Let's go back a mere 2 years then, to a team who got 6 points for going into admin. Maybe you could remind me who they were?

Quite so, the only problem is that Bradford appear to be arguing that the rules shouldn't apply to them at all

Thats not the way franchising works. If Widnes were to have been 'banned' from SL because of their admin they wouldnt have been allowed to apply.

no they arent.

Bradford, and the year before that Wakefield and Crusaders were deducted 4 points.

Wakefield in 2000 got no points deduction.

Sorry Smokey, there are 2 things wrong here.

Firstly Wakefield entered a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) in 2000 and they received a 4 point deduction for this misdemeanour, which was reduced to 2 points on appeal.

Cheers

a CVA is classed as an insolvency event. In fact in football, a club can only exit admin via a CVA if they are to receive the standard penalties. Leeds Utd were deducted additional points for not exiting administration via a CVA.

My memory is a bit fuzzy, but im pretty confident Wakefield were deducted 4 points, reduced to 2 on appeal because of salary cap infringements, not their insolvency event. Their appeal was on the basis that because of the CVA they didnt have to pay out wages they had promised.

edit"

Whats that they say about people in glass houses?

[iA statement issued by Wakefield's independent auditors, Buckle Barton of Leeds, said

Classy!

But that wasn't Wakefield was it? Or not the Wakefield currently in SL. It was a different company so anything they said or did then is irrelevant now, isn't it?

Well actually if they came through as a CVA it is likely to be the same holding company, so that would be the same member. Though they have since gone through a different administration under Ted Richardson and changed when taken over by Andrew Glover.

So no, this Wakefield is not the same member as that one, and i wouldnt hold Michael Carter responsible for what Ted Richardson did, never mind Pearson & Co.

Im not sure who you are referring to as 'they'? or why you think comparing what happened then to what happened now in an debate about consistency would be irrelevant?

You do seem to have a "bee in your bonnet" over the whole Club/owner issue.
Whatever you wish to call them (and "member" may be the most appropriate term), each club that has gone into admin, with the exception of Salford, have been deducted points.
The recent case with Bradford, n terms of timing and life support, seems to have been the worst during the SL era and as such, it would be quite reasonable for the "punishment" to be the most severe and although this does impact on the new management, I'm sure (in spite of their original "no penalty" comments), they would have expected a points deduction.
6 points actually seems quite lenient after the utter turmoil that they have brought into the RL arena.

Wakefield in 2000 didnt. They were deducted points for Salary Cap irregularities.

We are seeing the arguments for Bradford getting a deduction shifting constantly, like people have made up their minds that Bradford should get a deduction and are changing the facts and their arguments to support that belief.

We had that it was necessary to act as a deterrent, only for it to turn out that it when you thought about it, it isn’t a deterrent in any way, shape or form,

We had the consistency argument, until it was pointed out that there was no consistency in the punishments already. An example would be that Wakefield having had 2 insolvency events receiving points penalties totalling 4 points, and Bradford having 2 insolvency events receiving penalties totalling 12 points.

We have the owners must have known, or they bought it knowing these points were to be deducted, yet the facts show those penalties were given to a member that never actually took over the club, and the buyers bought it AFTER the appeal had been lodged.

Now we have that it is lenient because it made the game look bad, even though it is the maximum punishment and an utterly pointless one at that.

You are now saying that the time and life support make this the worst example, Wakefields initial CVA lasted 4 years, we have had clubs like Keighley, Hull KR, Workington be in administration for more than a year with the RFL contributing heavily, not in loans but gifts to keep them ticking over.

WHen it comes down to it, the reasons people want Bradford to get a penalty is to help their own club against relegation, and because they like to see a club which was successful 'take their medicine' for that success.

Thanks for pointing that out Smokey, really.
Please remind the viewers how a CVA should work.
Usually, its due to a company having severe cash problems and an agreement is reached with its major creditors to pay them back over a long period of time, paying a large percentage of the debt upon agreement of the CVA (often 50%, sometimes more, sometimes less) and the residue over a longer period of time, while allowing the company to continue trading, hence the 4 years ??
In recent seasons Crusaders, Wakefield and Bradford ALL suffered points deductions for going into admin, so why stop the penalties now ?

And I am fine with that. I don’t believe that a points penalty would have positively affected that situation, you are arguing it would.

You also ignore the other example, not of clubs being in a CVA but actually being in administration for a long period of time.

why arbitrarily only judge consistency on those three events? ignoring all the years that went before?

Your fervent backing for the Bradford cause is admirable, however, if I were a Bulls fan I would be concerned.

In your previous forays as a White Night, notably the Crusaders venture, & more recently your argument for retaining the licencing system, have come to nought .

God knows how Leeds do so well, but then again, I think you're a lapsed Hunslet fan .

Maybe you should read the rules before commenting. Like most punishments, it is (a) variable and (b) appealable.



As your post was immediately after mine, I presume your gripe is aimed at me.

I note you don't address any issue I raised, so presumably you have no interest. However I object at your use of the term "hissy fits". I have had no fit of any sort. I have been trying to post information, and reasoned points. How you would get "hissy fits" I have no clue.

But, as you can't apparently be bothered to read what i actually say, I need to point out that I have never argued that Bradford shouldn't have a 6 point deduction. I haven't formed a view on what our points penalty should be for the simple reason that I don't know what (if any) proposals to repay HMRC and creditors has been made by the new owners. If it was Nil then I would have no issue with the principle of a 6 point max deduction, if all other things were equal, but they are not.

The rules obviously say that there is a range of possible sanctions of which points deduction is obviously one. However your peremptory tone suggesting relegation is something to do with it must surely be rhetorical. The point is, the existing rules re points deduction were made at a time when there was no relegation. Therefore they should have been changed, to reflect that all of a sudden, a 6 point deduction for the first time could lead to relegation, a situation which has never previously existed, and did not therefore exist at the time this rule was written.

The rules have not been changed. The result of this is that a 6 point deduction this year is an infinitely different punishment to previous years, when its ONLY effect was to dent or scupper your chances in the playoffs. This is the bit I don't get. It's as if Bradford-haters are in some sort of weird state of denial, whereby they refuse to hear the notion that a 6 point deduction now is potentially the ULTIMATE penalty. If it is right that this should be so, then in all previous years it has been wrong. However the RFL doesn't seem to have considered the point, blatantly obvious though it is.

If it is right and fair that the rule should now carry a potential death penalty, then it should have been so written in the first place. It could easily have been. It could have said that the maximum points deduction was 6 points AND that if you finish in the bottom two, you will be relegated. Then the possible consequence that clubs faced in all previous years would have been the same as we now face. But that was never the rule. A points deduction has never previously carried with it the potential of adding relegation as an additional penalty. If it's fair, why didn't it?

I could ask, if it was fair that Bradford lost a year's distribution as part of the sanctions package, why had that never been applied to any other club, and indeed why has it been quietly forgotten about in the present case? But that would be straying slightly off topic, and you seem to have enough trouble understanding the present one.