Indeed it was the "Club", that entity specifically being OKBL. And no other company.


.you cannot conflate the two things. They are completely distinct. One is a written agreement between the old club and the RFL etc. The other is (or will be) a decision taken by the RFL in relation to the new club and its participation in whichever competition it plays in. And even you should be able to see that deducting posthumous points from [ilast [/iyear's Bulls would be, er, rather futile.


Come again? Why would I have any issue with you, or anyone, being right?

How strange.

But on the distribution agreement you simply don't know what you are talking about, so do yourself a favour and give it up.

I find it hard to believe that someone is proposing that Bradford say they should ignore any penalty imposed.

How would they do that?

If a six point penalty is imposed then it's imposed. The club are not in charge of their own points allocated during the season. If they were every club would be and the whole sporting concept would be a non-sense as people would just award themselves points as and when they felt like it.

I also don't buy the punish the old club not the new club arguement.

If it was truely a new club, it would have no home, no players, no points transfered from the old club, no season tickets from before administration, no staff, no history.

It's not a new club, it's a purchase of an already exsisting business. Stating that any sporting penalties should die with the last regime would bring chaos to the sport. You would have clubs setting up, racking up debts and folding to reform the next day debt free with no sporting penalties and no consequences for the disaster they leave behind. In the long run credit would dry up for the sport of RL and it would become a basket case. The players would leave in droves as would the fans.

When you advocate the Bull's playing hard ball with the RFL, you also advocate the Bulls playing hardball with everyone in the sport. Any remaining good will would be lost and those defending the throwing out of Bradford would change tact.

How would SL cope with Bradford self terminating, well it would just mean one less team to relegate come the end of the season and a wider share of current SKY monies. The couple of 100 fans they bring would be inconsequential to most clubs.

But the biggest impact would be on the RL public in Bradford who would see their (people's) club prefer to self terminate than play by the rules.

It's the short termist and in the end self defeating.

I think some people are unnecessarily complicating many of these issues.

The central point in this context is, whilst to the Bradford fans, it will ALWAYS be the same club, and whilst there is an obvious continuity in players, staff, venue, fans etc., the simple fact is that from the RFL's perspective, as well as legally, it is a whole new entity.

1. The new company which is the new club
2. The owners who need to pass the fit and proper test

It is then simply up to the RFL whether it will accept the new club to play either in SL, or some other comp, and if so, on what terms.

And it's up to the new owners, of the new business, to agree,or renegotiate, or decline.

Obviously there are complexities, for one thing due to the number of parties involved (SLE etc) but those don't detract from what is a pretty simple basic concept.

And whilst "the Club" may well be a shorthand term of convenience, in any formal document that term will be defined, and that definition will define "the club" as meaning the company that is the legal entity behind it. And it has to, as in law there is in fact no such legal entity as "the Club".

There's your big mistake, right there. If the new owners had simply bought an ongoing concern then everything would have come with it, including all debts. There'd be some formalities, but no issues at all.

That's not what happened. OKB was and remains a separate company and will end up being liquidated. BB2014 did not purchase the whole existing ongoing business, rather it just acquired the ASSETS from the administrator of OKB. It did not acquire OKB.

You are right, incidentally, that the new owners are in no position to "play hardball". Though that is not to say they have no negotiating position, of course they do, the Bulls provides some value for the comp, and the RFL can certainly use their £78k rent instalments from a living Bulls, to point to just two things.

I have no problem with any of that and I get the difference between legal form etc. But as you say the new club has to agree terms with the RFL.
Given that sport is not a business and that sport carries across a legacy putside of the financial, whether that be points, players etc. Then the sport has to have rules that govern both old and new clubs. Smokey was advocating hardball to the point of the club self terminating. Whilst I agree it's an option, it's not a very good one. As the self inflicted punishment would be so far beyond 6 points. It would be effectively all points.

There are plenty of sporting rules that clubs could challenge, the salary cap being the obvious one. But there are others such as 13 a side. If clubs start to break these rules and not accept the punishments, it tears down the sport itself. What if players started to ignore referee calls because it was all in the past and no current. Everything we do can be argued as something that is someone elses fault. In the end if there was no sporting punishment for administration, other clubs would resort to legal chanels regarding all aspects. For example if they should be relegated or not etc.

They couldnt ignore a points penalty (they could fight it it under certain circumstance) They could refuse to accept a financial penalty, and would have a very good defence to fight what was apparently not a penalty but an offer from a previous owner of a different company.


They also wouldnt have needed to buy the players., staff, lease etc out of administration.

It would f'ck up the season and the RFL completely. But then why should Bradfords new owners sacrifice half their TV income because the rest of the sport is playing hardball. You can't use a clubs share as a hostage to get money out of them, and then complain because they arent rolling over and having their bellies tickled When they have the chance to throw a little back.

I think there is some conflation of different things here, and maybe I wasn’t clear myself.

Sport isn’t a business. It is a sporting contest, it is governed by the laws governing that game the law of land does not have jurisdiction over it. If the RFL want to have 13 players a side, the law cannot intervene on that. If they want uncontested scrums, then the laws of the land don’t apply (simply because there aren’t any relevant)

Clubs are a business, and players are employees. They are subject to all the responsibilities and liabilities that entails.

The RFL can, as long as they don’t contravene their own rules, hand down the punishment they see fit. (they can’t really apply more than 6 points as that would contravene their own rules) They can’t start demanding a club pays money not set down in the rules, they cannot force a new business to pay a promise of the old company. The debt is with the old company not the new one. The RFL are contracted to pay X amount in TV money to the Bulls for making their games available to Sky and participating in the competition. If Omar Kahn agreed to give half of it back, then that sits with Omar Kahn not the new company.

If the RFL want to pass that on to the new company, then their only leverage is to not transfer the golden share and licence. If the RFL don’t do that then they have kicked the bulls out, there would likely be ramifications for the RFL from the Bulls and most likely Bulls players. Bradford don’t need to threaten to shut down, they just need to refuse to accept the frankly idiotic reduction in TV cash, and if the RFL refuse to accept the new owners because of that then the Bull shut down and leaving SL is the inevitable conclusion.

Go on, push it:



You know you want to.

Just a quick question to those who feel Bradford’s new owners shouldn’t receive a point’s deduction, what should happen?

After perusing eight hundred posts I haven’t seen the answer.

Are they of the opinion that, if a club goes bust the newco start with a clean slate, if so where is the deterrent of doing it time & time again?

Maybe the point’s deduction should be retrospective, which would be entirely pointless, except they may receive less cash for a lower finishing position.

The final irony is no one appears to know what the points deduction scale is any more, a maximum of six or is it twelve, maybe agreed in secret, a bit like the original loan that started this whole fiasco.

Wigan only got 30k for winning the thing apparently so god knows how little teams who finished outside of the playoffs got! Maybe paying 1.3m was the final position prize pot!

I solved that mystery

6 points which the new Bradford board can appeal based on how much they convince the rfl that they're good guys really - from 2015 it will be 12 with no buts ifs or maybes (a good move imo)

I think its been said n times that penalties on new owners who take over after its car crash can in no way serve as any deterrent to stop THEM doing the same. Since it is not THEM who will suffer any penalties for their actions, but the NEXT idiots who take over.

Equally, it cannot be fair on the rest of the competition if Newco starts with a clean slate, if that confers any advantage over the others.

But, any sanctions on Newco to ensure it does NOT, must at the same time not put it at significant disadvantge either, since why then would anyone take over after the car crash?

The penalties should be on those who casued the car crash in the first place. And those penalties used to repay the creditors. And the new owners then acquire the assets at fair market value.

But, that will not address the situation if Oldco had ALREADY obtained advantage by not paying its creditors. People quote the example of having a team you cannot afford. In practice, that can only ever be the case for maybe a the few months leading up to insolvency, since if you CAN pay your creditors and with some margin, you are solvent and seemingly living within your means. And once you start NOT being able to pay your cfeditors, it is not long before the car crash anyway. The grey area will always be in the timing, since a business could enter into commitments assuming x future income, and when that future income fails to materialise then the slow descent begins. Something that happened to both previous Bradford administrations.

So far, I don't think anyone has come up with a fair way of squaring the circle. The recent RFL discussion paper concluded double the maximum penalty to 12 points, since under the new funding arrangements, unlike now that would not lead to likely oblivion. Still punishes and deters the future owners though. Not the guilty men.

And NO MORE SECRET BLOODY LOANS OR ADVANCES! Then, we might just get a bit of daylight shone on all these murky goings on, early enough to maybe even fix it. And, if that means that the rest of the competition knows that XYZ club is struggling financially, tough bloody tìt. If that club expects help from the competition as a whole, it has to accept that its circumstances and situation become known at least to the rest of the clubs affected.

Recent posters who think Bradford Bulls shouldn't be punished for going into Administration (again) appear to be lawyers, accountants etc who appear to have no clue as to how sport is managed. They just want to focus on legal entities (companies). Rugby League CLUBS are not legal entities. Their owners from time to time are.

You need to read and digest the RFL's Articles of Association which govern the sport and the Clubs who want to be members.

A small extract:

" "Club"
any rugby league club which is admitted by the Council as a member of the Company from time to time in accordance with these Articles; "

Members as at Date of Incorporation

Club Name Company Name
Barrow Border Raiders Barrow Rugby Football Club
Batley Bulldogs Batley Football Club Limited
Blackpool Panthers Blackpool Panthers RFLC
Bradford Bulls Bradford Bulls Holdings Limited
Castleford Tigers The Castleford Rugby League Football Club Limited
Celtic Crusaders Celtic Crusaders Limited
Dewsbury Rams Dewsbury Rams RFLC (Holdings) Limited
Doncaster Dragons Doncaster Dragons Rugby League Football Club (2001) Limited
Featherstone Rovers Featherstone Rovers Rugby League Football Club Limited
Gateshead Thunder Thunder Rugby League
Halifax Halifax Rugby League Football Club Limited
Harlequins Harlequins Rugby Football Club Limited
Huddersfield Giants Huddersfield Giants Limited
Hull FC Hull Super League Limited
Hull Kingston Rovers Hull Kingston Rovers Football Club Limited
Hunslet Hawks New Hunslet Rugby League Football Club Limited
Keighley Cougars Keighley Cougars RLFC (2010) Limited
Leeds Rhinos The Leeds Cricket, Football and Athletic Company Limited (also Leeds Rugby Ltd)
Leigh Centurions Sporting Club Leigh Limited
London Skolars London Skolars Limited
Oldham Oldham Rugby League Football Club (1997) Limited
Rochdale Hornets Rochdale Hornets Football Club Company Limited
Salford Reds Salford Football Club Company (1914) Limited
Sheffield Eagles Sheffield Eagles 2000 Limited
St Helens St Helens Rugby Football Club Limited
Swinton Lions Swinton Rugby League Club
Wakefield Trinity Wildcats Wakefield Trinity Rugby League Football Club Limited
Warrington Wolves The Warrington Football Club Limited
Whitehaven Warriors Whitehaven Rugby League Football Club Limited
Widnes Vikings Widnes Rugby League Football Club Limited
Wigan Warriors The Wigan Football Club Limited
Workington Town Workington Town Rugby League Football Club Limited
York City Knights York City Knights Rugby League Football Club "

Owners come and go Clubs endure.

Read the rules.

The RFL board can impose whatever sanctions it deems appropriate in respect of CLUBS' misdemeanours.

eg. Last year: "Please don't relegate us. We'll accept the idea of half the Sky money for two years if you let us stay in Super League"

Currently: RFL liaising with POTENTIAL new owners. RFL makes clear that the half Sky money deduction will still apply this year. RFL also makes clear that THE CLUB will have a x point deduction this season. (I expect the potential owners will have been told what the points deduction would be based on their business case for pitching to become the new owner of THE CLUB).

RFL 'hands up who's still interested in buying on that basis?'

Apparently 'the three' plus Lamb were interested.

Seems the three have won - in that they have convinced the RFL and the Administrator (in terms of how much they are willing to pay him for THE CLUB in all the circumstances) that they are the best new owner of Bradford Bulls.

No question of "new owners being punished". They know exactly what they are are getting for their money.

Seems the three haven't played 'hardball'. Good job they appear to have more sense than some on here. If they had, the RFL would have just moved on to the next interested buyer. But it seems clear he knows the others have got it.

As I say, you'll see I'm right when it's all announced shortly.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/26288309 new owners confirmed

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/26288309 new owners confirmed

.. are a figment of your imagination. As so often, you start with a complete straw man.


Well for one, I can confidently say I know a lot more about that than you!


Nope, that is one thing I don’t need to do. My PC has a folder stuffed with PDFs of all conceivable such documentation, thanks. Sad, but true.


See? It isn’t that difficult, is it! The members are companies, and each runs a club by its chosen name!


No. They really don’t. The club NAME may or may not live on, but that is of emotional attachment significance only. Nothing called “Bradford Bulls” exists as a legal entity and the RFL can’t contract or do anything else, other than with legal entities. This isn’t being picky, or technical. It’s just banal.


Pure wordplay. The entity that took the hits of the last administration was OK Bulls Limited. In everyday parlance you could say that Bradford Bulls were fined this, or deducted that, but to be accurate, it was the member of the league, i.e. OKBL.


You see, the money goes to the company that owns the club. It doesn’t go to “the club” in the way you seem bent on insisting. The club does not even have a bank account. It couldn’t. It wouldn’t be allowed to. Only a legal entity can have a bank account.

Wood did state that the RFL would still apply the reduced distribution to the new member. Whether that has already been decided by the RFL, or whether he was just talking loosely, or was misquoted, it doesn’t matter. The penalty would cost the new owners, which are now BB2014. Who trade as Bradford Bulls.


FFS. No! They are NOT pitching to be new owners of “the club”. They ARE owners of BB2014 and its offer to buy the assets of OKB has now been accepted. BB2014 is the legal entity that will run Bradford Bulls in Sl 2014. If they did not, and nobody else did, there would BE no fkin club, would there! You are trying to convince yourself that there is a legal entity called “a club” that exists regardless of any owner – there really isn’t.


It doesn’t really matter whether they were told what the points deduction would be, but I do believe that they did get a firm indication.


Look, however many times you want to repeat the fallacy, BB2014 is buying the assets of OKBL. Obviously the point of it is so they can be the new owners and operators of a rugby league team called Bradford Bulls but that is just a trading name (and indeed as such part of the assets). It does NOT EXIST in its own right.


A total [inon sequitur[/i. If (say) they had been told that they would only get half the distribution for 1, 2 or 3 years, and still went ahead, why would that stop it being a “punishment”? It is what it is. Its nature doesn’t change depending if you know in advance or not!


TBF few (I can onlky remember one) suggested “hardball”. I have been clear that while BB2014 do have a negotiating position, it is not a strong enough one to have any question of playing “hardall”. The RFL & Co. clearly hold most of the better cards.


“Right” about what? We all know that the RFL will in due course announce their decision about any points deduction, and a formal statement about any distribution issue. I know this. You know this. Everybody knows this. We can all read (even if some may have comprehension issues). What exactly therefore is it they could possibly announce that would “prove you right”? Go on, set it out, so we have a point of reference. Tell us something that only you know, which will then make us all nod sagely “Yes, Wooden head was indeed right”.

I won’t hold my breath – but this is your big chance.

Here is / are the predicted things that Wooden Stand claims he will be proved right about, as so far identified specifically by him :-

I don't want to fall out with you - there are more important things for RL supporters; the season has started and there are matches to watch. But I did clearly say in my post at the top of page 81 that RL CLUBS are not legal entities - the companies that own and run them are.



No. You are still not getting it! THE CLUB is the member of the RFL. CLUBS are run by the company that is their current owner. And owners come and go.

A six point or four point deduction for going into Administration is imposed on THE CLUB.

I know it's different from the widget industry or wherever you might work. But you do just need to get your head round how things work in sport (applies just the same in Soccer as RL).

This still does not square the circle so to speak. I know lawyers love to talk and go on about what it legal and not legal. But that only holds water in terms of the financial side.

The sporting side is left untouched without the operational rules.

The financial penalty has been imposed on the previous owners through loss of capital (or in this case loans).

There can be no sporting punishment imposed on what is a financial company gone bust.

The point is about the sporting penalty not the financial.

In terms of the club being a legal entity sure it's not. But it is a sporting entity.

If you take a individual who sets up as business the individual is not a legal entity and if the business goes belly up, the business folds, but the individual remains. The individual will then have to cope with any social fall out from the business going up outside the rules of the law.

The law cannot say that the persons previous friends must remain so, that they must treat them with the same favour. Even if that person sets up a new business it does not mean that others need to trade with them under the same terms as the old company, just because the person remains the same.

Legal entities are take care of by the law. But other entities, such as clubs, people are dealt with by other clubs (governing bodies) and other people.

Clubs as you are describing, and as wooden stand seems to be describing simply don't exist. There is nothing tangible about a 'club' that either isn't a simple asset the same as any company I.e a ground, player contracts, the copywrite of name, badges, kits, mascots etc. they all belong to the new co and the RFL have zero control of them.

The fans, history, trophies won etc are simply emotional standpoints, they don't tangibly exist, cannot be sold. It's simply out there in the ether.

The only way in which you could describe a club as existing outside of the company that owns them is the golden/share licence which entitles them to membership of the RFL/SL which is an asset of the business but it's transfer is decided by the RFL.

But again, if the RFL don't transfer it, then the badge, ground, kits, player contracts all still belong to the company, They simply cannot play in RFL competitions. They don't have to go into admin, the club to all intents and purposes still exists in very single way, it just doesn't play in. RFL competitions.

So the RFL can't force the new co to pay that debt, it was with the old co and stays there. They can ask the new co take it on as part of their negotiations on the transfer of golden share. If the new club refuses and. The RFL doesn't back down, the inevitable conclusion is the bulls don't finish the year.

Its taken till page 81, but I think that post is the best reasoning yet for why "the Club" should be viewed as an entity, but separately to whatever legal/financial entity owns it from time to time. You make some powerful and IMO very valid points. My compliments, sir.

You'd be disappointd if I just left it at that, of course...



I actually get the point that a "Club" is in substance - if not in legal form - an amalgam of people, staff, supporters, friends, history, tradition, brand, resources, community, assets, all of those things and more. It is as much a state of mind, a shared purpoose as anything else. I said as much, albeit far briefer, in an earlier post somewhere. If I could remember where, and wanted folk to see how smart I was (even though that sort of daft thing usually has the opposite effect...) I go find it and quote it...



But (and you would expect no less than a "but"icon_wink.gif, ATEOTD when you seek to punish a "Club", as defined, you can do damage to its ongoing history, its tradition, its brand, its resources, the community, its assets, and all of those things and more. But you cannot [upunish[/u any of those things. Becaus ethey are intagibles, or inanimate objects. Nor can you do anything to any of those things to [udeter them from doing it again[/u, because intangibles and inanimate objects can't actually DO anything by or in themselves - can they?

No, the only things you can punish are people. Staff. Supporters. Friends. It is THEY whom you set out to punish. Even though very few if any of them bear any responsibility for the train crash you are seeking to impose punishmemt for. So, when people say the "club" should be punished, what they really mean is that it is its staff, supporters and friends that should be punished. Something to bear in mind?

And, punishing those staff, supporters and friends is hardly likely to act as any deterrent against future train crashes, because in almost all cases they were niether responsible nor have significant power (apart from voting with theor feet) to influence those who in future might do it all again.

So, without in any way seeking to minimise or decry your points, I'm still not sure we have squared the circle.

In fact, I can't for the life of me think of an effective way that you can.

Thanks for all of that Adey.
So, when there have been points deductions in the past, Crusader, Wakefield, Bradford etc, who/what exactly has been punished and who/what has received a points deduction.
I know I'm thick but, in the past, it would appear to have been the club(s) ?

The new owners, staff, supporters and friends of those clubs.

Since you can no more punish a "Club", as an abstract concept, than Basil Fawlty could punish his car for not doing what a car is supposed to do.

Must admit, I never had you down as Basil Fawlty. Guess you learn something new every day, though? Just don't mention the war...

You are not thick; you are quite right. Of course it was those Clubs that received the points deduction.

Some people will try to tell us next that the 2012 Super League Grand Final was won by The Leeds Cricket, Football and Athletic Company Limited.

Not another quote-athon.

I cringed so hard when I scrolled down and saw that the ferocious aardvark had replied to the wooden spoon, practically line by line. How much pointless squirming and arguing can one man do?

This whole ''I'm an uber intellectual fountain of knowledge'' thang has now become plain annoying.

This whole thing can be plainly summed up in a few choice words - bradford are pretty much f*cked.

Somewhere in and amongst these painful topics is a straw man, someone saying "don't let facts spoil a good argument" and a non sequitur.

Jesus Christ.

Can you believe these bulls fans are spouting this rubbish?

A fairly standard concept, used across other sports as well.

But woe betide, as soon as it's the bulls......... it's abstract concepts, innanimate objects, rocket science, the space time continuam, the meaning of life.