The initial statement said that the new bulls are going to pay the old bulls' debts. If thats the case then why do they need punishing further?

Really!
You don't remember other clubs fans (including myself) helping to pay your debts and bail you out?
Short memories, some people!

I'm only talking about the financial troubles you were in 18 months ago, I'm not going to mention the 60s when other clubs, Wakefield Trinity in particular, bailed Bradford out.

Is it?

If the current lot have balanced the books for this coming season, as they indicate they have after some pretty ruthless cuts, then they clearly CAN afford it. Wouldn't you say?

Incidentally, do you want me to post the long a list of all the players who the club has NOT kept? There were some pretty big earners on that list too. There are far less of those on the current squad list.

All these issues relate to LAST season, and to the wrangle over ownership. Not to the forthcoming season.

Will Bradford pay back the £750,000 they got for the lease on iconic Odsal!

Let's not talk about fair or parity here because the Bulls have had preferential treatment that no other club has ever come clse to receiving.

Read what he said sunshine. He said other CLUBS. Not individual fans.

The amount from other clubs' fans was of course hugely appreciated at the time. It WAS only a fairly modest part of the total, even then, but of course it all helped. And I for one paid to the likes of Halifax and Leigh when THEY were appealing for funds to keep THEIR clubs alive.

Gestures that really stand out to me were the donation by the Warrington club to the Bullbuilder Hardship fund (and a much smaller one from Huddersfield) which helped pay staff made redundant who carried on working regardless (no debts being paid off there...) and a fantastic donation by Steve O'Connor of Widnes to the pledge campaign earlier.

You will never, ever hear me call the Warrington club now, after that gesture.

Another club you will not hear me call now is Leeds. They made a very big gate receipts donation to the administrator after Caisley's mob put the club i0bto administration. And by all accounts have been pretty supportive thereafter and to this day. That donation helped the club keep playing during the administration - it did not settle any debts.

The only one of those I listed that settled any debts was Steve O'Connor's. Its a shame that wonderful gesture came to naught, but he will always be a hero to Bulls fans for the gesture, as I am sure the poster you quoted would agree.

Eh?

Firstly, it was £1.25m.

Secondly, they pay £78k p.a. rent to the RFL in exchange. Do the maths, that is a pretty good return on investment.

Thirdly, they sold their principal asset for what some like Caisley alleged was below fair value and. I'm sure if the opportunity came to buy back the lease for the same price eventuated, once the club gets its full allocation of Sky monies again and is not £2/3m down to the benefit of all the other clubs, the club would take it.

OK, next?

Course i remember. I was replying to the posters statement about other clubs taking on Bradford debt. No clubs took on our debt. Our chairmen got the begging buckets out and the Bulls faithful and many RL supporters helped out. People VOLUNTARILY put their money in to help save the club. I would do the same for any other club because i love the game. I know a few Bulls fans who helped out Salford before Koukash came in.

It was Omar Khan who the RFL were happy with to take over from the 'other lot' who took the club into administration.
It was the RFL who took the Crusaders from south Wales and handed them over to a chief executive at Wrexham,Paul Retout,who has since been jailed and two owners Moss and Roberts,who the soccer fans warned against.
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-24663529Expansion Club[/url
When Khan 'took ill',and left the Bradford club with the Labour MP,it was on Khan's suggestion that Whitcut took over.
While not really owning the club he was in position for a couple of weeks until the RFL decided Whitcut was not a fit and proper person.
The club was then taken over by the current incumbents who had been brought to the club by Whitcut.
The RFL in the meantime state that their micro-managing of clubs prevents them working on 'commercial opportunities'.[url=http://www.loverugbyleague.com/news_13490-rfl-resources-drained-by-micro-managing-clubs-in-licensing-system.htmlSTORY[/url

If the RFL keep on doing what they've always done they'll always get what they've always had.
Unprofessional judgement and unfair working practices and making the sport a laughing stock while driving away sponsors and commercial opportunities as well as causing parents to persuade their children in other directions.
Clubs going into administration.
During a week when people were having their spirits lifted this happens;again.

I wish Bulls fans would not try to justify the admin scenario. Had they let more players go last time they might not have been in the crap again so soon.

Oh and please don't bleat about the half superleague money as wakefield did not get any for the first 2 years they were in superleague and managed to survive

Is that what you said when Salford were in administration?

Wow!
What a condescending a-hole you just showed yourself to be, Sunshine!

The Bulls have entered Administration
The rules state that a 6pt penalty is applicable so should they be punished like other clubs have in very very similar situations YES!
Thought so

Everyone who ever enters Administration can sing a sob story of how it's not their fault, someone else was to blame and theirs was a unique situation not like any other.

I'm not concerned with Omar Khans plight or that of past and present Directors, its irrelelevant. What concerns me is that the governing body for Rugby League acts with integrity rather than duplicity, that they're transparent in their actions concerning Bradford rather than the fork tongued double dealing cloak and dagger secret loans and trumped up stories of predatory developers etc etc.

You can spin and whine and plead Bradford as a special case all you want but they've entered Administration and should be punished like everyone else, shouldn't they...Thought So.

Well seen as two clubs are relegated this year i don't think you can really call this a licensed season.

Since the beginning of last year we have lost

Elliot Whitehead
John Bateman
Heath L'estrange
Jamie Langley
Keith Lulia
Michael Platt
Curtis Naughton
Jobe Murphy

So we have lost 5 HG players. I'd say 6 of them were top earners (Yes including Platt has Mcnamara offered him a big long term contract a few years ago. Madness i know)

Not sure what that attack on the RFL (justified or not) has to do with my post, though? But at least you are engaging in reasoned debate so no issues with that.

Just a couple of clarifications, though. Whilst I am no fan of Khan - he and I had some significant ftf disagreemnents - he WAS ill. He DID have to go into hospital. He WAS told he'd better stand back or he might be lying down...for ever. It was not a contrivance, it was actually the truth.

The three current guys (remember to add Robbie Paul in as a director now too) were sponsors and/or big fans well before they got more specifically involved. They were not "brought to the club by WHitcu*t" in the way I think you are suggesting. The club was actually looking for external investors to come on board. I know a bit about this, because I was involved representing one of those - the Supporters Trust. These guys were the three that followed through.

As for "causing parents to persuade their children in other directions", I gather the Braford Bulls Foundation took 53,000 local childeren through its numerous programmes last year. Yes, you heard it right. That is more kids than the total population of some RL towns. I think it is initiatives like that that are more likely to make a difference to the parents, than any spats about ownership and administration that are likely to be of interest to a small minority?

The penalty is "up to six points".

The actual penalty would seem to depend on the extent to which the creditors are paid, and an unfair advantage is not thereby gained.

Next?

I believe it was Hood who negotiated the salaries on signings, not McNamara.

Hence, I suggest, some of the crazy deals?

And the precedent set for entering Administration has been 6pts reduced to 4pts if creditors are repaid.

Will the clubs have to vote Bulls back into Superleague. I thought this had to be done. I thought when we came back they did and also when Bulls went pop last.

For 2014 you signed:

George

Ferguson

Gaskell

Carvell

Henry

Blythe given a contract following a loan deal

Plus enhanced some young player contracts and extended several others.

All together that is a lot of committed expenditure by a club that soon went into administration.

Compare your ins and outs with the Broncos who have not gone into admin.

I'd say 4. It's easy to mistake important for the team and high wages.

The biggest problem Bradford have with this argument is that they've made several high profile signings in that time as well. Ultimately, would you say that Bradford spend the least on players in the league? Rather, if you were to rank financial position and player salary spend, would Bradford fall in similar positions? Personally I don't think they do.

Every team goes financial difficulties, so I don't believe there needs to be a witch hunt, but the important thing that this is addressed so it doesn't happen again. Though that was said the first time so it's very hard to accept. It's gotten to a point where by unless obvious and very clear attempts to live within their means I'm going to be skeptical towards any sort of stability and Bradford being in the same sentence.

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences of going into administration regardless of situation. 6 points is the standard and so it should be, reduced if the debt is then paid off. There's no need for excuses by Bradford fans. Time to get on with it.

Adey, it is a very ambiguous statement by the club that it "intends to work with creditors" which is not necessarily the same thing as paying them everything that is owed. If the intention was to honour all debts then surely they would have said so ? Certainly in respect of HMRC the new business will not be able to pay the old company's liability so I assume the taxpayer loses out again ?

Oh I agree and I wouldn't complain if we had a points deduction. Just tryin to make a point that money has been cut, and this admin is different to the last one in that sounds like it was a way to push through the transfer of ownership.

On the outside looking in, I question just how much has been cut. When compared to other clubs who have been in similar situations (from figures I've seen about Bradford and other clubs) Bradford do appear to have come off lightly. I know a lot of backroom have apparently gone in Bradford, but considering playing squads, you've got rid of a few (as you said) but also signed a few (as others have said) and I question whether the books are truly balanced (it could be that they are, and other clubs have just used it as an excuse to make even deeper cuts)

As for forcing the deal through, I'm not convinced at all by that, but should we see an era of stability, living within ones means and some semblance of trust rebuilt, I'm willing to say the means justify the end. But there are ramifications for that.

You will perhaps note that I have sought to avoid saying anywhere that the club has said it will PAY all the creditors. That has meant some interesting word constructs at times! Because yes, I am sure the club's wording is quite deliberate. Although my verbal understanding is that this is the intent. But I suspect they will not be keen on settling any creditors that seem questionable or may be unrelated to the club's rugby activities. Within reason, I would be at ease with that since it would be what I would do in their position.

I can't see any reason why Newco and HMRC cannot agree a voluntary settlement of the b/f liability? If they do not, and the club WAS to take the taxpayer for a sum, I would be beyond pis sed off. I have not heard any suggestion (so far, at least) that that might be on the cards though, and indeed I cannot ses the RFL allowing it.

Outsiders looking in will understandably not be aware of the finer nuances of all that has been going on, or some of the hearsay and allegations that have been floating around. And remember that a key protaganist in all this is the local MP, a former director who seems to have gone to ground, and various local politicians and quangocrats who were directors or involved, all from the same political party too. The trouble is, you really need to be aware of all this to fully understand some of the feelings about it all. Doubtless just the same as has happened in other cases, and indeed how it was last time with the Bulls.

It really is far from black and white, and the issues extend a fair bit beyond the rugby. I'd really ask folk to keep a BIT more of an open mind at this stage.

Is there any way I can read a poster's history?

I'm almost certain whenever you mention Bradford you always, always add something about the RFL and the Odsal lease.

Valid points aside, it does make me chuckle a little how you always seem to crowbar it in somewhere!