So who have they applied the points deduction to?

it looks like the points deduction has been applied to the actual team that plays in the SL....not any specific owner

"For Bradford to effectively drop off debt as a result of the administration without a points deduction would have significantly impaired the integrity of the competition."

So from that statement if the debt is paid off by new owners they could re-instate the points..??

the Sanctions of special measures looks like it was only for the BB2014

how can a team have debt if we are treating it as a different entity from the company which owns it?

that's the problem, no playing side would ever have debts if old owners go bust and new owners buy from admin. The RFL apply any penalties of points deductions to the team actually playing on the field as that is the only constant, yes we know that the players didn't run the club and cause the debts but the RFL have it in their rules that it is the playing side that suffer points deductions

But that doesnt make sense, they explained that they applied the penalty to the club owned by Mark Moores company. That transaction was never completed. The Club is still in administration and still nominally owned by OKBulls. There is a scope that the same company who went in to administration could be the one who comes out of it. THe RFL have been very clear that the process of coming out of admin (i.e paying debts etc) is important to the level of the penalty. As the club have yet to come out of admin, how is that penalty set? What if someone does buy it and does everything different?

The way i see if the RFL are to be in any way consistent with their own rules and statements they would need to waive the 6 point deduction until such time as the club does come out of admin and reasses then, or treat this as a 2nd insolvency event.

Right now, we have the RFL applying a penalty to the Bradford Bulls playing side, in part, for the behaviour of a club which never owned it.

Smokey, you really do seem to enjoy picking holes in peoples posts.
The points deduction will apply to whichever Bulls club/team/organisation which continues to ply its trade in SL.

We've had 118 pages here and the Club/Team etc has been done to death

i have exlpained why it makes a difference.

Rather than just being happy that Bradfords collapse might lead Wakefield to survive be default again, maybe understand there are wider issues.

I read it as the RFL having stated that the club (regardless of who owns them) are having to be docked six points because whilst other clubs have been in a similar position (either in admin or in danger of being in admin) they have all acted to reduce costs in order to avoid it happening again while Bradford have not. Wakefield have twice gone through a process of selling their better players and reduced costs following their time in admin, London allowed so many players and coaching staff to leave that it left them looking dead certs to go down but this cut the wage bill and they also got somebody else to host games and to cover backroom staff costs to avoid administration. During their financial woes and two periods of administration Bradford have not made such efforts. Sure some players have left but they have signed replacements and extended and improved contracts of others at the same time. Omar Khan agreed to operate with only half of the central funding in order for the club to remain in SL yet in a season when relegation was not an issue despite having money coming in reduced by 600k the club made no effort to reduce the costs of the wage bill to fit their now smaller budget. They kept going with the squad that they had and that they clearly could not afford. (The RFL may have told the rest not to pick off players for nothing when the Bulls were in admin but they didn't order Bradford not to sell anyone once he takeover happened to balance the books). Doing so rather than reducing outgoings as other clubs have (even when Bradford may not have had to cut so drastically as Wakefield and London) has led the Bulls back to administration.

When two other clubs have been in or close to administration and have cut costs and avoided administration despite leaving themselves in peril of relegation and a third has been in administration and done nothing to avoid a further period of administration in favour of keeping a squad that should finish higher up the table then that third club has to be given the message that such practice is unacceptable. The full deduction had to be imposed to send the message to Bradford and all other clubs that clubs cannot keep going regardless spending what they can't afford and then using administration as a way to avoid paying their debts. Particularly when other clubs are taking measures to avoid it despite it threatening their top flight status.

The six points are gone, no matter who buys the Bulls.

they said the penalty was applied to Bradford Bulls....not BB2014 or OK Bulls....

"“Throughout our dealings with them, the club’s directors were unable to provide any evidence of new capital investment into Bradford Bulls and consequently, the RFL Executive had no confidence in the business plan that was presented.


“At no stage was there a firm written commitment from the directors to meet the liabilities: in particular, HMRC would have been left with an unpaid liability of almost £170,000.


“In the last six months two other clubs have had to restructure their businesses, introduce new investment from owners and release players to avoid administration. For Bradford to effectively drop off debt as a result of the administration without a points deduction would have significantly impaired the integrity of the competition.


at no stage does it mention BB2014...it says Bradford Bulls or just Bradford

I think you're right, as the points have gone from the Table and I can't se ethem or any of them being reinstated, but your general point must be wrong. Part of what you quoted said:

The corollary of that must be that in the (extremely unlikely) event that a new consortium did not "drop off the debt" but paid it, then the intgrity of the competition would not be impaired and very plainly there would be no need for a points deduction on the stated ground.

The quote clearly directly links the two - you can't "drop off debt" without a points deduction, it says.

I do feel for the Bulls fans in this situation, the to-ing and fro-ing must be unbearable.

I have every confidence that Mr Moore's remarks regarding them being as good as relegated will be shown for the lousy statement it is - with a probably win on Sunday against London, it's really not a big overhaul. That's providing the playing staff stick around.


Its' strange hearing someone from the Bradford club discussing vultures - I wonder if they're the same ones that took Andy Lynch, Ryan Hudson and Michael Platt, along with an attempt to get Michael Shenton when they became free agents when we were on our knees facing life in the National League a few years back. To me there is very little difference. Clubs only have their own interest at heart, the rugby league family is a family to an extent, until another team can benefit.

That's the nature of the sport, and it's painful.

Just going off these forums it seems like OK bulls was a holding company for Bradford bulls RLFC,as always stuff like that always sounds like a con to me.

Is it possible that Bradford bulls2014 & bradford bulls RLFC were one of the same on a 28 day licence and thats why the points deduction came into force because it couldnt pay its creditors?

If thats the case then the points deduction will stay.

The problem is,the club has now gone back into administration so even though no one seems to have lost out "financially"another points deduction should be applied even though it will be the minimum

Don't forget homesick Hudson Smith, given dispensation by Salford to leave for personal reasons and return to Oz only to turn up wearing a Bradford shirt!

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Bradford Bulls are a trading name of one of these two companies at any one time (or both, or neither, but it still isnt an entity outside of its company)



So if not BB2014. Who is 'them'?

and as you have already agreed, the club can't have debt, so it can't have a liability to HMRC.

You are right that it doesnt mention BB2014, but it also repeatedly mentions 'directors' 'Administration' 'business' 'business plans'. Clubs do not have these, the businesses who own them do

While I agree it's probably hypocritical of Franny to say the vultures are circling as we did the same thing on our pomp, you can hardly blame him for doing everything in his power to keep hold of the squad. The marquee signing hasgone, our star half back has gone. After our 17 we virtually have kids. We are in special measures so can't sign anyone. Losing even more would be a disaster.

I still think that the RFL/SL missed a trick with this which has been detrimental to the game.
Whilst I have little time for soccer at least the scots did the right thing with Rangers.
The strange thing is that Rangers are losing money still!
A bit like the Bulls they still insist on spending money they are never likely to have.
It is always strange to listen to the mantra that sports clubs are now businesses but are never run like that.

No, not necessarily, you're assuming two way accountability which isn't necessarily the case, hence your corollary is wrong. Maths degree



Also the 6 points without knowing future intent of the buyers was because the rfl to "past events" into account did they not? I imagine the administrator (and the rfl) will still expect at least some (especially to her majesty's tax collectors as the rfl is always very keen on that) paid off as part of the sale of the club.

That's not to say I don't think the rfl will use the 2 points as a bargaining point for any perspective buyer for a significant portion of the debt.

Why would you pay off any debt if you the club already had been deducted 6 points?

I can only imagine the howls of protest and screams of those with a victim complex intensifying massively should at any stage Bradford now get points given back.

I see no problem with points being given back for paying off debt. However, I would not give them back on the promise of paying off debt.

Sure if someone is coming in with x amount of money and is promising to pay the debt, then you could assume it will happen. If someone is coming in promising to pay off the debt, but we will need £500k upfront to buy the business and pay the debt, it's a different matter.

I do think it's all a bit fudge like. I'm not a fan of discretionary rules and the rules should be fixed 6 point deduction reducing on a percentage of debt paid. If 100% is paid then no deduction as no advantage gained.

As for who has the 6 points deducted, I feel the name smoke and mirrors should be applied rather than just plain smokey.

The 6 points is deducted from the Bradford Bulls on the sporting side. Who ever is the owner of the Bulls carries that forwards. Currently the administrator.

I know you are using word play to try and argue differently. But it's just words. When a club goes into admin mid-season, when they are bought out, they do not start as a new club on 0 points. They carry forward points gained by the previous club. This is because they buy all assets of the club tangible and intangible.

This is what I have stated all along, there is a financial side which is penalized by the club going into admin. But the sporting assets could build up an unfair advantage that is never penalized. The only way to penalize the sporting side is to have a sporting rule which is a points deduction.

Where as the law of the land can govern on finance it cannot govern on sporting rules. That can only be decided on by the sports governing body.

If a player is banned for x number of matches, if a club is docked points for fielding an ineligible player. These are not things a court of the land can account for.

The 6 points is a sporting penalty nothing more or less it has nothing to do with who owns the venture, just to do with gaining an unfair sporting advantage the same as fielding 14 players or passing the ball forwards.

It has been widly accepted in most sports, only some Bradford fans have argued that they should be treated differently to the rest of the sporting world. I think this is due to some ingrained belief that their place at the top table is sacred.

Ok, a hypothetical. Say a bulls fan wins the £35m Euromillions tomorrow night. Buys the club for £5m from the administrator, to clear all debts in full, with a 5% bonus for the uncertainty, and also gets the list of everyone who donated money (and left their name) 2 years ago and offers to pay them back - or donate equivalent to charity, and leaves the remaining £3.5m in the club as capital. And buys Odsal back from the RFL for £2m, giving them a £500k profit.

How many points should be deducted? According to the regulations...

And should the fan have a psychiatric assessment??

but 100% could still be paid, meaning Bradford could very well 'buy' themselves out of relegation. Im sure that will go down well.


The playing side doesnt exist as anything other than an activity of the Business which owns it.

You are here, arguing that the 'playing side' should be punished for the activities of the 'business side' but also that that the 'playing side' is a completely seperate entity which exists entirely independantly of the 'business side' these are mutually exclusive standpoints.


it isnt word play, its just not allowing you to both have your cake, and eat it. The new business does not buy all the assets, tangible and intangible. They simply buy some of them from the administrator, or they buy the entire company.


Then you need to treat the sporting side and business side as one and the same, which is incompatable with what you have said above.
The rules of the governing body need to be followed, they cant arbitrarily decide things. The rules of the governing body cannot contravene the laws of the land.

You are wrong.

It is entirely to do with who owns the venture for numerous reasons. 1. The punishment is for the actions of who owns the venture and is mitigated by the actions of who owns the venture. 2 The venture does not exist outside of the activities of who owns it.3. As you say here, this is a punishment for sporting advantage apparently gained by the actions of who owns the venture. They are unarguably and irrevocably linked.



I do wish that people wouldnt equate 'most sports' with soccer.

On another note, I've always wondered if there is a spike in lottery ticket sales in a town or city if their club is threatened with administration ie Portsmouth, Southampton, Leeds Utd, Swansea City etc?

Camelot would have the data I would think. Be an interesting social studies/sports dissertation for someone.

Yeah, really strange.

I do not think that is what they did. They reached 6 points on the basis of the BB 2014 plans and have been quite clear that there was no evidence of additional funding, it was only after the sanction decision was announced that BB 2014 withdrew. The penalty has been applied, but I can see no reason that the RFL should not consider a mitigation of that sanction in the face of changed circumstances in the form of a buyer that injects funds and addresses the debt.

Talking about having your cake and eat it...

...either the new owners want to take up the Bradford Bulls franchise and inherit a 6 point deduction, or they don't, have no points deduction but start off the "new club" in Champ 1.

Take your pick.