You didn't choose that, it was imposed.
As far as I recall the other SL chairmen were less than impressed with your antics and asked for this.

I am glad that you, unlike so many others, confirm that it WAS an imposed penalty. Could you go and educate some of your fellow supporters about this?

But whether it was imposed or not is not relevant to the point at hand. Anyone taking the club on under those circumstances could never be accused of taking the "soft option". Be it OK in the first instance, or the current bord now, still having to deal with 50% of this confiscation despite being two or three generations removed from the lot who caused it all. Or, indeed, whoever finally gets their hands on this poisoned chalice.

I repeat - Having £1.3m Sky money confiscated is hardly taking the soft option.

What do you think a liability is if not a debt? Did you think that instead of putting the 500k in the bank to clear the overdraft, they should have kept it in a sack?

Look it's not our fault your club has been irrelevant for 40 years. I understand that you want our club destroyed because it increases your chances of not being relegated but stop this charade.

The point is you're troll lecturing Bulls fans who put their hand in their pocket to 'do the right thing' on financial ethics when you were happy to see your club leave unpaid creditors without so much as a beetle drive. Hypocrite.

Another point that I think everyone is missing.

It seems pretty clear that the scale of any points deduction will be closely connected with what of the thrird party creditors are repaid? For example, we saw that in the case of Salford's recent "Act of Insolvency" (under the RFL rules) - a CVA - they were deducted no points, we understand because all the creditors were to be paid.

Any prospective owner would need to secure clarity from the RFL about what the realtionship was, and what any poimnts deduction would be relative to how much he might have to fork out. BEFORE he considered putting in a bid to the administrator.

For example, if he was told "it will be 4 pts even if you pay off all your creditors" - as so many of the vicious little nasties from Wakefield keep insisting must be the case - then why the hell pay off ANY creditors? Instead, take the extra 2 points, and use the large amount of brass you saved to go buy enough new players to get you well clear of any relegation scrambles.

The above, btw, shows the total bollox that those nasties are spouting regarding fixed penalty regardless. They need to be very, very careful what they wish for. A new owner might just come in, take the points deduction, and with the shedload of cash saved go buy at team that sends THEM down.

Like I said before on this forum we need some sort of sugar daddy if this club is going to have some kind of future.

With the new SKY TV deal, I disagree. You'll likely need a sugar daddy to win trophies, tbh, but survival should not need to depend on a sugar daddy. Unless Koucash gets hois way and the salary cap goes up dramatically, in which case we are back to square one.

What we DO need is some way of getting through to the end of this year, when we get our full Sky money allocation back (and the othe clubs lose theoir share of it).

It just seems every bloody thing that is happening right now is making that task ever harder.

We were asked, we declined and for our situation it was the right decision as it was the tip of the iceberg.
Where has that £500k got you I ask? As an outsider looking in it is very very easy to suggest it's got you nowhere!!

Would the bulls have decided upon such a penalty? I don't think so.
You have taken the soft option, SL stepped in and recognised that fact and dished out their own justice.

That may well be the case.

But that was not the point he was making.

His point is that we'll* take no lectures from Trinity supporters about the financial ecthics of not paying creditors when - unlike us - they declined to even make the attempt.

In any arguments about who has the right to take the moral high ground, you lot come last in line.

*Bulls supporters

Again, you are seeking to shift the argument, having failed so spectacularly to gain any traction with your original one.

Your "soft option" comment was quite clearly referring to the recent going into administration. Not what happened 18 months ago.

I repeat - again - anyone buying a club that has had £1.3m Sky money confiscated - and who was totally uninvolved and totally blameless in the stupidity that led up to the problem - is hardly "taking the soft option".

At least, unlike so many others from over your way, you are making an effort to support your arguments. But, on this one at least, I really think your argument is unsupportable.

To give a but of good news, scrutons replying to fans on twitter that he's not going anywhere.
Massive plus!

True enough, although we've been almost unanimously tipped as one of the two to go down since well before this season began, thanks in large part to the number of players we had to offload to balance the books. It's only in the last few weeks we've been able to replace some of what we lost.

As for the half pay - that was a seriously stupid arrangement, but wasn't it to repay a loan from the RFL?

Either way - I hope that things work out and that your club can be sorted out once and for all.

Scruton just tweeted that he isn't going anywhere.

Let's hope he is a man of his word (Unlike some ex Bulls).

[size=200Q: is it true your next to go??? Hope not been fab for us,club might as well pack in if everyone deserting them?

[iA: no mate I'm not going anywhere[/i.[/size

Might be worth the fans showing him - and the rest of the team - just how much they mean to us tomorrow?

For the record you haven't explained anything there, just put your usual spin on it.
As for the TUPE issue, no one has proved me wrong, anyone going through TUPE (or any contractual change) is allowed a consultation period, no one has proved me wrong, just decided to tell me I'm wrong and then throw some blurb in to the mix like some Barrack Room Lawyer


Anywaysup, you carry on mate, you're doing a fine job for the ministry

I proved you totally wrong, when you asserted that A 90-day consultation period was required. As can be seen very clearly from the thread.

And, as I said on the original thread re the first point, I can quite easily prove you wrong if I had to, and could be bothered. I don't really need to though, since pretty well everyone one here already knows enough of the facts to know you are wrong.

Some people on both sides really need to take a few days away from the forum, this is all getting very unpleasant and some are really starting to show themselves in a bad light.

Here is my summary of Ok"s business acumen.Asked by the RFL what he would do about the creditors to avoid the 6 point deduction HE (yes HE can you believe it)said to get round the upset of the other super league clubs why not take half the central distribution away and share it among the others.You could not make that up.So he gives up £1.3 million over 2 years when the creditors that could have been structured to be repaid over say 5 only ended up at about £1.5 million.He should have stuck to making chapatti"s.

As if that was not bad enough Guilfoyle had warned all it was madness to run with a total wages bill of £220k a month and that was one of the major problems.
So blind Ok and Whitcui*t do what?
With £1.3 million less in income guaranteed over the next 2 years they run with a wages bill to heart attack time of...wait for it.....£220k a month.
So its back to square one

And further as losses estimated at £1.2 to £1.5 million are discovered by Calvert He had only set on in July Robbie on sizeable salary and others.

Its all mad in fact its barking.

Best to take 6 points this time bring in the new man (who I know now who he is...top man where hospitality is his "plaything"icon_wink.gifadd quality and survive.
As adey said could be done.

I have never come across such daft thinking in my life from Mr Ok.
Glad I never learnt the art of chappati making.
He"ll pop up as Sutcliffes Chancollor of Exechequer in Sutcliffes next labour government next year.And probably spell it like that too.
We may aswell have just surrendered to the Germans 70 years ago when you see lunatics like this in charge.

What I have just posted is gods honour truth.
Bt big Nigel thought it pennies from heaven....the punishment determined in a self assessment way.
Sadly the Bulls are becoming a bit of an embarrassment now as far as the taxman goes.

That gentlemen is why OK got his beloved Bulls over the other quite credible bids.
They realised the lunacy and it would be back bust in a short time.As it is.

Bring on Richard Lamb.
At least he has a deeper pocket than the honest fan Andrew Calvert is.Andrew has worked 5 months solid for free for the Bulls to try resolve these nightmares.I take my hat off to him in an ever changing situation.The fans slaughter already for soundbites they do not like.EG ring fenced followed by Sammutt Carvell leaving.Its not his bloody fault were in this mess.Good people like Calvert and Adey are trying hard that Bulls are dug out of the .And many many more.The naysayers and doubting Thomas"s,the peed up and incontinent.would be a good idea if you turned up in 10"s of thousands tomorrow instead of whinging and whining.What will be will be.Move forward and ....dig in

Omg did a 6 year old write that? Anybody fancy translating it?


2 more Lamb bhunas please.

It's like the written version of a magic eye puzzle

It hurt my eyes.

But it's the "gods honour truth"

I'm not seeking to do anything of the sort.
I said you had chosen the soft option and that is a fact.
You seem to think that because SL saw fit to hit you with a penalty this is in some way you taking the tough option - it isn't.
You didn't choose, it was issued, you had no part in the decision making.
This (if it's about spin) is about your spin.
This was issued because SL chairmen saw through the sham.
Why else would it have been given?
Would you have chosen it if hadn't been handed out?
Of course not, I'm not looking at making this a personal attack on Bulls apologists as some have, I remember how helpful you were in suggesting help towards the trust before it got off the ground.
But it's not hard to look through all this and see a few advocates of the bulls party line.
Anything not in tow gets shot down, even from within your own support.
I posted a few days back that carvel was a test case and that others will follow, I was mocked.
Sammut has followed, and as I pointed out others will follow him.
The board is on chaos, layers want out, and people like you say "there is nothing to see here" maybe you're prolonging your own death...who knows? To be honest I've got past caring
Blind optimism is a common trait within sports supporters, but it is exactly that in many cases...blind.
I wish you no ill, I'll be narked if we suffer because of what I see as favouritism of course I will, but please don't try spinning your situation to make others seem stupid because it doesn't wash.
It didn't with the SL chairmen, it doesn't with me, I can't speak for the "RL family".