Bet Carvells gutted

They may do, and it would explain their recent good humour - absinthe making the heart grow fonder and all that..

At least you did not say Hooker.

Groan. Very good.

Well, legally, they ALL should. Otherwise you're kind of in a fraud/theft sort of situation and nobody wants that.

Of course she will pay it back. She is 17 and went through the thought process of what if I wait til next week to see what happens, if someone buys us from the administrator they might forget about the £120 she owes and "happy days". Don't know where she gets it from.

Another relative who works for the Bulls was not double paid so it's not the whole payroll being paid twice.

Brendan Guilfoyle and David Wilson.

The former was painted as a villain of the piece and was often in the media, while the latter is not actually in the public eye at all.

It seems there is a very, very different path taken by David Wilson this time around with players leaving for starters.

I'm not sure I have much of a point, but I found it interesting (however just as upsetting) to see how this current administration period is handled when compared to the 2012 ring-fencing and working for free.

I wonder what other forumers think about the situation from then and now?

I'm not going to hog your forum, but what occurs to me, from the outside, is that you are victims of timing. Had the same approach as now been adopted in 2012, at the start of a franchise, you would have a couple of years to rebuild yourself, financially and on the field, before a relegation season. Your problem isn't the shedding of players per se, but in the timing of it.

You are hogging our forum now

Your are never going to be popular if you make a career as an administrator. However I think despite the abuse Guilfoyle tried and kind of suceeded in selling on the club as a going concern. With players going this time not sure Wilson is even trying to do this.

Thinking the same, if we had David Wilson in 2012 we could possible have avoided all of this, yes we would have most likley finished bottom on the league but we would still be in SL and would be much stronger going into this season as we are now.

And plus gargoyle wouldn't have run up huge a huge bill for his "services" did he actually do anything?

Would anyone have even bought us in that scenario. I suppose if this strategy had been followed then, we might not have been docked 50% of the Sky funding for last season or this, so I suppose it might have had a different outcome, but with the funding shortfall I struggle to see how the outcome would be different than a threadbare squad. We'll never know now!

What I would like to know from Wilson is on what basis he accepted the BB2014 bid as best for creditors? What proof of funding did he see? That would help determine where the truth lay between BB2014 & the RFL

I think this has all backfired remarkably on the RFL. They obviously had someone in mind. The administrator said no. So the RFL threw in some extra complications so the buyers withdrew. The new buyer had obviously gone off the idea, so no the club is being dismantled. What can the RFL do now? They are not going to want the league ruined by one club going under now are they? What about their Magic Weekend?
I hope they are doing some negotiating behind the scenes with whoever they have in mind, or it's not going to end well for anyone.

What does the administrator see happening when the players are all sold on?
Is he still hoping to sell the club as a going concern?
Any new owner will be buying what exactly? Seeing as the players are it's only assets?

What a load of utter b*ll*cks.

I guess the other administrations in 2011 left Wakefield & crusaders barely competitive so guess this administration is following the same route.

What I still don't get is that the administrator has a legal responsibility to get the best deal for the creditors, surely by not sanctioning the deal with BB2014, the RFL are asking Wilson to not meet his obligations? Can anyone explain that to me?

The difference being that it didn't really matter then. This year it's very different.

That is the essential difference. Well, that and they didn't get fined full year's TV money.

Was Crusaders and Wakefield after license decisions, I honestly can't remember or be bothered to look it up? If before, you could argue it was possibly as important then.

No both were at the start of the season

Was admin before or after license decision? If before you could argue that it was as bad a time as relegation is this year and I'd agree

Do you really not remember? It was before, and pretty much everyone in the league expected Wakefield not to have their licence renewed as punishment for going into admin.
But then on the day of the announcement the whole business with Crusaders came to light, they never even bothered applying for a licence so they were straight out - wakey survived by default.

That was also the same time that Keith Senior went apoplectic on twitter after earlier signing for the Crusaders.

I remembered Wakefield expecting to go and getting reprieved, but couldn't remember if before or after license, thanks for clarifying. So 2 teams gone into admin after the license, one got punished once, the other 3 times!

Well it's not quite that straightforward. You need to remember that the RFL lent us £700,000 on the sly without telling the other clubs.
We then failed to make a single repayment over the course of the next 12 months (I think).
So then Peter Hood had his brainwave to sell the lease to Odsal to the RFL, and they proceeded to make up some BS story about predators trying to buy Odsal to cover it all up.

We were punished for this debacle in addition to admin. Some people on here conveniently leave this part out in their complaints over our treatment.