a 12 point deduction is relegation in all but name

It's not about what's "preferable" - there's no precedent for them to be automatically relegated, so it's about what punishment fits the crime. Past convictions have been spent, so it's similar to the Wakefield situation, so the punishment can be the same as the Wakefield situation, until new evidence comes to light to suggest it was worse than that, then there is no need for a worse punishment, even if said worse punishment is "preferable" to some imaginary worst case scenario.

As PAW points out a few posts earlier, the RFL review said the penalty would be 12 points.

Whether that was actually adopted, who knows, but the 6 point precedence is established and is the minimum Bulls should expect.

I've seen the tweet and there's a a bit of a dig granted. I'm probably jumping the gun in wanting a full and measured statement regarding the conversation with the RFL regarding wakey's potential administration. I just fear that the longer it goes on, the less likely we are to hear one. Also, I suppose it is only fair that we wait and see what if, any, punishment is meted out regarding Bradford.

Quote ="dboy"As PAW points out a few posts earlier, the RFL review said the penalty would be 12 points. Whether that was actually adopted, who knows, but the 6 point precedence is established and is the minimum Bulls should expect.'" And the maximum - had the precedent been the maximum that is allowed to be set, it should of started with Wakefield. Example: Internet trolling has the precedent of being punished by being banned from the forum. Instead you should accept life imprisonment, because it's better than execution (and before you say that you can't be jailed for posting on the internet- you can www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25886026 (different circumstance I know but same principle))

Quote ="dboy"As PAW points out a few posts earlier, the RFL review said the penalty would be 12 points. Whether that was actually adopted, who knows, but the 6 point precedence is established and is the minimum Bulls should expect.'" And the maximum - had the precedent been the maximum that is allowed to be set, it should of started with Wakefield. Example: Internet trolling has the precedent of being punished by being banned from the forum. Instead you should accept life imprisonment, because it's better than execution (and before you say that you can't be jailed for posting on the internet- you can www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25886026 (different circumstance I know but same principle))

Nice link which doesn't seem to give the RL quite at much wiggle room as they may need.
Also, what happened about Fax/Fev being put on standby when there were problems a few months ago.
IIRC there was talk about them taking the place of any SL club that failed in respect of their finances.
Of course this would be totally impractical with the start of the season so close but, I felt sure that a warning had been given ?

I read that too earlier today.

However if the Administration is a paper exercise to effectively take OK away as the shareholder, then the other liabilities such as to HMRC will have been addressed.

I'm not sure how OK is going to take that. But I imagine with the little I know the conversation has gone this way.

OK has loaned money to the Bulls to keep them afloat. There seems to have been little capital input. After the previous shenanigans a few weeks back the BOD's have looked at the books, cuts have been made and they can run the club and pay the debts with the cuts that have been made, but they cannot also repay the loans that OK has put into the club when he was talking about putting in Capital.

So Bradford cannot pay all the debts with OK included but they can without his debts.

BOD "look we cannot pay your debts and the club will not last the season paying everyone back including you"
OK " Tough I loaned money to the Bulls and if someone wants to buy the club they are going to have to pay me"
BOD "Look no one is going to pay these loans, the club will fold, go into administration and if someone does buy them it will only be once the debts are wipped including your loans, similar to when you took over"

OK "I did not come in to end up losing money"
BOD " so how about a halfway house, the club is transfered to us for no fee (nominal fee) via an administration, we will promise to honour all the debts apart from your loans, however if in the future the club gets into a better position we will also make some payment towards your loans too"

This kind of covers this statement..

"It had not proved possible to resolve the ownership of the company with the previous owner and, as a result, the company's financial position had become untenable."

This statement covers the latter part

All players, employees and assets have been transferred to the new company, who will continue to function as Bradford Bulls under new directors Andrew Calvert, Mark Moore and Ian Watt, alongside chief executive Robbie Hunter-Paul.

The club say they now intend to approach the RFL to discuss the future and seek to avoid a points deduction, as the board of directors have stated their intentions to continue to work with creditors.

Whether OK is included in those creditors is something we do not know, but if he is not it would be unusual as the majority shareholder for him to agree to wipe out his own holdings, unless he just wanted to cut his losses.


I will stress the above is the way I see a theoretical conversation going, but that phrase intentions to continue to work with creditors seems to indicate everyone but OK is covered by the new regime.

That's a nice story, you should turn it into a script and send it in to the BBC or better still a Holywood producer, they might turn it into a fantasy movie.

Barrow were deducted 29 points in 2011 for financial infringements concerned with exceeding the salary cap and back-hand payments to players. This resulted in immediate relegation down to Championship 1. "RFL chief executive Nigel Wood says the punishment should serve as a warning to clubs that do not adhere to the league's operational rules."

It does seem that certain clubs get "preferential" treatment when it comes to these matters. As George Orwell could have said "All RL clubs are equal, but some clubs are more equal than others".

How does that relate to Bradford and their current situation? This is a genuine question, how does a issue regarding the salary cap and a club blatantly flaunting those rules have any baring on a club changing ownership?

We did to AVOID admin.
Bulls have taken admin, as a means of reneging on their debts in order to keep their first team intact.

Wakefield's way out was not the ONLY way, but it IS the RIGHT way.

The Bulls way is most definitely not!

The Bulls have said they intend to honour the debts though

No they have said they will discuss them

If they intended to honour their debts, they wouldn't have needed the protection of admin.

What do the operational rules state on administration?

What did the operational rules state on SC infringement?

Surely going into administration is ' batantly flaunting ' rules ?

The change of ownership has no bearing, it is the way it was ' engineered '

Cue long winded, waffling retort from "insert bulls fan username" to bore you into submission!

"Working with their creditors" is not the same as honouring ALL of their debts.
As others have pointed out, Mr Khan and the Inland Revenue would appear to be the major creditors.
Do you think that both of these parties (plus all of the other creditors) will receive all that they are owed.
If this were the case, they would not have gone into admin.

My point was that certain clubs seem to be treated in a more preferential way than others by the RFL. I'm not suggesting that the Bulls should have a 29 point deduction, but just that all clubs should be treated in the same way when it comes to transgressing operational rules.

Btw, when did it become mandatory for a club/company to go into administration in order to change ownership?

The situations AREN'T comparable. Wakefield never went into administration. The situations differ completely.

Wakefield needed money for whatever reason - debts/under-capitalised. They sold half their squad and made cuts to cover the shortfall and got out of their hole through nothing but more than hard work.

Bulls went into administration following a period of cuts. They didn't sell any of their players bar one and clearly over-spent budget-wise based on what has been said, hence the need to make such cuts. Regardless of circumstance, the Bulls into admin and broke the rules.

Sadly, I envisage a situation whereby the owners play the 'it wasn't our fault, this was done under previous ownership, we had no choice' card and look to get away with it.

It isn't fair to other clubs around them that have paid their bills, stuck to budgets and not spent money massively above and beyond what they didn't have. Therefore, it is only fair that a points deduction be given, however, I can only see it being to appease the other clubs. On the flip side, it won't be a significant penalty as to hinder the Bulls too much and also to take sympathy with the new owners and so they'll probably get a 2 point deduction as a slap on the wrist.

That said, they should be getting the full weight of the operational rules given that it's the second administration in as many years.

The new board of directors tried buying the club BEFORE admin. Unfortunately Khan played hard ball and him and the new directors are taking legal action against each other as far as i am aware as well as Ryan Whitcut. An agreement was in place for the new directors to take over BEFORE admin until Khan changed his mind. As i understand it the RFL have been involved in these talks the whole time. There aren't some devious dirty hand tactics to avoid paying off debts.

I hope we pay off as much debt as possible. If not 6 point penalty, 4 points if we pay off some of the debt.

' Hardball ' meaning he wanted some money back?

So who put the club into admin?

If it was Mark Moore and co then surely that would indicate that the club had changed hands before admin? Otherwise, surely it would have been the decision of OK, as he technically still owned the club.

It was the security firm who whitcut took a loan out with (which, according to reports was without oks knowledge) and have a 1% stake in Bradford as backing for the loan. Aka it was a royal mess up by the previous regime, but they didn't put it in administration, and the new regime bought them from the administrators.

Quote ="Fully"The situations AREN'T comparable. Wakefield never went into administration. The situations differ completely. Wakefield needed money for whatever reason - debts/under-capitalised. They sold half their squad and made cuts to cover the shortfall and got out of their hole through nothing but more than hard work. Bulls went into administration following a period of cuts. They didn't sell any of their players bar one and clearly over-spent budget-wise based on what has been said, hence the need to make such cuts. Regardless of circumstance, the Bulls into admin and broke the rules. Sadly, I envisage a situation whereby the owners play the 'it wasn't our fault, this was done under previous ownership, we had no choice' card and look to get away with it. It isn't fair to other clubs around them that have paid their bills, stuck to budgets and not spent money massively above and beyond what they didn't have. Therefore, it is only fair that a points deduction be given, however, I can only see it being to appease the other clubs. On the flip side, it won't be a significant penalty as to hinder the Bulls too much and also to take sympathy with the new owners and so they'll probably get a 2 point deduction as a slap on the wrist. That said, they should be getting the full weight of the operational rules given that it's the second administration in as many years.'" www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadw ... istration/ Not what it says here ... Interesting no one was calling for wakefields license to be auctioned off then (at least in Wakefield) Hence yes, you were in administration, so Wakefield should have been handed the maximum penalty in the operational rules? What about crusaders? (They also got 6 and arguably but the game in much bigger disrepute ... )

Quote ="Fully"The situations AREN'T comparable. Wakefield never went into administration. The situations differ completely. Wakefield needed money for whatever reason - debts/under-capitalised. They sold half their squad and made cuts to cover the shortfall and got out of their hole through nothing but more than hard work. Bulls went into administration following a period of cuts. They didn't sell any of their players bar one and clearly over-spent budget-wise based on what has been said, hence the need to make such cuts. Regardless of circumstance, the Bulls into admin and broke the rules. Sadly, I envisage a situation whereby the owners play the 'it wasn't our fault, this was done under previous ownership, we had no choice' card and look to get away with it. It isn't fair to other clubs around them that have paid their bills, stuck to budgets and not spent money massively above and beyond what they didn't have. Therefore, it is only fair that a points deduction be given, however, I can only see it being to appease the other clubs. On the flip side, it won't be a significant penalty as to hinder the Bulls too much and also to take sympathy with the new owners and so they'll probably get a 2 point deduction as a slap on the wrist. That said, they should be getting the full weight of the operational rules given that it's the second administration in as many years.'" www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadw ... istration/ Not what it says here ... Interesting no one was calling for wakefields license to be auctioned off then (at least in Wakefield) Hence yes, you were in administration, so Wakefield should have been handed the maximum penalty in the operational rules? What about crusaders? (They also got 6 and arguably but the game in much bigger disrepute ... )