The RFL will make their decision on how many points the Bulls will lose after their first three games.

If they beat Wakey and London they will get 4 points deducted. If they lose then there will be no deduction.

They will wabnt to keep the Bulls in SL. London are gone so they will do what they have to do to get rid of Wakey or Cas.

What you can guarantee is the RFL will not make any decision UNTIL they know how it will affect the teams they want in SL.

***** not bothered about a bit of tinkering before the new rule is finalised. Make it 4 points back, ie 2 points net penalty if all creditors are paid off if you like. Or something like Saint Simon suggests. So long as everybody knows what the rule is in advance.

More importantly, glad to see you've now seen and understood the principle that it's the Club being punished (for the reasons I set out on the previous page) and not an entity owning a Club - whether an old one or a new one.

Some clubs get good owners. Some clubs get not so good owners. That's just good or tough luck for supporters. Like life.

Put your straw man away. Show me where I have " seen and understood"? Because I remain unmoved about how the totally and and utterly illogical and counterproductive it is to punsih the next owners, not the ones who caused it.

And so, in your revised example, that means four points is now worth ££1.2m of creditors, or £300k a point. A bit better, but again would you pay off those creditors in hard cash, or take the four point deduction and spend the £1.2m on a stonking great team?

Bulls did the crime, Bulls do the time.

The name of the owner is irrelevant.

Or do you think it's ok and worthy of reward, to run a business in such a way?

It's an extreme example, but if you steal a loaf of bread - does your entire family go to prison?

The "crime" was committed by those who are no longer in charge of the club, what good does that do?

It doesn't act as a deterrent as there are no penalties for the offending party. It doesn't punish them as they have no interest, but rather innocent bystanders are punished for the actions of another.

It's the [uClub[/u being punished. Not the entity who owned it either before or after. New owners will know what they are buying. Nobody's forcing them to buy.

What on Earth are you on about?

Bulls is a business and has to be held accountable for its own actions.

Who is in charge at any given point is irrelevant.

These are rules of Law, not the RFL.

In other words the time for the crime is relevant because of how the business is run, but what is absolutely not relevant is who is running the business now or who was running the business then.

I like you. You're the only person making any kind of sense.

FMD, that is brilliant..no, really.

Looks like Bulls will win the Carvell case after all...

I am sure that if Carvell has broken his contract illegally, then Bulls will get an outcome in the courts.

Why are you so sure he wasn't entitled to refuse to be TUPEd?

I don't know by the way, just intrigued by your certainty.

Just surprised to see a Wakey fan backing the Bulls argument is all.

As to certainty...Edit: Birth, death and tax.

No they are not. No rule of law says that new company, buying a business out of insolvency, is either repsonsible for paying the debts of its previous owners, or for suffereing a financial or perforance penalty for so doing. It is only responsible for its own future actions.

They are the supposed rules of the RFL. Except they are not even that, since you will not find the 6-point sanction or any mitigation or any financial penalty set out anywhere in the RFL bye-laws or Operation Rules. It is totally down to the RFL discretion.

Bradford and the RFL aside I think the rules on this need looking at as it's seems far to easy to run up massive amounts of debt, walk away from it and just start again.

[i[size=200=#FF0000AMEN TO THAT!!!!![/size[/i

Precisely what I have been asserting. Need to be able to deter - and punish - those who DO that. Not those who try to clean up the mess they left.

btw...what I DO totally agree with, is that the same people should not be allowed to start up again having defaulted on their debt. And indeed, I think that is one thing the RFL will always ensure. If only because they'll likely lose any public sector funding otherwise. I always assumed that this was the reason the RFL took steps in Bulls last administration to that looked for all the world a marker to prevent any of the former shareholders buying the business.

TBH I was talking OUTSIDE RL or even sport but in general business.

And absolutely. It is a scandal when it (all too often) happens. And we all probably know people who have either done it or suffered from it.

There ARE various legal provisions to attempt to curb the wost abuses. But the law has to strike a balance between stifling rescues and genuine attempts to start over again on one hand, and phoenix bandits screwing their creditors on the other.

War story example: I remember going to a creditors meeting in London of an agricultural equipment dealer once. Owed us about £50k IIRC, a lot more to the bank and lots to a whole string of creditors. The insolvency practitioner spent ages telling us how he had a proposal to sell the business to a new company, for £x which would have meant a dividend of maybe 25p in the £ - if we were lucky. We were told this was the best deal available, and that otherwise it would be liquidation an we'd get nothing. It was a CVA being proposed, to take the business out of insolvency.

It all sounded like a best-efforts job. And it transpired the bank had already indicated their agreement. As had HMIT (as was, then) as it was then a preferential creditor enjoying Crown Preference. They needed 75% by value of the creditors to agree. They already had about 60%. There were about 30 creditors represented there. The two directors were telling bthe meeting how they had since both found jobs as repairmen for another company. They assumed agreement would be a formality.

They reckoned without me.

I spend about an hour firing questions at the insolvency practitioner and the two directors. Gradually dismantling their story about what they said had led to the downwall (all bad luck, of course...) and what the future intentions were. Seemed that the company these two bandits had "found jobs with" was the Newco, wanting to buy the business (cheaply). And, after a lot of evasion, I finally got them to admit that Newco was owned by their wives...

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

Anyway, the proposal was voted down. I got the plaudits from the meeting (although we still got paid sod all in the end...) and the eternal hatred of those who had convened it.

But nothing much has happened since to stop that sort of banditry. The nearest thing has been the abolition of Crown Preference, which has made HMRC far more activist and challenging now (and rightly so) as well as some widening the scope of when you become personally liable. We have seen the impact of the former in sport generally and certainly in RL. And I'm really not sure what you CAN do, if you want to retain an environment for people to take risks and be able to make mistakes, and learn from them and start over. Alhough makinging the directors automatically personally liable for any taxes collected (PAYE, VAT etc - money that was never theirs in the first place) if they are not paid within 7 days of the tax being collected from employees or customers, might concentrate minds?

But I wish you could. Because, when it happens, id does my chuffing head in.

Derision again? The last refuge of the incompetant.

You really do come across as a rather sad and pathetic creature, you know. I have long thought you must have mental health issues.

The example I quoted (there are many I could have used) was to provide information on the sort of things that go on, to anyone who might have found it helpful. But also to show people that, unlike you, clearly, I might just know what the hell I am talking about.

The voice of experience? You were the one who initially said that I added so little to so many threads....and if you're doing to call someone incompetent then at least learn to spell it!


What was that about derision again?


Nope. You know a little bit about what is going on, which more often than not, is far more dangerous than knowing nothing. Unless you have your cheque book out and are buying the current "entity" then you do not know what is going on. A knowledge of business law, or a limited idea what has gone on before does not put you in a position where you can dictate to or lecture others. You overwhelming sense on "importance" together with your following of posters asserting your superiority with attacks on anyone who dares question you simply points to an overriding sense of self importance that is not mirrored in the majority of others opinions of you.

In short, I applaud your defence of the club you support and have patently been involved in, more than your average "fan", but your constant denial of any wrongdoing, specifically with the punishment being passed along regardless of the number of owners, smacks of a loss of a grasp on reality.

The Bulls could change hands 20 times this week.....the penalty for their misdemeanours will follow them whomever is picking up the tab and that, I am afraid, is the reality of what has gone on here....no matter how many ways you try to paint it.

See......not sad, not pathetic and not DICTATING either.....just delivering a dose of reality.


Now...where's that Collection Bucket?......

Sorry......but it's just too beautiful to not re-post!

Sorry......but it's just too beautiful to not re-post......AGAIN!

It is worthy of its own thread, but I doubt the powers that be would allow it....

This is what should have been brought in as soon as the '50% of income' salary cap idea failed.
A bond/guarantee/insurance system would also make us best buddies with HMRC, which is where I think the problem lies and where the pressure is on the RFL to sort out the whole mess and stop clubs from failing to pay their taxes or other creditors.
One problem could be, at what point do you make the club stump up the bond? can you impose it on existing owners or do you need to wait for a change of ownership?

Gutterfax’s hypocrisy on this thread is hilarious, The king of the ellipsis............... taking........... the mick about someones spelling/grammar, and Mr ‘Mail Merge, look at how many NZ dollars I earn, I have Ian Lenegans phone number dontchyaknow’ having a pop at someone for posting something a little ‘look at me’

Well done Adey, you have managed to be called self-aggrandizing by a guy who makes Bono look humble.

That was a deeply moving anecdote. I am sure your dumb acolytes will think it marvellous.

I think it could be improved if you end it with - in best Alan Partridge mode - "Needless to say I had the last laugh."

HTH Adeypartridge!