Very sad to see a Rugby League institution like Bradford being tossed around like this.

Is there a way out for them or is the door slamming shut on them?

Aye, good player will def improve Wakey...prolly not the last either.

@WilliamEve: Agree about the creditors, tho a points deduction is pretty much nailled on.

lol....that news will light the touch paper on this thread!!

They should get a stronger fence and a bigger ring

The recent press releases from the club have been less than stellar...is there a shooting in foot smiley?

Wakefield circling like vultures

Meh, life in a big city, err, desert...both in the City of Bradfords case.

are they still going??

The question is, did Bradford offer this player to us or did we sneak in and pinch him?

If its he first then we can't be vultures steve.

The smiley face is a clue to how serious I was being...........

IIRC you are pretty much right about the Wakefield points deduction.
The precedent was set a short while earlier by Crusaders.
The two point reduction in penalty was seen as an incentive for Newco to work with the previous creditors.
From the off-set Wakefield were keen to point out that they would work with them and 'voluntarily' pay a selected few. Which I believe has been verified.
I don't think there is a sliding scale 0-6 dependent on amount paid off, just 4 points if the newco show a 'willingness' to work with creditors.
I did have the administrators report somewhere with the list of creditors, mainly HMRC (easy to rack up unpaid tax when you realise you're going bust), but generally/relatively not that much.
I don't have any figures for what (or who) was actually paid as Glover was very coy when asked about this, and, at least initially, did not have a BoD and kept financial details to himself (perhaps we now know why?).
As I say, the precedent set by Crusaders was that the 6 points would be reduced to 4 if the newco 'commits to work with creditors' and Wakefield were quick to jump on that bandwagon before the RFL could change the rules.
I think the new guidelines from the RFL seem to focus more on HMRC being paid, so who knows?

They rode the crest of the early super league wave. Bullmania indeed, it was forced down everyones throats. But the shaky foundations of this fad, have been exposed.

''show us yer trophies'' - the banner held aloft by a typically cocky, obnoxious bulls fan at headingly in 2004.

How about ''show us yer money?'' or maybe soon ''show us yer existance?''

But i'm not gloating. It really would be a terrible shame if the bulls were to leave super league.

It really would.

It seems that their two most prominent posters have left the forum (at least for now)

Arrogance like this is rarely seen at headingly..... From an away fan

Becuase you've only been when Cas are playing?

No

Cheers for info mate. Appreciated. Only one I think who has helped out on this.

I agree the current RL Operational Rules seem to major on paying HMRC - I suspect this was after severe pressure from those providing public sector funding?

Just out of interest, if you only get a 2 point mitigation for "committing to work with creditors" which - as I think you have indicated - might mean not actually paying that much - why would anyone buying a club out of administration seek to pay off any more than a bare minumum of creditors? Since no further advantage would accrue?

And might anyone demanding that new owners repay ALL creditors, for no additional advantage, be guilty of gross hypocrisy?

Might be seen as having an advantage over other SL members who do pay their creditors? It's OK leaping from one financial calamity to another other than it puts other clubs ( who have kept their house in order) at a disadvantage. If the other clubs don't spend their money on paying suppliers and other creditors either maybe they could sign better players?

Not my point, though.

And I have no problem with clubs not paying their creditors getting penalised, all other thing sbveing equal. Not only does that give them an unfair advantage, its anyway just plain wrong unless totally unavoidable. Even though it is usually new owners and a new entity trying to clean up the mess the previous one left, so you have to make sure the penalty is not so onerous as to discourage new owners. Unless you believe the game can afford to lose a club - at any level?

My point is that if you pay off a handful of creditors and get 2 points mitigation, but pay off all your creditors and still only get 2 points mitigation, what advantage is there to the buyer in voluntarily trying to pay off more creditors?

Thankfully, the RFL would seem to recognise this too. Presumably why they did not penalise Salford for committing an act of insolvency (CVA) because all the creditors were to be repaid? A totally sensible and pragmatic decision, I'd say?

Should this thread not be re-titled

Bullimia bearing in mind how thin the Bulls squad is looking ?

That's really rather good!

All the more so for being all-too-true, as well

It's making a few people spew that's for sure!

The advantage, if any, would have been gained in the time that club/administration was trading. had the Bulls won all the pots you would have a point. As it is, we haven't even made the playoffs since 1845.

The new administration - whoever it may end up being - don't get any advantage. You can't get an advantage twice. Either the old club did get an advantage by not paying its creditors properly, or it didn't, but if there was an advantage, then by definition only the old club could have benefited from it.

Rubbish, I'm afraid.

For example:
A club uses money that should be used to pay creditors to pay for a squad they could not otherwise afford. Advantage in current year.
Said club then goes into administration and writes off some/most/all of those debts.
Club still has a squad that they couldn't afford but now has a lot less debts. Advantage post administration.

Of course the advantage can be had twice - under this scenario you get a stronger playing squad both pre and post administration. How is that not a double advantage??