WOW, two super important people having a conversation about me, YOU AND IAN LENEGAN.

I've made it mum, I've finally made it

Gus MacKay just texted me. Him and Bono agree with Ian Lenegan!

Hey if we can get David Cameron and Justin Beiber to agree, i think there might be some sort of Sainthood for me.

don't you have to be dead to become a saint?

Right I'm not going to read how far this slanging match goes back, but stop it. You can disagree with someone without the name calling and hair pulling. I would have thought grown men and women had moved beyond this.

I'm not overly bothered if you are making a point and disagreeing, but when a post just becomes a comment about someone rather than what they have said we are heading down the slippery slope.

Given this thread is 77 pages long I can understand why the name calling has started, because no one has anything new to say. Everyone has stated their positions over and over and over. So it turns to tackling the man rather than the ball (to steal a phrase).

Keep on thread or lock the thread.

More akin to a dad not paying the rent and the whole family getting evicted

Not sure if it's still relevant, but I've finally found evidence that the maximal punishment the bulls can get is a 6 point deduction - oddly whilst I was having a look at the policy review again!



Sorry this was so late!

Not too late at all. Very interesting, in fact.

Where is that from? EDIT - sorry, you said. When WAS the review?

The use of the word "maximum", and that "board discretion to reduce this penalty" was available "on application from a club" is especially interesting.

The retention of the word "maximum" suggests that "board discretion" might still apply in some form?

I note also the retention of "insolvency event". Not just "administration". As I have regularly pointed out, administration is not the only "insolvency event". So is a CVA, for example.

Once the new structure and Sky money package is in place, relegation should not lead to oblivion for clubs without a rich owner. So a much higher penalty could more safely be implemented.

I still feel strongly though that the pain should fall mainly on the owners on whose watch it happens. And have previously proposed how it could be effected. Someone - it might have been the reasonable and responsible Slugger McBatt? - pointed out that if the new owners were the same as the previous owners, they SHOULD suffer. He was dead right, of course.

Well put. Bulls can't expect to get off scot free just because the owners have moved on. It's the business that has gone into admin, not the owners.

Not being bitter or celebrating the points deduction btw but rules is rules.

More akin to dad not paying the rent, and gets evicted, and next tenant has to pay twice the rent to punish him for what the previous tenant did?

But at least most of the talk tonight has been about on the park, not off it. And, if you look at the postings of Wakefield supporters on various threads, you'll see how - once we get back to what happens on tne park not off it - as RL fans they don't come much better?

Btw... that put-down you did on your forum of that "Bruce Forsyth" kn0bhead was chuffing brilliant. That troll has been a cñut across several forums, including ours. I hope you don't mind if I nick that for future use?

Haha, yeah no probs, it comes in handy every now and again. Don't normally bite but he's literally copy-pasted his bs comment on every thread even remotely linked to the game!

Indeed! I'l refer to the troll as the "Bruce Enema" henceforth, I think!





Tell you what, mate? Most of the rest of the competition has at least one of us down for the drop. Don't know about you, but I could quite easily live with us BOTH proving the buggers wrong?

Agreed, no problem with Bradford at all, lets hope for a Leeds/Cas bottom 2

The last policy review was in September (which is the one I'm quoting above) - there's a lot of stuff this year (I was looking for mentions of the new talent pool when I came across the quote.)

I'll go through the technicals of it in the morning, as it's far too late in the day for such things though!

One thing I will say though is (unfortunately) there is no leg for you to stand on with regards the club shouldn't be punished for previous owners mistakes. Part of the rfl club charter requires clubs to take full responsibility for the actions of their directors, officials, players, coaches, fans etc. In the rfls eyes, chairmen and directors are entities of the club, rather than the clubs being entities of chairmen and directors business portfolio. An important distinction. I cannot for the life of me find the precise line I'm looking for with regards to this, but from the google blurb:



(The problems of not having Ctrl+f on an iPad!)

The closest comparison would be EDIT (cos I thought of a better example) - if you owned a house, and brought in some workmen to do some work, who turned out to be rogue, you'd still be responsible for paying for the work to fix the bad work done (of course you can chase the rogue workers for comp (which is what Bradford are doing if I'm up to date with events!) but otherwise, responsible for the bill)

Now that the new owners are sorted out I'll bet Omar is looking forward to getting his loan back.

This is simply wrong. "The club" in its previous incarnation was defined as OK Bulls Ltd. Which is not to say that personal individual responsibility wasn't also imposed (it was) but I am baffled as to why people believe that the RFL, or anyone, can somehow go outside the terms of the numerous actual documents that exist. They can't.

Also the word "punished" does not appear in the RFL documentation.

What was done to the old club, and what will have to be done about the new club, is that the RFL will have to propose on what terms they can play in SL, including whether they are required to forfeit any distribution. And then the new owners will be able to either agree, or refuse. It can be proposed on a "take it or leave it" basis (and was on the last Bulls, at the last minute) but it cannot be imposed. Can only be done by agreement.

Unfortunately FA, you are wrong. As I explained on page 71. It is the Bradford Bulls CLUB that got the 2 year half Sky money penalty and will get the points deduction when the RFL decide upon it this week. However much you might not like it, you will, in due course, see I am right.

As you say, any prospective new owners in discussions with the RFL will know all this - and will then make up their mind whether they want to buy the Club on that basis.

Hang on, we were told that it wasnt a penalty at all. It was an offer from Omar Kahn.

If it was an offer from Omar Kahn as so many have desperately insisted, then the new bulls cannot be held liable for Omar Kahns offer, if the RFL/SL clubs want the money Omar Kahn offered and Omar Kahn agreed to then they can join the list of creditors of Omar Kahns company.

WS, I hope you are a lawyer like FA is? Cos I fear you will need to be prepared for a long debate with him!

Substance vs legal form again, of course.

Legal form: FA is correct (else he would not have posted it). There is no enduring legal entity "The Club", so any sanctions or penalties imposed on, or agreements entered into with, the previous legal entity that owned "The Club" die with the demise of that entity. A new owning entity cannot automatically be bound by any of those things, any more than if a person dies their heirs are not bound by punishments etc meted out on him.

Substance: notwithstanding the above, if the RFL determines that the new owner SHALL submit to the unexpired punishment of the old, and/or SHALL be punished for the sins of the old, then the new owner has the choice of accepting those conditions, with or without a fight; or walking away from owning "The Club" or closing it down.

So, whilst the RFL cannot force the new owners to inherit the punishment for the actions of previous owners, it CAN say that unless they DO, they won't be allowed back. The new owners then have a straight choice. And so does the RFL, if they walk away.

The [iRealpolitik[/i of course is that substance will again win out.

Whilst, I don't particularly want to disagree, my understanding is the rfl don't see a new club and an old club, rather THE club being controlled from an old business/ new business - is suppose the closest thing to actual business workings would be something like the Bradford rugby league trademark - but I'm not entirely sure. How else would the rfl have powers for things like "fit and proper" tests? Usually anyone with the money can come along, name the right price and buy a company!

But anyway, the rules clearly state the club takes responsibility for the actions of its directors - so if the directors mess up, it's the club that should endure any sanctions put in place. Harsh? Yes, but it's always been there.

Your right there is no "punished" but there is a lot of "sanctions" "misconduct" and the like - I used sloppy language as I posted late at night!

The RFL only have the points deduction, a maximum of 6 points as a threat.

If I were the Bulls new owners, I wouldn’t accept it and if the RFL want to play hardball tell them to bring it.

You don’t pay me whats contracted, I don’t do what is contracted. You refuse to pay me what is owed you are in breach of contract and I don’t provide a side for the next game. If it ends with me having to shut down, so be it. YOU deal with a 27 game season where two games have been played then a team drops out, you deal with 30+ players who are out of a job will be looking to take that up with their governing body who with-held money from a club they had no right to, you deal with whoever gets relegated’s inevitable legal action on the basis that the competition did not follow the format decided when I shelled out nearly £3m on a squad and costs.

There IS no Club, in law, though. See above.

But you (quite reasonably) draw the distinction between legal form and substance.



No, you just (rightly) reflected substance over legal form again.

Legal form: ""sanctions" "misconduct" and the like"

Substance: "punished"

They have the power to restrict the transfer of the Super League Golden Share which entitles a club to membership of SL and all associated with it.

The RFL undermine there own argument there because if they were to see it as a single club continuing, why are they needing to transfer and authorise the transfer of the Golden Share, and how come they have only given Bradford a temporary licence, and had to judge them for a new, shorter licence when the club had already been granted a 3 year licence.

I didn't know about golden share, I'm going to have to go do some reading!

I'm not too sure about the transferring, but the licensing is a separate issue to the golden share (by reading the face of it) - golden share gives the club the right to be part of the rfl and those that sanction the sport, the super league licence gives the club the right to compete in the elite competition - being able to hold one doesn't automatically imply the other which is why it would need to be reissued (assuming "the club" holds the golden share and "the business" holds the licence which is as was claimed earlier - and yes, I'm not sure what grounds the rfl hold "the club" in I can merely say how the rules interpret!)