Hellooo
Thought you'd left?

I just want the RFL to act with an even hand and treat Bradford Bulls and their insolvency event in the same way they've treated other clubs.

What's to find out?
Bradford went into Administration didn't they, or dd I dream that bit.

The current penalty deduction for having an Administration Order issued is 3 wins (ie 6 points in SL and 9 points for Championships' clubs). Can be mitigated for paying off some creditors. But this is not codified - it's at the subjective discretion of the RFL board**. Would be better if there were a clearly laid down requirement for the future. www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/j ... nt-penalty : Bradford received the maximum penalty laid down in the RFL's operational rules. The RFL board of directors exercised some flexibility by docking Wakefield and Crusaders four points when they entered administration on the eve of the 2011 season after taking into account the new owners' willingness to pay off some of the debts to creditors. "We expected a deduction of points by the RFL and of course we accept that penalty," said Bradford's interim chief executive Gary Tasker. "We are not yet in a position to be able to offer any recompense to our creditors and, as such, a six-point deduction was what we expected. " **See the attached extract from the RFL's Articles of Association (of which the operational rules are a part) 4.7 In the event of a member ceasing to be a member upon notice from the Company by virtue of Acquisition, Change of Control or Insolvency Event, the Board, at its absolute discretion, shall have the right to readmit the member or admit a new member as a member on any terms as it sees fit, which for the avoidance of doubt, may include financial, administrative and/or sporting sanctions. In the event of membership continuing the Board may determine that membership shall be deemed to continue to subsist as if the member had not ceased to be a member at all. The Board will from time to time set out policy for the exercise of its discretion but is not bound by such policy or precedent decided under such policy or previous policy and the Board shall be entitled to amend any policy with immediate effect.

The current penalty deduction for having an Administration Order issued is 3 wins (ie 6 points in SL and 9 points for Championships' clubs). Can be mitigated for paying off some creditors. But this is not codified - it's at the subjective discretion of the RFL board**. Would be better if there were a clearly laid down requirement for the future. www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/j ... nt-penalty : Bradford received the maximum penalty laid down in the RFL's operational rules. The RFL board of directors exercised some flexibility by docking Wakefield and Crusaders four points when they entered administration on the eve of the 2011 season after taking into account the new owners' willingness to pay off some of the debts to creditors. "We expected a deduction of points by the RFL and of course we accept that penalty," said Bradford's interim chief executive Gary Tasker. "We are not yet in a position to be able to offer any recompense to our creditors and, as such, a six-point deduction was what we expected. " **See the attached extract from the RFL's Articles of Association (of which the operational rules are a part) 4.7 In the event of a member ceasing to be a member upon notice from the Company by virtue of Acquisition, Change of Control or Insolvency Event, the Board, at its absolute discretion, shall have the right to readmit the member or admit a new member as a member on any terms as it sees fit, which for the avoidance of doubt, may include financial, administrative and/or sporting sanctions. In the event of membership continuing the Board may determine that membership shall be deemed to continue to subsist as if the member had not ceased to be a member at all. The Board will from time to time set out policy for the exercise of its discretion but is not bound by such policy or precedent decided under such policy or previous policy and the Board shall be entitled to amend any policy with immediate effect.

except the maximum penalty is no longer laid down in the operational rules. Unless you would care to post the link to prove otherwise? It used to be more specific, its not now.

Quote ="Wooden Stand"The current penalty deduction for having an Administration Order issued is 3 wins (ie 6 points in SL and 9 points for Championships' clubs). Can be mitigated for paying off some creditors. But this is not codified - it's at the subjective discretion of the RFL board. Would be better if there were a clearly laid down requirement for the future. www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/j ... nt-penalty : Bradford received the maximum penalty laid down in the RFL's operational rules. The RFL board of directors exercised some flexibility by docking Wakefield and Crusaders four points when they entered administration on the eve of the 2011 season after taking into account the new owners' willingness to pay off some of the debts to creditors. "We expected a deduction of points by the RFL and of course we accept that penalty," said Bradford's interim chief executive Gary Tasker. "We are not yet in a position to be able to offer any recompense to our creditors and, as such, a six-point deduction was what we expected. "'" Wow! Thanks Wooden Stand!

Quote ="Wooden Stand"The current penalty deduction for having an Administration Order issued is 3 wins (ie 6 points in SL and 9 points for Championships' clubs). Can be mitigated for paying off some creditors. But this is not codified - it's at the subjective discretion of the RFL board. Would be better if there were a clearly laid down requirement for the future. www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/j ... nt-penalty : Bradford received the maximum penalty laid down in the RFL's operational rules. The RFL board of directors exercised some flexibility by docking Wakefield and Crusaders four points when they entered administration on the eve of the 2011 season after taking into account the new owners' willingness to pay off some of the debts to creditors. "We expected a deduction of points by the RFL and of course we accept that penalty," said Bradford's interim chief executive Gary Tasker. "We are not yet in a position to be able to offer any recompense to our creditors and, as such, a six-point deduction was what we expected. "'" Wow! Thanks Wooden Stand!

Like I said, you're in denial but it's worse than I thought!

Assuming you actualy think that Bradford have done something (anything) wrong
What do you beleive should be the penalty?

Its RLFans bud...the Hotel California on the internetz...and 'sides, I was just checking you were still awake




So do I...


Dunno bud, you're not even sure what the automatic sanction should be or on what page/ paragraph it is to be found on in the Bye-Laws.

[url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cacheicon_surprised.gifBAvWV6AMN4J:www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/5053+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ukLINK[/url

RFL introduce insolvency rules
26th of February 2006

The RFL has introduced new rules relating to professional clubs who undertake acts of insolvency.

Following the agreement of the RFL Council and a change in the sport's Operational rules, the new regulations will apply at both engage Super League and LHF National League level with immediate effect.

Any club undertaking an act of insolvency will now face an automatic deduction of six competition points.

If the act of insolvency occurs during the season, the deduction will apply with immediate effect. If the insolvency occurs in the close season period, the deduction would apply to the next League campaign.

The RFL's Director of Finance and Chief Operating Officer, Nigel Wood, said: ‚"Having reviewed the Rules in respect of club insolvency it was widely felt that some punitive measure needed to be imposed on clubs, who it could be argued, had obtained a competitive advantage over their rivals as a consequence of unaffordable overspending.

"The game unanimously supports the imposition of a points deduction which will address this imbalance."

Also, in a further proactive step to improve club financial management, all engage Super League and LHF National League clubs will now be required to regularly demonstrate to the RFL that their statutory financial responsibilities are being carried out with due probity.

Wood added: ‚"The new rules are intended to provide an early warning system in respect of clubs falling into arrears with their statutory obligations.

"Whilst these new regulations cannot guarantee that clubs will never again face financial difficulties, at least they provide for the possibility of an earlier intervention."

Far far from it fella, I'm absolutely certain of what the punishment should be, I've stated it a number of times, pointed out the precedent and named examples. I've been consistent throughout the whole debate going back a number of weeks. Even when others were calling for Bradford to be demoted I maintained that that wasn't what I wanted as despite Wakefield apparently being threatened with such there actualy wasn't a precedent for it.

I asked earlier, can you name me a recent example of a Super League Club entering Administration and NOT initially being deducted 6 competition points?

Thank you William Eve

Except...those regulations are no longer in the Operational Rules.

They were removed in a subsequent update.

The part re financial obligations - most specifically, ensuring HMRC is paid on time - remains, and has been beefed up a bit IIRC.

Go check them out on the RFL website.

btw. Where was the bit in those rules about mitigation of penalty, as happened with Wakey?

Link?

Have you never heard of Google? Anyway [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/operational_rules[ihere[/i[/url

Btw, you will note the wording in those old regulations refers to "an act of insolvency". NOT "Administration".

Salford committed an "act of insolvency" recently, by entering into a CVA. Remind me again what their points deduction was?

(btw, IMO the coreect decision was taken there. No brainer).

Wakefield.

They were deducted four points, a week after the administrator was appointed. They were not deducted six points, then had two points restored.

Jeeze Ses, its William Eve AKA little willie....and, as one would expect, its duff info; out if date as well.

Not yet, but give it a week or two


The point im making is that although there is precedence there is no current operational rule that specifies anything. It's all case by case. So If 6 can be reduced to 4, would it also not follow that 6 could be reduced to 4, 2 or 0? Depending upon the specifics of the case and level to which creditors are fecked or not?

To give u some context, I agree we should be dealt with by precedent and depending on the level of creditor payment or not in this case we should receive a points deduction. Because although it's not in the rules, I think it should be as a deterrent, and to be the only club to enter admin, not receive a deduction, and in a relegation year would not sit comfortably with me, no matter what the rules say or don't say.

Common ground and common sense, at last!

My opinion fwiw, you can't completely ignore the Administration even if all the creditors were paid and there'd have to be unbelievable and extenuating circumstances for a points deduction to be less than 4.

An Administration is far more serious than a CVA though or are you conveniently ignoring that

Quote ="Adeybull"Have you never heard of Google? Anyway [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/operational_rules[ihere[/i[/url Btw, you will note the wording in those old regulations refers to "an act of insolvency". NOT "Administration". Salford committed an "act of insolvency" recently, by entering into a CVA. Remind me again what their points deduction was? (btw, IMO the coreect decision was taken there. No brainer).'" Adeybull. I'd suggest you read the RFL's current Articles of Association. The Bye Laws and Operational Rules are part of these Articles. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... onal_rules You'll see 'Insolvency Event' is defined at 4.10 of the Bye Laws. You'll also see (4.7 of the Bye Laws) that these provide that the RFL board can deal with a club suffering an Insolvency Event, such as Administration, in any way it wants. "Make it up as you go along". This is why some are suggesting clearer defined penalties are published in advance for the future to make it all a bit more objective. In the meantime though, the RFL will have to have regard to its previous decisions as they set a precedent (which needs to be broadly followed to avoid potential legal challenge). So, back to precedent. The current penalty for going into Administration is 6 points deduction (but at its discretion, based on the facts of each case, the RFL board can take mitigating or other circumstances into account in imposing a lesser (Wakefield, Crusaders etc) or greater (eg Barrow) penalty).

Quote ="Adeybull"Have you never heard of Google? Anyway [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/operational_rules[ihere[/i[/url Btw, you will note the wording in those old regulations refers to "an act of insolvency". NOT "Administration". Salford committed an "act of insolvency" recently, by entering into a CVA. Remind me again what their points deduction was? (btw, IMO the coreect decision was taken there. No brainer).'" Adeybull. I'd suggest you read the RFL's current Articles of Association. The Bye Laws and Operational Rules are part of these Articles. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... onal_rules You'll see 'Insolvency Event' is defined at 4.10 of the Bye Laws. You'll also see (4.7 of the Bye Laws) that these provide that the RFL board can deal with a club suffering an Insolvency Event, such as Administration, in any way it wants. "Make it up as you go along". This is why some are suggesting clearer defined penalties are published in advance for the future to make it all a bit more objective. In the meantime though, the RFL will have to have regard to its previous decisions as they set a precedent (which needs to be broadly followed to avoid potential legal challenge). So, back to precedent. The current penalty for going into Administration is 6 points deduction (but at its discretion, based on the facts of each case, the RFL board can take mitigating or other circumstances into account in imposing a lesser (Wakefield, Crusaders etc) or greater (eg Barrow) penalty).

Quote ="Wooden Stand"Adeybull. I'd suggest you read the RFL's current Articles of Association. The Bye Laws and Operational Rules are part of these Articles. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... onal_rules You'll see 'Insolvency Event' is defined at 4.10 of the Bye Laws. You'll also see (4.7 of the Bye Laws) that these provide that the RFL board can deal with a club suffering an Insolvency Event, such as Administration, in any way it wants. "Make it up as you go along". This is why some are suggesting clearer defined penalties are published in advance for the future to make it all a bit more objective. In the meantime though, the RFL will have to have regard to its previous decisions as they set a precedent (which needs to be broadly followed to avoid potential legal challenge). So, back to precedent. The current penalty for going into Administration is 6 points deduction (but at its discretion, based on the facts of each case, the RFL board can take mitigating or other circumstances into account in imposing a lesser (Wakefield, Crusaders etc) or greater (eg Barrow) penalty).'" I have read the Articles. I'm even anorak enough to have a copy printed out at home somewhere. Your will see a CVA is included within the definitiion of an insolvency event. And concluded the same as you - it leave far too much grey area, which is guaranteed to start all this sort of nonsense off whenever any lot of fans feel their club has been penalised differently to another. Even though they will never have all the facts that the RFL did when it made its decision. As you will see earlier somewhere, I actually agreed pretty well entirely with your proposal for [ugoing forward[/u - and added some refinements of my own.

Quote ="Wooden Stand"Adeybull. I'd suggest you read the RFL's current Articles of Association. The Bye Laws and Operational Rules are part of these Articles. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... onal_rules You'll see 'Insolvency Event' is defined at 4.10 of the Bye Laws. You'll also see (4.7 of the Bye Laws) that these provide that the RFL board can deal with a club suffering an Insolvency Event, such as Administration, in any way it wants. "Make it up as you go along". This is why some are suggesting clearer defined penalties are published in advance for the future to make it all a bit more objective. In the meantime though, the RFL will have to have regard to its previous decisions as they set a precedent (which needs to be broadly followed to avoid potential legal challenge). So, back to precedent. The current penalty for going into Administration is 6 points deduction (but at its discretion, based on the facts of each case, the RFL board can take mitigating or other circumstances into account in imposing a lesser (Wakefield, Crusaders etc) or greater (eg Barrow) penalty).'" I have read the Articles. I'm even anorak enough to have a copy printed out at home somewhere. Your will see a CVA is included within the definitiion of an insolvency event. And concluded the same as you - it leave far too much grey area, which is guaranteed to start all this sort of nonsense off whenever any lot of fans feel their club has been penalised differently to another. Even though they will never have all the facts that the RFL did when it made its decision. As you will see earlier somewhere, I actually agreed pretty well entirely with your proposal for [ugoing forward[/u - and added some refinements of my own.

Aye, it took a while tho


Thing is, AdeyBull and other Bradford fans have been saying this since this broke last week or whenever it was...Well done Duckman for finally getting the message across.


I said to you last week that I thought we'd get a deduction and fwiw, I still do. Edit: I cant say how many because, unlike [isome[/i fans from rival clubs that will benefit, I don't yet know what teh new owners plans are and I dunno if there are extenuating circumstances in mitigation.

LOL at bradford fans on this forum who,over the last few days have tried to turn this thread into a Wakefield thread about events in 2011? instead of talking about how Wakefield moved heaven & earth to avoid administration "again"in 2013.

And laugh out even louder at the governing body for overseeing this whole debacle for however long its been going on now

Is it true that the ring-fenced Jarrod Sammut has just been ring-fenced by Wakefield?

Quote ="William Eve"Is it true that the ring-fenced Jarrod Sammut has just been ring-fenced by Wakefield? '" www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news ... t/2014/02/ Sure is. Just confirmed by the club.

Quote ="William Eve"Is it true that the ring-fenced Jarrod Sammut has just been ring-fenced by Wakefield? '" www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news ... t/2014/02/ Sure is. Just confirmed by the club.

Excellent news.

It is to be hoped that any savings which may arise from the departures of the former ring-fenced Carvell and Sammut can be put to good use... like paying off creditors for instance and avoiding a SL points deduction.