Really? I seem to be able to admit when I am wrong and accept that I don't always have the answers to the questions and problems faced by the game.
Jeez....I wish I were as infallible as you Adeybull



I repeat......your assertion that "in your opinion OK's debt shouldn't count" is flawed and makes you as marginalised as can possibly be. David Hughes will be owed about 14 million by the end of this year.......if he wanted it back, then he would have to chase hard because he'd be lucky to see a penny of it, but that doesn't make that 14 million any less of a debt. OK is owed money......just because Bradford Bulls 2026 (forgive me, I lose track of who actually owns the club at the moment) Limited was set up to try and wriggle out of paying it, the debt still exists.


I said nothing about your opinion.....let's recap shall we?

I simply said the decision wasn't yours to make.....you can read into that what you will.


Ah......I believe it was you who first resorted to insults and derision in this exchange.
Let's recap again shall we?


Yep.....I'd suggest if you don't want to be called a megalomaniacal who can never accept that the club he follows has done wrong, then I'd suggest you lay off the insults and derision.....





....posters like you "who know, but can't tell us because they'd have to kill us afterwards" are ten a penny on here and as much use as a chocolate teaspoon!

Fact is that the new new new new new owners (or is that new new new wannabee owners) of Bradford have tried to pull a fast one and wriggle out of a debt.....a debt by the way, that was incurred to keep Bradford afloat and which without, the club would have vanished.

6, 4 or 2 points or no points at all, the reality is that a great many RL fans in the UK no longer care and that you really have used up every bit of good will the club ever had.


Anyone for a bucket collection? It's for a good cause (again)

Far from ridiculous, his opinion is essentially correct, so far as the RFL is concerned, as they told the current owners not to pay on the basis that they were unhappy at OK having a loan account.

The RFL can be as happy, or displeased as they like. If OK "loaned" the Bradford Bulls money and there is paperwork to back up his claim, then the loan exists. As unfortunate as that may be for the "new" owners of the Bulls, whomever they may be, I would imagine that OK is not the kind of guy to simply hand over cash without a paper trail.

I suspect the RFL wish they had never got involved with Iconic Bradford now.....it would have been better to let the club fend for itself, because this whole sorry saga is making a mockery of the sport. No matter what the decision regarding a points deduction for Bradford, the RFL will have the suspicion of favouritism hanging over them in this case because they will be seen to be protecting their asset in Odsal if they let the Bulls off or they will be accused of wasting the games money if they come down hard and the Bulls end up in the Championship.

And my statement was and still is correct....so long as the decision is not Adeybull's to make, then it's neither here nor there as to what he thinks.

I had a discussion a while back with Adey - over OKs input. I understand Adeys view re any initial 'investment' which should be treated as Share Capital and thus these shares would be worthless in any Administration.

However - and only the Administrator and a few others - know how OK put further monies on a weekly basis - to keep the club alive. Its these monies which have to be analysed to see whether 'Investment' or 'Loan Account'.

As an aside - Many years ago I was a Chairman of a RL club who basically paid monies (foolishly) into the Clubs Bank account to keep the club afloat but on the Clubs Insolvency my weekly inputs ranked in the Unsecured Creditors pile rather than Share Capital. It didnt matter anyway as the Creditors got nought as well!

In your quest to find a % debt paid to points deducted ratio; I found a copy of the admin report for Wakefield:
Total debt £1.28M
HMRC £774k
Sir Rodney Walker £184k
Macron (kit supplier)£20k
total number of unsecured creditors 93
mostly a few hundred to a few grand each

Only preferential creditor was office staff redundancy £10k

The was a floating charge debenture to Bank of Scotland £112k from Dec. '92, but it suggests not much was likely to be realised? age/value of asset?

So, assuming the tax man was avoided, it gives you some idea of the scale.

With the greatest of respect you are using words such as 'suggest' and 'should' which are still rather fuzzy.
Therefore I assume it's not nailed on either way. As such after the RFL have in the past been accused of favouritism would they seem to want to be at it again?
Also if this whole idea (Admin) was the RFL's idea as some have suggested then I do wonder if they will end up in court alongside the current Bradford bulls board if OK goes through with his threat.

Cheers mate, that is very helpful indeed.

Must admit I am staggered at the scale of the debt there. I'd always assumed, as I think had most people, that the Bulls' insolvency was on a far bigger scale than Wakefield's, and that was one reason why the club's new owner was hammered financially by the other clubs. Now it see it was not so, and the scales were broadly similar. Indeed, the amount owing to HMRC, and therefore the loss to the taxpayer, was 50% HIGHER than at Bradford. Amazing.

Looks like the maximum the unsecured creditors could have been was about £300k. Glover was reported as saying he settled with some of them. If we said 50% of them (I would be surprised if on that scale, but maybe it was, or even more?). That would mean pay £150k of creditors, don't pay HMRC: 2 points mitigation.

So the Bulls new owners could presumably avail themselves of that precedent, and get a 4-point deduction?

Or, they could do what they seem to have indicated that they will do (we'll see what actually happens, of course - but let's take it at face value for now), and settle with all the creditors, including HMRC. Why would they want to do that, if they still got a 4-point points deduction? Why not instead just pay off £150k (or whatever) and use the rest of what you were otherwise going to pay to invest heavily in the team, to seek to avoid relegation that way?

Seems to me that those folk clamouring for a substantial points penalty might want to be very careful what they wish for?

You very much have my respect for trying to keep your club afloat. I'd suggest that, and your experience, makes you far more qualified than most to comment on this and other matters, so I'll remember that fior the future.

Yes, quite right in that the legal form is unsecured creditor. I have never said otherwise, and that is what those who disagree with my argument likewise correctly state. And that is how the administrator will treat what is owed to OK, in law.

My argument has consistently been one of substance over legal form. When the statement of affairs is filed, I think people will be surprised at just how little OK actually "invested" in the club in the form of shares. Basically, he did not invest in the club much at all, in the sense most folk would imagine it. He instead loaned it money. You and I can speculate as to why he did it that way, but the simple fact is the company was very seriously undercapitalised. As the sole owner on a brand new company, inheriting a business totally free from any inherited debt or creditors, I submit that he took on the responsibility to ensure the business was placed on a reasonably sound financial footing. And, as with any investor, with your investment comes risk that you mitght lose some or all of your investment should the business founder. That is what happened here, and that is why I am arguing that - in substance - the RFL would be quite entitled to discount what is owed to OK when considering the extent to which creditors are repaid.

And I would fully expect Wakefield and other supporters to make exactly the same case if roles were reversed. As indeed did London Broncos supporters, and those of numerous other clubs, when that club went into liquidation a few years ago. Owing £1/2m to HMRC and £1m or so to their owner. The roar that what was owed to the owner was not really a creditor, but was his "investment", and that Caisley and others who played merry hell about it were talking crap, was deafening. I wonder of any of those people who told Caisley he was talking crap then (and, as regards the owner's loan, IMO he was, and it was embarrassing) are now arguing precisely the opposite?

Indeed, nothing is nailed on at all. Including the extent to which the creditors WILL be settled. So all this remains totally hypothetical. I do sense a campaign being waged to seek to influence any decision-making process, but that came as no surprise whatsoever to me, even if it may have done to some much nearer the action. Indeed, I may or may not even have warned that I expected it, to people very close indeed to the action. And, in desperate times you really cannot blame people for fighting their own club's corner, can you?

The RFL are of course between a rock and a hard place whatever they do. At the moment, I'm struggling to see how they can possibly justify confiscating half the new owners' 2014 Sky money, when those guys were not party to the original agreement nor was the present company. They will have to make the new owners agree to that confiscation, and the new owners could easily argue that is eveidence of extreme discrimination against one club in favour of all the rest. So it will cut both ways - especially since the financial penalty is far far far more severe than a points deduction.

As for court action, you known what? It might not be so bad if it DOES get to court. Because I suspect there is a great deal that would interest a lot of people that might just come out. Stuff that might just help outsiders gain a better understanding of why things happened, and might just trigger the law of unexpected consequences for some of the protaganists. The roles of the other directors, especially Sutcliffe the local MP, former sports minister, who was deputy chairman and very high profile in the early days before the shìt started hitting the fan financially (gone missing in recent months), would obviously come under close public scrutiny then. Of course, if he and others are quite happy with their conduct in office, doubtless they would welcome the opportunity for public exoneration. Their conduct (and that of the current gang of threee) will of course anyway be the subject of investigation by the administrator, who is obliged to present his report on that to the authorities. Again, assuming all of them conducted themselves properly and responsibly in office, they will have nothing to fear.

Irrelevant. It is now how they feel, but what they do. I told you what they did.


If OK "did not loan" the Bradford Bulls money and there isn't paperwork then the loan doesn't exist


Er... what claim would that be, then?


Then you might imagine wrong.




Fool. How can a sport's governing body not "get involved" in the case of a club it governs which is in difficulty? In any case, you "suspecting" some bizarre thing is worthy of no further comment. I suspect they don't.


No, it isn't. It is making a mockery of Bradford Bulls. trust you to go into hyperbole mode.


This is true, as there are trolls, ill-wishers and lunatics who have entrenched views or malicious agendas and they will not deviate, but given the RFL always were and always will be damned if they do, and damned if they don't, on what basis should they take into account any of these people whatsoever?





But you post ream after ream presumably on the basis of a conviction that what YOU think and post IS "here or there". How weird. And, for the reason stated, your statement was, just plain wrong. It still is. And it will be tomorrow. And the day after. Repeating your incorrect statement will not make it right.

If we are to believe that the RFL have said, a decsion will be made on a points deduction this week.
That in itself seems a bizarre decision if you still don't have ownership fully confirmed. The way I see it there are 2 options:

1) The precedent sets out a deduction of points equivalent to 3 wins (although as we have seen this can be reduced). If they are to make a decision this week then they should deduct the whole 6 points (at this stage) but clearly state that upon the resolution of ownership, and therefore the facts becoming known as to what will be repaid, that figure may be reduced.
Bradford could then get on with trying to make up the difference in points (and if you get some back later that's a bonus).

2) They announce that no deduction will be made until the ownership has been resolved but they set a timescale for that to happen that is immovable (say the end of March).

Either way, everyone then knows where they stand and can get on with playing the sport instead of worrying about off-field issues.


I actually agree regards OK's "investment" that it is precisely that, no matter how he actually describes it.
If everything other than OK was paid back I could understand and accept a decision of 0 points deduction.


I know other Wakey fans will disagree but having read comments from all sides on this, that is how I personally would judge it.


The only other thing I would like to see come out of this whole sorry saga is a clearly defined set of rules regarding financial (mis)management that means any future instances by any clubs are dealt with swiftly and fairly in the eyes of all concerned.

And now there is the possibility that it's not decided until next week and reading the comments from Ross Heppenstall (T&A Bulls reporter) any penalty isn't related to who takes over the club (i assume including terms of taking over) but the sanction is [ijust[/i for the administration.

[urlhttps://twitter.com/rosshtanda/status/436109812771078144[/url

I read it that they cannot know the outcome for the creditors until the ownership issue is resolved. Which will include how much is paid for the assets (which goes to pay creditors) and how much any new owner agrees to settle with the creditors.

Bear in mimnd Heppenstall is not a financial journalist. At various times in the past, he has asked people who know more about the financial side for input...

But, this IS RL, and it IS the RFL, and so anything could happen in the next half hour...

Absobloodylutely!

And, especially, that it happens more in real time, and with the pain falling on the EXISTING owners, not the next ones. I gave some ideas about how to achieve that about 2 million posts back.

But that at least is utter and unmitigated bullcrap; as if there was just an auto penalty for administration then it would just be announced the day after. Not to mention the small matter of not being within the RFL's rulebook! For another, they have already given different penalties in differing circumstances.

My deduction is that Lamb IS making an offer. And the RFL did not expect that.

If as is reported Lamb has been up to see Calvert - what are they talking about? Why aren't they joining forces? What is the downside for Lamb if he joins forces? What is the upside in going it alone?

Is he thick?

I presume not, but as one offer by MM & Co has already been accepted provisionally, he would obviously have to make a significantly better offer to trump it. Whereas if he joins forces with the incumbents, the existing offer does not need to be increased.

I must be missing something.. but what?

71 pages PLUS (probably by the time this is posted) on a subject that NO ONE on these forums has any control of at all. (Depends on who is flying under the radar.

)

It doesn't matter.

There will be another "Bradford Bulls" club when all this is completed.

They KEY part STILL is the game on the field and the effort the team puts in. That is the PRIMARY reason for it's existence. If you don't want that version then there are others and that business can go to the wall.

It's about time REALITY kicked in in ALL sports.

Some people just want complete control if their money is involved. He's likely not met the current board before so who knows if he can work with them. Do we really need another board where a major shareholder is at loggerheads with other members?

We can speculate on what the RFL penalty for Bradford will be. Difficult, as the RFL Regulations allow the RFL board wide discretion. All we have to go on is imperfect knowledge of what lay behind precedents - Wakefield, Salford, Bradford before, Crusaders, Barrow, Keighley etc etc.

But regarding what SHOULD be the future penalties, it seems that there is agreement that they should be better defined in advance to avoid as much subjectivity and discretion on the part of the RFL board.

The penalty [iin future [/ishould be 6 points deduction for going into Administration. So this can be imposed as soon as the court issues the Administration Order. Then 2 points can potentially be given back if arrangements are in place to repay ALL creditors within a laid down timescale.

I don't buy some of the stuff being put out by some Bradford supporters at the moment. Such as "not punishing new owners" "previous owners who loaned money don't count" etc.

It's not an easy concept for some maybe, but the penalty is a punsihment of the CLUB (not of any particular entity owning the club). It's a punishement and a deterrrent. Why?

Because a club that goes into Administration and then does not repay all creditors has had an unfair advantage ON THE PITCH. The club has had players it couldn't really afford. They won points they weren't really entited to. A points deduction is to be fair to all the other clubs that did play within the rules.

"Club" is a concept different from who owns it. As set out in a list in the RFL Articles of Association. A bit nebulous for some. Guess it's like say a University - it just goes on and on for years, centuries - but completey separate from who happens to run it at any point in time. What is an RL "Club" - just a concept of players playing on a pitch with their supporters supporting 'their' players - all in the name of the club. Man Utd players kiss the badge on their shirt when they score - did so before the Glazers' takeover, did so after the Glazers' takeover. Nobody cares about owners (apart from wanting their money to be spent on their club).

If a club gets an unfair advantage the club should be punished - points deductions etc.

So Bradford Bulls went into Administration again. They should get a 6 points deduction for that. In future, mitigation of 2 points given back if all creditors are paid off soon INCLUDING OK. It was his money that gave Bradford Bulls an unfair advantage on the pitch in 2013 - including being higher up the league than they would otherwise have been (hence possibly higher attendances), maybe preventing some clubs getting in the play-offs who didn't 'cos they lost to Bradford. & Bradford should (unfairly in fact with the unaffordable payers they had) have got into the play-offs thenseves, with the related benefits.

Summary. Going into Administration essentially amounts to a club having cheated. So the club should be punished.

In practice, this time - as we are under the current Regulations - guess just some creditors will be paid off and Bradford Bulls will get a 4 point deduction.

and on that note, its a massive game on thursday night, for both teams

So, lets use Wakefield as an example last time, for Wooden Stand's proposed new rule.

If you, the new owner repay zero, you get 6 points penalty.

If you, the new owner, repay the WHOLE of their £1.2m debts, the WHOLE of it, you get a 4-point penalty.

So 2 points are woirth £1.2m - that is £600k a point.

Are you SURE its such a good proposal now? Who in their right mind would repay a cent, if that wa show much saving a point cost you? Just go spend the money on a mega team instead.

Kind of like repeatedly going into administration to get away from paying creditors?

For me, and im sure this wont be popular, but if the new owners repay all of the debts of the old regime, there should be no points deduction.

100% repayed 0 deduction
80% 1 point
60% 2 points
40% 3 points
20% 4 points
10% 5 points
0% 6 points

Fine with me - so long as the new owner is a new owner and not a new owner via a different company name only or some other technicality.

After all, there is no point punishing innocent fans or a club for a decision taken by someone who no longer works there. Heck, it seems that the fans of some clubs have already been put through the wringer.