this must look at first glance to outsiders. And the more so to those that have not been keeping themselves abreast of the rolling tragic comedy that has been the Bulls over the last two years under several different administrations, all of whom seemed to me to be to have more than one reason for being involved in the club. And are not aware of all the informal allegations that are fairly consistently being made. And even more so to those whose knowledge of insolvency is on a par with my expertise in actually playing the game (clue: minimal...).

If the only material loss to genuine creditors is to Omar Khan, I am totally relaxed about it. That's the risk you take when you buy and fund a sports club, and take all the plaudits in the good times. If other real people were to suffer financial loss, then I would most definitely not be.

What I would ask is, can people maybe keep some of their powder dry for a bit, till more of the facts and circumstances come out (it might take a while, mind?) And maybe, just maybe, keep a bity of an open mind rather than rushing in to be judge and jury without hearing the evidence?

No matter how hard you try to dress it up they've gone into administration and should suffer the consequences.

Why?

Or, more to the point, if the consequences were "no points deduction because there has been no loss to genuine creditors", and therefore no advantge gained, why would that be a problem?