I thought it was the audience participation that let it down.

As brevity is not your strong suit perhaps I can summarise your last lengthy post. I do hope it helps.

Nope. It just speaks volumes about you.

When did they tell you that? Can you post a link?


Er, if a debenture holder appoints an administrator, oddly enough, the company isn't allowed to politely decline
What on earth made you think they could?

But they are allowed to challenge the administrator in a court with regard to the nature of the original request for administration.......wonder why they didn't? Probably because they didn't have the funds to eh

...or maybe the inclination, since going into administration, and immediate prepack, removed OK from any involvement with the business? Who knows how many parties that suited?

Just because the likes of Gutterfux say something is so, because it feeds their obession, does not make it so. The reality might well be rather different.

It's not as straight forward as that though is it? Did the directors invite the appointment, did they themselves instigate the procedure?

It's actually quite rare that a debenture holder makes a hostile administration appointment, it is more often driven by the incumbent board (with the debenture holder either consenting or objecting to the director nominated Administrator).

To say this will be forced on them by a floating charge holder isn't necessarily true (albeit it may be the case).

Brevity. Well done.

Do you think people can post links for what they have been told?!! Oh dear.

Exactly.

Despite your wink, your ignorance knows few bounds. If you really do need to "wonder" why the current lot didn't "challenge the administration" then you are a hopeless case. To spell out just one reason (and to add to the points others have made) consider this: you think you have bought a club but the original owner says you haven't. All is in dispute. And anyway, a debenture holder has a charge over all the assets of the club you thought you had bought. So you may end up owning it, or you may not. Legal proceedings are already in progress.

Then, a point comes where to "challenge" an administration, all you need to do is repay the debenture holder something like 200K and he will go away.

Now think about that for a bit, then tell us: if it were you - in those circumstances - would you pay off the debenture holder even if you had access to 200K?

Or would you instead negotiate a deal whereby you could really and with certainty offer to buy the club, from a person who would 100% definitely sell it? (i.e. the administrator) with no baggage or strings?

Of course the risk is that an administrator might just get a better offer - but at least then you haven't done your bollox in, you can walk away with your pockets intact.

As if any of that had remotely occurred to you!

So the current lot have no morals and have gone into administration not because they had to but to spite a creditor? Deserve considerably more than the probable 6pts deductions coming their way. And what you apologists seem to have forgotten is that without OK riding to the rescue the Bulls would have been long gone. I'm afraid I've lost all sympathy for their plight and won't be shedding any tears when they go pop again in a few months time.

Is that the best you can manage. I should not expect more from someone who thinks we can post links for things people hear! Ho hum.

Meanwhile the 'temporary directors' - is this their 2nd or 3rd time in charge since September? - sign player contracts while creditors are left on hold...twas ever thus.

Which bit of "the creditor initiated the administration" do you not understand?





Seems unlikely that there will be any points deduction. I don't personally see any justification for one.


"Apologist"? Hardly. And as I have repeatedly said, in various threads, over a long time, that for keeping the club alive I personally will always be grateful to OK, it is inexplicable that you choose to aim that comment in my direction.


I'm sure we're all really upset at that. However I do note that (like all over-opinionated loudmouths) you either can't or don't want to make the distinction between those running a club, and the more important people namely the club's fans, who are neither complicit in any of the shenanigans nor have any power to direct the fate of the rugby team they support.

So just to be clear, when you were remarking about the directors being "sure they could pay 100% of the creditors", this was actually just something that you made up, based on nothing. I.e., trolling.

As I of course assumed, as it's what you do, if poorly.

I was going to say "Heard", my arrse. Except I can't completely rule out that you did hear it, from the the voices in your head.

Oh dear FA I wrote "[uIf[/u the current directors are sure they can pay creditors 100% " YOU even quote me as such.

This has been shortened to exclude the if. How convenient.

fell free to change the meaning of what I write so that you can try and score some points inside your head. You do so love to tilt at windmills.



So keep up your anal retentive posting, very amusing.

sadly while bulls apologists like you prattle away. Many small firms - often supporters of the club - have been stuffed by various bulls regimes.

Stop picking on the All New Bulls, they haven't done anything wrong, it's clearly not their fault.
Just leave them alone to carry on with their business.

How predictable, trying to re-write your own history. Trouble is you aren't smart enough to wing it. What you wrote was:

It is a rhetorical question. that is, it clearly presupposes its own answer. Your clear proposition was that the current directors are a bad lot because despite being sure they can pay 100%, they choose to go into admin, so they don't have to, whilst still being able to sign up new contracts. You of course know that is the meaning of your words. Your attempt at fudge is pathetic.

Indeed, you went on to claim that you had "heard" this to be the case. You couldn't post a link, because people can't post links for something they heard.


I do try to amuse as well as inform. Shame you can't do either.


On what basis do you claim I am a "bulls apologist"?


Indeed, but where were we discussing earlier regimes, and if we were, please point out a single quote where I was remotely an apologist for such things happening?
But I forgot; you never have anything to back up your ignorant dross.

are you angry that Michael Carter and Co havent reimbursed Andrew Glover? Would you be criticising Michael Carter and Co and demanding they are punished if Andrew Glover were to call in directors loans?

Did you criticise Andrew Glover at the time he took over for Wakefield for choosing to pay off some of WTW ceditors, but giving nothing to Ted Richardson?

As the current business is a continuation of the Business Andrew Glover set up, im sure you are furious with Michael Carter for turning down huge sums for the transfer of Danny Kirmond + all the signings they have made when that money could have gone to gone to Ted Richardson, who like Omar Kahn los the money he put in. Im guessing you and the supporters trust at Wakefield are applying pressure to Michael Carter as a director of the company which brought WTW out of Admin to make sure Ted Richardson is fully reimbursed for his losses?

FWIW, I'm not comfortable with any business failing as there is always a cost to somebody and I've been on the receiving end of some personal cr@p from companies going under and not getting paid so, I'm sorry Smokey but, you are totally out of order to criticise my personal thoughts or morals.

This thread is not about what Wakefield (or any other SL club) have done in the past, it's about the Bulls.

First of all they banged on about new owners and no points deduction, this comment since retracted and following this,
they feel as though they should carry on regardless.
I think your memory is good enough to know that Wakefield have been docked points twice for their financial failings and rightly so.
I have stated previously that I have no problem with ANY club getting relegated for going into admin and it wasn't too long that we were hearing that Featherstone were put on standby for just such a circumstance, although this has gone very quiet.
So please, spare me the lecture about insolvency and it's consequences as I have enough personal experience to know how it can affect people, do you ?

Im not criticising your morals regarding insolvency. That’s a huge leap you have made. Im simply highlighting a hypocrisy in the attitude towards Omar Kahn and the general Wakefield attitude toward Ted Richardson.

Insolvency is a cost of doing business, it happens, it isn’t pleasant but the insolvency process is there for a reason. Its there because to it is not immoral to fail, it is there because businesses do fail, sometimes good businesses fail, sometimes good people fail. It is there to give people a chance to rescue businesses, to save jobs. That’s why what happened at Bradford is legally allowed to happen.

And to answer your question, yes, I do know from personal experience how it effects people, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. Which is why I want Bradford to have the best opportunity, in the best environment possible to recover, so players, coaches, and all the tertiary staff members don’t get put through it again, the previous punishments to Bradford were a big factor in the 2nd admin, why would we want another punishment to increase the chance of a 3rd?

You might be better off trying to convince the Wakey lot of that, you know, the ones who have gone so far as to write a letter to the RFL pointing selectively to Wakey events of the past and demanding retribution be visited on the Bulls precisely because of that.

Its actually doing a pretty good impression then of being a thread about blatant hypocrisy. From some quarters. As Smokey has demonstrated so conclusively.

Thanks Adey, must have missed that bit.

Are you alluding to the two occasions when Wakefield had problems and were docked points or, to the Glover loan, which he has agreed not to call in (so it's still a loan)
I know that all fans are a little myopic but, this is becoming known as "bullseye".
It only sees what it wants to and has no regard for anything from the past, quite similar to Bullmania