Quote ="Shifty Cat"Obviously only Trinity and probably the RFL know the exact specifics, as you probaby well know. Why do you think any fans would know the excat percenatge. All any Trinity fan knows is what was told by the new owners and the RFL.
Glover went into a few more details about who he paid off at the time at a fans meeting, when he took over. Questions were asked and answered, sorry didn't take any notes mate.
I suppose they could decide how much they were going to deduct in those 7 days, if Glover got out his checkbook out and paid what % of the creditors it was that kept the RFL happy there and then.
Whatever it was Glover paid, no doubt if your new owners offered to pay a similar %, they'd get the same treatment, surely?
Maybe the Crusaders fans now what percentage they paid becuase it was their club that set the Precedent.
You keep deriding certain Wakey fans for feeling the way they do but I bet if the roles were reverse, you and many of you're own fans would probably be saying the same as them, it's the nature of the beast.
Just for the record the amount of Trinty fans that want your club to suffer is tiny.'"
Thanks for reasoned post. Wish some others did likewise.
And yes, of course you realised that I do not expect any Trinity supporter on here to know what value and % of the creditors Glover actually settled. Personally, I suspect it was a relatively limited part of the total, probably mainly local and smaller creditors (and very well done, assuming he did that - given the losses to local creditors in the CVA a few years earlier) and will not have included anything to HMRC (and I'd blame him not one jot). I also guess that he saw a precedent set by Crusaders (in whose downfall and phoenix the RFL were clearly far far more heavily involved...) and realised that if he made some gesture towards the creditors then the RFL would have no choice but to afford Wakefield the same mitigation. And, if so, good on him.
But they are only my guesses. And that has been my point. The view expressed by a number of Wakefield posters on here can be summed up as: "six point penalty regardless; four points if you repay many/most/lots/whatever of your creditors, like we did. No other option". Saying this sets a precedent. But how can they know if it does? Without knowing the background and the RFL's reasoning, and without knowing whether their creditor settlement was token, material, or substantial, there is no way anyone can possibly conclude unequivocally that, beyond the six points starting point, a precedent has been set.
In support of this, the RFL has fully mitigated any penalty to Salford (and totally correctly, I would suggest?) because in their act of insolvency the new owner apparently undertook to settle all the creditors through the CVA. I am led to understand that another club recently has been in a similar situation and with a similar outcome. So that would appear to demonstrate that the points deduction is probably linked in some manner to the extent to which you settle with your creditors? Yet the same siren voices blank this out, and demand a minimum four points regardless. Whether you pay off a handful of creditors or all of them, therefore providing zero incentive for a new owner to "do the right thing".
This would all be academic if the new owners sought to wipe the slate clean and not settle any of the creditors. Six points, without a doubt, according to precedent. Even though I think punishing new owners for the sins of the old is crazy and counterproductive, precedent is there and would have to be followed. Get over it Bulls fans, and try and move on. Indeed, as an opposition fan I would probably be clamouring for something far more serious, and as Bulls supporter I would have a lot of difficulty living with what had happened again to creditors.
But the new owners have stated they intend to settle with creditors. We would not expect them to settle with Khan (although some people, who can't or won't get their heads round the substance of his loans, disagree). And they and the RFL have both made it pretty clear that the administration came about NOT because the club was bust per se, but because Khan went back on the RFL-brokered deal he had agreed.
Since Khan had been providing funding up to September, but not since, and since you could not expect the current board (who had already slashed the cost base) to fund a business they did not actually own, as far as I can see there was clearly no way out other than putting the company out of the hands of all of them and into administration. And transferring the business to Newco so it could be carried on and jobs saved and the new SL season not be wrecked by the sudden disappearance of one of the participants.
Now what all this is important is because it gives credence to the new owners' statement that they intend to settle with creditors. My understanding, FWIW, is that they will seek to settle with all the creditors, not just a token few or some local ones or whatever. Since the reason for the administration was not to avoid paying creditors because they could not, but to remove Khan from the equation (I suspect the RFL and most other clubs will be far from unhappy about that, tbh) and obtain some protection whilst they got the bsuiness on a stable footing going forward. That, at least, is my current best assessment of the position. Time will tell, and if this proves to be words rather than reality then you'll not find me arguing against a points deduction. Nor would any other Bulls fan I know, despite most of us still being so angry about the Sky monies confiscation that so hamstrings future owners for the unacceptable antics of the various baords and owners pre-June 2012.
So, to the crux of all this (and if you have made it this far, good on you). Given all the above, UNTIL we know more clearly just what of the creditors the new owners are intending to settle with, there is NO WAY anyone - me, you, anyone - can form an objective view as to what the penalty mitigation should be. And it has been really very disappointing to see various Trinity supporters being so black and white on this issue, when they have no idea themselves either what their OWN new owner settled, or what ours propose to settle.
Like me, I suspect most observers will recognise that their stance likely arises out of the elephant in the room - the desperation to seek any advantage to reduce the chance of relegation. Whatever they might actually say it arises from. Understandable, given the pressure-cooker situation the sudden re-introduction of relegation - and of two clubs - has brought about. I am sure you are right, in saying only a tiny number of Trinity supporters wish Bulls harm. None I know do - they are cioncerned about their own club, and it avoiding the drop.
So, let's recognise it for what it is? If they just said "desperate times call for desperate measures, and anything that damages a fellow relegation contender (for both our clubs have to be that) helps us" they we'd be clear, and everyone would (or should) understand. And we'd not be wasting so much time with fans seeking justification for taking the moral high ground.
Anyway, after Thursday I very much fear Wakfield supporters will be sleeping easier in their beds anyway.
