They are RFL tenants.......they are like a spoilt child who everyone else thinks deserves a good hiding but who's parents instead mollycoddle it.........

If I compare Adeybull to the ....., will the thread be locked?

no but you'll get banned if you do it again

Please don't I hate giving out warnings and I am yet to get the ban stick out this year,

the post would be removed and the thread would continue.

I am loathed to lock it as several others would rear their heads like a hydra.

There is a point I suppose is the owner losing his money enough of a punishment??? Whilst a club is intangible, it's progress on a RL field is not. Neither is it's standing in the league. The last league is closed and cannot be opened so the only place left to lay the penalty is in the current season.

However, someone said somewhere earlier. The RFL and Bradford (what ever) will have to have come to an agreement, to continue. If that's 6 points and a continuation of the £500k penalty, then the owners will have took the view that for them, like OK it will be worth it.

In the end I never understood the £500k penalty. At first I thought it was a way to pay off the lease and buy it back, or pay off creditors, but just to spread it to the other clubs seemed a bit naff.

Simply, wrong. I understand that one or two people don't like wrong information corrected, though are weirdly happy for incorrect claims to be made, but the more times you get it wrong, the more times I will correct you.

I have a feeling you don't really understand the wording of things like Articles of Association, but anyone who WANTS to know, I'll explain, anyone who DOESN'T - just don't feckin read any more.





The subscribing Members are:

_________________________________________________________________________


Note{ 100% clearly, these members are the LIMITED COMPANIES.
Then as you say the Articles go on to list the rest of the members, by listing both their DESCRIPTIONS and their NAMES.

The MEMBERS are thus indisputably the listed companies. That is only because each of the clubs is a limited company. If they were not, eg if one was a firm eg a partnership, that would be an "unincorporated association, and that is permissible, but none of the existng clubs are unincorporated associations.



It is these member companies that participate in the competitions. The may do so as "Bradford Bulls" or whatever, but indisputably the wording refers to members, and all references to "Club" indisputably means "member" ij this context.



Now read very carefully the next extract:


That is why any new limited company formed to run a RL club has to apply to become a member. "Membership is not transferable".

If you were right, Bradford Bulls would remain a Member despite the administrations. Almost everyone knows that no such thing happens. Almost everyone knows that any new person (for those who don't know, a limited company is a legal "person"icon_wink.gif taking ownership MUST be admitted to membership of the RFL. Your theory that something called the Bradford Bulls once was made a member, and thus forever remains a member regardless of administrations, liquidations etc., really is just plain misunderstanding of the true position.

If the new member is admitted as a member of the RFL then that is only the first stage. In order to play in SL, it then needs to be granted a SL licence.

Ownership of SL is vested absolutely in SLE.



This is sensible, and is exactly the territory the Bulls are in. On the one hand, clearly the insolvent member ceases to be a member. On the other hand, clearly it is in the interests of the competition to, if it can, make a seamless transition from the former member to the new owner/member and that is precisely what the RFL/SLE is doing/has done.


That is exactly where the previous Bulls were in mid-season, and this rule is why despite the old club going bust, the new club could temporarily continue in the league; but the point is that it IS a new club, and it is NOT a member.





If as you think, there is some separate ongoing entity that played and plays in SL, which is a different thing from the company that owns it, then why the hell are we having to jump through all the insolvency hoops? If the "club" in the sense you mean isn't the same thing as the limited company that owned it and went tits?

Bradford Bulls - if when you say "the club" you mean the team that runs on the field etc. , did not experience any insolvency event; the limited company that owned it did. If you are saying those are two separate things, that the club exists separately despite the demise of the company that owns the business, then you will need to explain why a club that did not become insolvent nevertheless has to apply for membership/licence etc as if it had become insolvent and why it is subject to possible sanctions.

In case you missed it, the relevant rule states:



The points deduction is very simply a ruling that says a team in the league is minus X points. The points are not some legal thing, or real object, they are a pure notional idea. The Super League table is just the scorecard for the annual comp, it is not a legal entity.

If as you think "the CLUB" is the member, but that this is not the company, but something else, then please enlighten us on what basis it faces sanctions?

Finally, in the case of SLE, the member clubs are required to be incorporated. That is, those MEMBERS that are rugby league teams MUST be or become limited companies. If a club was an unincorporated association (eg a partnership) and applied for and was admitted to the party, it would then have to incorporate or else be expelled.


In case you missed it twice:

So, in this case, it is the new member (BB2014) that faces sanctions, under this rule. And couldn't possibly be anything else.

I don't see anything unreasonable about setting out in detail my arguments about rugby league on a rugby league forum. You are not obliged to read them but if they do in fact really annoy you, then in your particular case I see that as a big bonus and in future if I wonder whether I can be bothered, that knowledge may spur me on.

And whilst Wooden Stand does on occasion go OTT, and we can both be perhaps blunt to the point of rudeness, in this case he has gone to the trouble to explain why he thinks I am wrong, and I have done the same with regard to why I know he is wrong. We are not falling out or yelling obscenities. We are having a reasoned and reasonable debate. We are just as entitled to post on rugby league topics as you or anyone else, and if you don't like it, then you know what you can do.


Actually, things (while still extremely difficult) seem to be considerably picking up. And yes, I know that will annoy you too, so double result.

The point is actually very much both.

The cash punishment is a real and heavy burden on the limited company trying to run the business without getting into financial trouble.

The "sporting sanctions" ie deduction of points is something else, though. You need to think what it does. Does it cost the company money? Well, it might do; if for example the team as a result fails to make the playoffs.

But what else? Well, it means that the team is at a disadvantage in the league. If deducted 4 points, it will end the season with a total which will be 4 points smaller. This just means the team will appear maybe in a lower position in the final league table. If there was no relegation (as in the case of the last administration) then the points deduction doesn't punish anyone except the fans of that team, and then only to the extent (if any) that they may care about being 4 points worse off. So in our case, Bulls fans were a little peeved that we as a result missed the playoffs; but not that much as we'd have probably been thrashed away in round 1 so it was no biggie. Points deduction was thus I think overrated as a sanction. I mean, if you were a title contender the following year then maybe, but as we weren't, it wasn't actually that much of a sanction at all.

However this year it could easily mean the difference between being relegated or not. And thus, IF the new owners do agree to pay off the old company's creditors then that is the reason a points deduction would be unreasonable - it would have no obvious justification if creditors who had done business with the old company had not ultimately lost out, yet could have a hugely disproportionate outcome; certainly when compared to the last points deduction. It's a sanction which has suddenly acquired huge rows of teeth, venom and very sharp claws. The sporting sanction could turn out to be by far the biggest financial penalty of all.

What if the new owners agree to pay off the old companies creditors but then fail to do so?

Wouldn't suprise me.

It's just one big merry go round. So when this new consortium take over, it will be no suprise when sometime in the next 18 months suddenly theres ''cash flow problems'' and ''bulls on verge of administration''.

Yet bradford continue to doggedly refuse to cut costs in the playing squad where they can save most. They had their chance last year when there was no relegation.

It's become painfully obvious that bradford can't financially support a super league team. Odsal drains too much money, and the income isn't there from fans, merchandice and showpiece events.

So what will happen is, either they eventually cut their cloth in the playing squad and wind up relegated (though this is no guarantee under the 2015 structure with a few bargains and some good youngsters). Or they continue this merry go round and gradually lose quality players with few replacements due to continued off the field problems and end up in same situation as above.

Either way I don't see much super league future for them.

If Bradford can't afford SL then everyone else below WIG/WARR/SAINTS/LEEDS/HULL is pretty much fercucked.

Don't worry. With evil statements like that allowed to stand, I am out of here.

There's only a ferocious aardvark left then

Like u said before if we're not going to "punish" clubs then we shouldn't have their names on trophies. Maurice Lindsay - King of The Challenge Cup.

I have never read so much nonsense as the club punishment argument. This is what happens when an iconic club hits the wall.

I've no complaints about a points deduction and can't understand anyone thinking we shouldn't.

well yeah me too. I don't quite know how this thread got this large. I can't argue against 4 points for admin and paying some of the debts. That is what the trolls want and it's what you and I think is fair. So what the hell the last 80+ pages is about I'm not entirely sure.

I am steadfast that half sky money on top is absurd.

As a footnote saying "if I called xyz a nazi..." is the equivalent of the old line to a copper "if I said you were a cn.t would you arrest me". Lets not pussy about; in that instance you HAVE called him a cn.t.

I thought the rule of an argument was that as soon as you relate someone or something to the nazis you have therefore lost the argument as you have no other intelligent (using that term loosely you understand) retort to add, and on that should by the thread now be locked?

Think it's got this long as many have had to add their 2 cents worth, opinions are like bumholes.

[urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law[/url:

I'm not sure teh poster who invoked Godwin has much credibility to lose tbh, tho I can understand the mods not wanting to be bothered with the 3 page “yu iz beans unfair 2 us” letter that would shirley follow any action against the post.

10 point deduction reduced to 6 if the CLUB pays off ITS debts.Easy

Apart from the fact the maximum is six points to start with.

True, but the bradford club going into administration twice in two years should mean they get treated as a special case

Special cases to increase punishments, open the door for special cases to decrease punishments.

There should (and will) be a flat, no ifs no buts policy. No exceptions, for better (or worse) - everyone knows in an insolvency event, there is a strict 12 point punishment for it.

6 points reduced to 4 for working with creditors is the precedent, there's no need for the rfl to break it's own rules.

My opinion stands a club that goes into administration twice in two years should be more severely punished.
Also working with creditors shouldnt be accepted.An agreement to pay back all creditors in a set period of time should be the only way of receiving a reduction in punishment

Hang 'em high

under your scenario creditors would be more likely to miss out. If a club can't pay all of them it might as well pay none.

What we need here is a fair trial, followed by a swift hanging....

Seriously, the precedent is 4 points out of a possible 6 and as long as there is written commitment from the Bulls Board to pay the creditors back before the end of the season then this is what should happen. Should they default on the written commitment a further 2 points should be deducted. Anyone arguing for no points or less than 4 don't have a leg to stand on as the rules are in place, and the RFL chose not to change them when they reintroduced P&R.

Regarding a further reduction of Sky money, that is ludicrous. They should receive the full entitlement just like every other member club, otherwise they are being punished twice for the same "crime".

Gas chamber, surely.