We have all the facts required in order to act on current precedents and deduct 6 competition points from the Bulls which is the fair and appropriate punishment sanction.

I don't!

6pts is the correct punishment

Why did Wakefield get 4?

Andn who the fekk set you up as judge and jury about what is fair and appropriate? What are your qualifications?

Hopw long did we wait for Glover to seemingly pay off some creditors before Wakefield's 6 point penalty was mitigated to 4?

Still waiting for those creditor paymebnt details, btw.

The RFL obviously had confirmation of the creditors payments Mr Glover made which is why they reduced Wakefields point deduction from 6 to 4, why should Bradford be treated differently

C'mon Ses lad, you're just going 'round in circles now and I know you're not one of the ppl FA referred to in his earlier post.

In the meantime is there any chance you could help Adeybull and Pie.Warrior in their quest for info about one of Wakefields previous Insolvency Events? What% did they pay back and over what time scale?

I don't know what percentage was paid back or over how long but I do know 2 creditors that were paid back, in full within the first month of Andrew Glover taking over. Macron came to an agreement over their debt, beyond that I can't say but the RFL were sufficiently convinced and reduced the punishment to 4pts.

So, let me get this right.

You don't actually know who were paid what, and when? And, especially, whether HMRC were paid?

It looks like at least two creditors were paid back "within a month" - although not "immediately", but it DOES sound like (quite understandably) the repayments were made up to 4 weeks after the administrator was appointed? And that would make perfect sense, since it would take a while for the creditors list to be finalised and agreed, and all the various creditors contacted and discussions held. Thos of us who have actually worked in insolvency, and gone into insolvent businesses, will fully understand that some time is needed.

As it happens, the RFL took only 7 days to confirm that Wakey's deduction would be 4 points not 6.

So it seems likely that they must have taken into account Glover's intent more than his actually having repaid creditors by the time the RFL decided on the points deduction? Would you not deduce?

Yet, for some inexplicable reason, YOU are totally and completely satisfied that Bulls should be deducted six points NOW. Even though intent to settle with creditors has been expressed right from the start. (And told to me personally, btw). And maybe get some points back once it is known what creditors have actually been settled with?

And, again, we do not yet have any numbers to enable the rest of us to be so totally and absolutely certain that six points - fact - is the correct and appropriate punishment? You clearly have, else you would not have made such an unequivocal statement? And yet you say you do not? And you wonder at people's astonishment?

Well I am sure our readers will be quite perplexed by this apparent contradiction, and seeming double standards and rank hypocrisy? Although they might have little difficulty in concluding why you may be acting as you are.

Haven't the new Bulls owners already been reported in the press as having said that Mr Khan "will not get a penny" of what he is owed?

Not sure what the rules are now, but would agree that they should include for the future:
- go into Administration = immediate 6 point deduction upon the Administration Order being granted

If there was a desire for a related RFL rule about what needs to happen in mitigation to get 2 of the 6 points re-instated, then the RFL should make very clear in advance what that requirement is. Then the 2 points would be re-instated as soon as the club provided evidence that the requirement had been met.

Owner won't get paid as the business he sold had substantial net laibilities and so was largely worthless. Had he put his money in as shares, the issue of repaying him would anyway not arise. The fact that he only loaned money, as owner, should make no difference to the outcome. Substance over legal form.

I actually agree that it would be much more objective if the rule going forward was very much along the lines of what you suggest. Makes a load more sense to me, and I can imagine few who would agrgue with it. I would have a sliding scale of mitigation - say 2pts if you pay off HMRC, 2 pts for the local creditors and 2 pts for anyone else third party. Or some finessed version of that reflecting %ages?

In fact, with the new structure from next year, where relegation should not mean serious risk of oblivion unless you have a wealthy owner, I'd be looking at a bigger maximum penalty.

Going forward. Current rules - whatever they actually are, and with whatever discretion is currently allowed - have to apply until new rules agreed and put in place.

Cheers bud, like others, I am genuinely unaware/ forgotten the circs of your club during 2011 - 12, its good to get somethin other than rhetoric. Thing is(and at the risk of sounding lame(r)) I was kinda shocked to see Bulls fans being referred to as scum on one of the social media sites...Its time to dial back abit and deal in fact rather than rumour and hearsay, regardless of its source.

So we know the RFL sanction for an Insolvency Event can be anything from a 0 to 6 point deduction, depending on intent and coming to agreements with creditors...This view would also be consistent with recent statements by Nigel Wood and Blake Solly.
I’m not sure where the problem is tbh...(So far) The RFL appear to be acting entirely within precedent? No point placing a sanction until all the details are in...they’d only be accused of indecisiveness

.

It's my understanding that the RFL sanction for Administration is 6pts, not 0 to 6 pts!

-6pts is the starting point, the behaviour of the new owners towards paying creditors can see the -6pts retrospectively reduced to -4pts. What's so hard to understand?

I never mentioned HMRC or any other creditors apart from the two I know, it's as safe to assume they were all paid immediately as it is to assume they waited 4 weeks. The fact is we don't know and there's no reason why we should know. However, in the case of Wakefield we know that the RFL were satisfied that the creditors were or would be paid and were therefore happy to reduce Wakefields Administration penalty from -6pts to -4pts. Maybe Andrew Glover placed funds intended for creditors in an ESCROW acct, maybe he bank transferred the money to each creditor while Nigel Wood peeked over his shoulder.

What you seem incapable of grasping is that the precedent for an insolvency event like Administration is set and it dictates a 6 point deduction immediately and, as I said earlier, the new owners can see that retrospectively reduced to 4 points if, IF they can satisfy the RFL that they have paid a significant amount of the previous owners debt off!

Your understanding is wrong...unless you can link or post the actual RFL Bye-Law of course...

I can quote Wakefield, Crusaders and Bradford as 3 clubs who have all been subject to that sanction and in Wakefields case the subsequent reduction to 4pts

Can you quote me recent cases where a SL team has entered Administration and hasn't been subjected the that sanction.

So you cannot or are unwilling to, quote the relevant RFL Bye-Law which will back up both yours and Wooden Stands assertion of an automatic penalty....
Circles again bud.

Seeya.

FFS!
You're in denial!

Show us where it says any of this in the Operational Rules?

I do not for one second believe those of the Wakey creditors who were paid off were paid "immediately".

My understanding, btw, was that it was that it was a relatively small proportion of the total value who WERE paid, but that was only third-hand hence me asking - again - for the actual numbers - and, now, dates of payment - that so many seem to be so sure of? I really WOULD like to know.

You just can't seem to grasp that you are demanding different treatment for the Bulls now than was the case for Wakey. Or, at the very best, you totally lack ANY of the necessary information required for ANY of us to make a more informed judgment.

No.

You are making statements that you cannot substantiate.

See my last post!

Nah, Yorkshire...

Which statement, the one where the last 3 clubs to enter administration were deducted 6pts or the one where I state that a precedent has been set?

On second thoughts, don't bother. . . Bradford haven't really been in Adminstration, they don't have any creditors in fact their still World Club Champions and SL Grand Final winners..wake up fella!

Can you quote me how much of the creditors each one of those clubs' new owners paid off? For Bulls it was zero. How much for the others, please? 1%? 5%? 10%? 50%? We know it was not 100%.

If you think it should be 6pts administration, reduced to 4pts if creditors paid off, what % of creditors should that be? if owner A pays off 1% of the creditors, owner B pays off 10%, and owner C pays 100% off why should owner C receive no additional mitigation for that than diod owner A? If he does NOT receive any mitigation, why the fekk would he pay off more creditors than the bare minimum? indeed, why would he pay any off at ALL? For the sake of 2 points, keep the cash in your pocket and spend it on players!

Why can you not see your logic is false, and makes no sense?

As Adeybull has suggested....you are making claims you cannot substantiate. First you say six points then say well, it could be 4...And you demand the RFL do this without even bothering to find out whether the sanction is appropiate and fair.

You mean the current Bradford model!

As for the false logic that's laughable!

As a matter of interest what penalty do you think is fair for Bradford Bulls insolvency, failure to pay creditors, staff losing their livelihood, players being asked to take pay cuts, bringing the game into disrepute etc...

God just wish the RFL would hurry up and dish out the penalty to the Bulls for going into Admin twice…..