Smokey is a Rhino, so he's just playing devils advocate/ mischief maker

I see you have not actually answered any of my points.

1 - since you clearly do not know the numbers, you are in no position whatsoever to lecture others. Maybe it was £10k? A sum that would have made no conceivable difference to how Bardford's situation would have been perceived. Probably not, but who knows? You clearly do not.

2 - Thanks for ignoring how I blew your assertion out of the water with facts. I'm sorry for bothering you with the inconvenience of irrefutable fact, but needs must and all that.

3 - Was it? Was it really? Is that something else that you "know" but can't actually produce anything in support of? But, thanks anyway for confiming you have now joined the growing ranks of those who accept that it WAS indeed a penalty, and not this ludicrous "offer" notion that so many of you were pedalling before. And yes of course it was a penalty - allegedly insisted upon by a majority of other SL clubs not the RFL as a condition of the new owner keeping the licence. Yet, funnily enough, your own club had previous for not defaulting with HMRC AND its other creditors, having indeed "run a bsuiness that way" yet were not penalised financially then OR in your second insolvency. But doubtless you will tell us that was different?

4 - Maybe you should read more widely then? And if the club was unable to get any players sold before the administration, and with such a small squad anyway, you would hardly expect the new owners to want to try to sell any AFTER? Not that it has not stopped two from jumping ship anyway.

And can you point me to where the RFL had confirmed there would be no points penalty? Or are you just relying on some half-baked comment from a rookie chairman who quickly acknowledged that he actually did not have the first idea what he was actually talking about? Because if you ARE, how is that so very different to - for example - your supporters' trust firing off an open letter based very much around something your own chairman said?

Look, isn't it about time people cut out all this pretence about the moral high ground and "doing the right thing"? Nearly all the vitriol on the current crisis is coming from a group of Wakefield supporters. Everyone else can see the reason for why that should be so, so why not just admit it? All this "our insolvency was MUCH more principled than yours" crap is wearing thin now.

No what I am saying I find it slightly hypocritical from one or two Wakey fans slating the Bulls and how it's a disgrace that creditors did not get paid.

I'm just pointing out many creditors lost out when wakefield went into admin as well. And instead of signing the above players as mentioned above could it not be argued you used that money to pay off creditors that one or two of you expect Bradford to?

2013 Wakefield paid for a squad they could not afford and if it wasn't for MC you would be In EXACTLY the same situation as us if not worse.

I am not defending actions of the bulls, it's been shambolic quite frankly, but to lectures on not paying creditors by one or two fans of a club who also didn't pay creditors I find hypocritical that is all.

Denial !

Seek help

Someone usually gets done over when companies go into admin and as I have said on another thread, the punishment for doing so IMO should be more severe (and I know that this would have affected the team that I support).
Do you seriously think that Wakefield paid transfer fees for the players that you mention, or rather that they were free agents ??
Of course they were all paid salaries but, this means that you DO think that no players should be signed until any previous debts are cleared.
If we go that way, the capitalist world would cease to exist !

FWIW, I think Wakefield were in just as precarious position as The Bulls but, thankfully, Mr Carter recognised where we were and took some drastic and painful action, to try and prevent the club going into Admin.
As fans of a club that has been through numerous ups and downs, there is no pleasure in seeing any club have the same (or similar) problems but, the problems at the Bulls always seem to be somebody else's fault, which right at the outset (The Iconic Stadium issue), don't seem to have been tackled.

Keeping with what is in the public domain and not hearsay or . Club owner abruptly stands down and announces he is selling the club to gang of four (now gang of three, since it subsequently became clear that the one survivor from his regime was actually a total bandit) at end of September. It was NOT pre-planned (and I can prove that, but not for on here) and OK WAS ill and was told jack it in or it'll jack YOU in, and soon.

New owners - except the shares had not actually changed hands - go through the books and contracts and everything else, and discover things are very much more serious than they understood. At about this time, said bandit resigns as RFL deem him not a "fit and proper person". You don't need to be Einstein to get the significance of that.

Mid-November, new owners (or not-yet-owners, as we later discovered) call fans forum, and tell fans the dreadful truth. And that they had ALREADY started to slash costs and set up a programme of redundancies. You realise of course that there are consultation and notice periods? Which meant the staff cuts kicked in by 12 January. Other cuts were being made from some time before the forum.

The current owners-who-were-actually-not-yet-owners-and-may-not-now-be-the-future-owners looked to have acted quickly and (financially) responsibly. They even thought they had reached a deal with the previous owner to transfer his shares, brokered by the RFL. We were then told that the owner had gone back on that agreement, setting in place the train of events that led to administration.

Now, what in substance is there to fault with the actions of the gang of three? Doubtless plenty in the details, with the hindsight to which you refer. But I see no justification for THEM being charged with waiting too long. Do you agree or disagree?

If you agree (I really struggle to see reason for not), then we have to look back at the actions of the previous-and-stil-is-or-was-till-administration-owner. We were told (and I have evidence for that too) that the business had lost £1.2m in a year, if that. Without going into all the details for the nth time, it is quite clear that things were not at all well managed under his stewardship, especially financially. At best, hopelessly-optimistic assumptions were made, especially in view of the imposed massive financial penalty which, let us remember, punished HIM for the actions of previous managements. And that is at the very best... so did HE wait too long?

Subsequent events and discoveries would very much suggest yes he DID wait too long - but then, maybe not? He WAS actually funding the shortfall, albeit by lending money to the business not investing in it. That funding stopped when he stood down (which HE decided to do, let us not forget) leaving the bsuiness with an immediate funding problem. Had he not been forced by ill health to stand down, funding looked set to continue.

As it happens, I do not think that funding would have been enough, since it plugged the gap in forecasts that were since shown to be far too optimistic. So there is a strong argument that things would have gone tìts up before too long anyway.

What you keep saying is "your club". The "club" has and had no say in the matter. Ever. Who IS "the club"? Because the only people who could ever have actually had any say are the club's OWNERS, who also ran it. Be it Caisley, Hood, Bates, Agar, Coulby, Bennett, Khan... and THEY are the ones at whom you - and we - should rightly be directing your anger. And, in terms of being very angry at the antics of the key players, I bow to no-one.

If the company you worked for went bust because of the antics/incompetance/whatever of its owner, and someone was able to take the business on and keep it going, how would you as an employee feel (let alone new owner) if you were told that you were being held responsible and accountable for what the business' previous owner did?

The "club" is blameless. The various owners, though, are guilty as hell.

Now THAT is utter total and complete bollox. Even by your standards.

Bulls went into admin because the agreement by the former owner to transfer his shares was renaged upon. That triggered a chain of events that led to administration. Selling a few players would have made no difference to that outcome.

Why won't you admit that your real wish is to see Bradford so crippled financially and squad-wise that it looks a dead cert for relegation? Especially when your own club now seems to have found the funds at short order to employ one of the few Bulls potentially saleable players anyway?

1.That there was payback isn’t being disputed, the level of it is. Nobody is suggesting Bradford will pay £0 to creditors (if only because I expect they will wish some supplier relationships to continue)The level of that payback is up for grabs. This would mean they were in exactly the same position. It also leaves for the possibility that Bradfords ‘payback’ maybe of a greater proportion than Wakefields in which case, im sure you would agree, a lesser penalty would be applicable. After all that is the very policy you are arguing in favour of.

What it does confirm however is your original statement that Wakefield paid back as much as possible to as many as possible was complete nonsense. They could have paid back more, they could have paid it to more people, they made a decision on who and how much they felt it was necessary to pay. The same as Bradford.

2. The RFL did know such thing for my club. My club is everything yours wishes it were. My club owns its ground, it makes a profit, it has fantastic youth development, a big name, relatively huge crowds and has seen success and has lifted a top level trophy in the past 50 years. If you are going to start on other clubs, remember the lowly position your club actually holds.

3. Ah yes, this is the idiotic myth that Bradford ripped off the RFL and got a sweetheart deal from them. If you think that losing their asset, paying back the loan AND losing over a million pounds of TV money is a sweetheart deal that Bradford have been blessed to receive, let me know your contact details, i have some really interesting financial instruments you would surely be interested in. (I want a holiday and i think you could contribute a fair amount to that)

4. AND They didnt pay all their creditors back, and they saw creditors go without. AND the refused big bids for the likes of Kirmond, crikey that whiter than white gown you are wearing is starting to look a little grubby.

5. Yep, cutting the quality of your major revenue source is a proven way to grow a business. Sorry, i didnt mean grow, i meant kill.

This one line demonstrates the arrogance of the Bulls mentality!

You dumped your debts through admin, to keep players you couldn't afford in the first place.

If you couldn't afford them before admin, what made you think you could keep them after?

You were still going to rack up the same monthly liabilities as before.

To cock it up once, mugging half a million quid out of the fans in the process, to do it again within 18 months...you really think the Bulls have been harshly treated?

you do understand that one of the major reasons for having an administration procedure at all is to try and safeguard jobs. Is it somehow different for an RL club solely because you are terrified your club might be relegated?

You do also realise that the players would have become creditors had the club not honoured their contracts so the club had a legal obligation to pay those players?

To be honest I think most fans (again apart from one or two) accept its grips mismanagement. Te decision by people made at the top of our club for last few
Years i find disgusting.

I think CLEAR rules need to be written by the RFL. Also never again, ANY club that enters admin should have their tv money cut. This should never have happened even if offered. I've heard some say OK offered the cut, some say other SL clubs wanted it to happen as the RFL helped the bulls through the 2012 season. Either way it should have been rejected and the bigger picture should have been thought of to stop the club getting into the poop again. For a club getting back to its feet, to have its main income severely cut is just daft IMO. Steeper punishments in higher points deduction I think that is the way to go as a deterrent.

Who is it going to deter? Omar Kahn isnt going to be deterred he doesnt own the club anymore, the new owners might be deterred from even getting involved but that seems the opposite of what the game is trying to acheive.

Pretty clear that debate with those who refuse to listen is futile. You only have to look to responses like "in denial", with no attempt to counter the arguments, to see that. They just keep trotting out the same lines no matter how many times you show them to be wrong. One of two reasons for that.

Maybe they just won't listen to an opposing case anyway - maybe some of them would happily argue that the earth was flat or the moon is made of green cheese, in the face of all the evidence, if they actually believed it to be so?

Or, they KNOW there is some justice in the opposing argument, but it does not suit their purpose to have too many other folk see that. So, if you just keep shouting down the facts long enough, those who try to set the record straight get fed up and go away.

Agreed.

Agreed.

I actually spat my tea out when I read that, couldn't read the rest because of the tears in my eyes!

Glad it amused you.

Now, how about actually putting up coherent arguments against what the likes of me have said? Ones based on the evidence and the facts?

Its funny because even via the internet i could tell you had some kind of problem that meant you needed help with simple tasks like eating and drinking.

You have, without a doubt, just described yourself.

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

I've done so in the past but I had to get off the merry-go-round because I was getting nauseous from going around in circles.

You won't listen to anyone else's opinion, you refuse to accept the Bulls have done anything wrong, you maintain that Bradford are a special case, you think any form of punishment is unwarranted, the RFL haven't actualy helped you but have treated you harshly, you've towed the party line for successive Bulls owners and you continue to whistle their tune in the face of stark reality.

Hence my 'denial' comment

Good luck Adeybull and all the other loyal Bulls fans, I hope you find some peace

Put your straw man away. I have not said ONE of those things you attribute to me. Not one.

And anyway, how could I have "towed (sic) the party line" for Khan, when I never made any public comment from last Easter till well after he had stood down?

You can always tell when the argument is lost. Up go the straw men, and too many also go [iad hominem[/i.

A few words from someone a bit closer to the front line than we are.

Cummings is hardly an objective commentator on the subject and while I agree that how the RFL has behaved needs looking at its because of how they've favoured the Bulls and attempted to pull a fast one.

Let's not forget that this is a tragedy completely of the Bulls own making!

yeah, thats definitely the most sensible way of conducting an investigation. We start by deciding that the bulls were favoured, then conclude the RFL attempted to pull a fast one, then we agree the blame is completely on the Bulls. Then if we have time we can gather any evidence, and if we want to be really thorough we can look at the evidence. But we need start with our conclusions and move from there. Thats how you avoid bias and get to the real truth

Indeed.

Especially as Cummins made specific reference to "...how the clubs dealt with it...", which I take as referring to the financial penalty insisted upon by certain of the other clubs.