 |
| 
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 6858 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2009 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2019 | Nov 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadwick-lawrence-solicitors/wakefield-wildcats-exit-administration/
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 ... )'"
If i'm understanding things right,aren't these new operational rule that have been brought in, precisely because of Wakey in 2011 and Bradford 2012? | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 8487 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2020 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadwick-lawrence-solicitors/wakefield-wildcats-exit-administration/
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 ... )'"
That link is referring to Wakefield's administration of beginning 2012. Prior to Bradford's last administration.
That is not what happened earlier in 2013, which I believe is what you are referring to.
Wakefield were given a penalty of 4 points for the above admin, as Bradford were given 6. Wakefield chose to honour some debts under the change of ownership and received a lesser penalty as a result. Bradford didn't, hence 6. Crusaders honoured some creditors so they got four points - not six.
Wakefield of 2013 never went into admin and they - to this day- remain under the ownership of Spirit of 1873 Ltd, the same company that bought the club from administration a couple of years ago.
The only way Bulls would - and should - get away with a penalty is if they honour all the debts. However, why go into administration if that was the case. Therefore, a 2 point penalty should suffice - clubs can't state they weren't punished (only not punished enough) and Bulls aren't hamstrung.
Fair is fair and there should be no favouritism. Otherwise, I can envisage a vast rift between some clubs and others. That wouldn't be good for the sport on the back of a World Cup. We've had too much damage and administration again only drags up the dirt we've done so well to get rid of. | | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5214 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2006 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2024 | Sep 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Fully"That link is referring to Wakefield's administration of beginning 2012. Prior to Bradford's last administration.
That is not what happened earlier in 2013, which I believe is what you are referring to.
Wakefield were given a penalty of 4 points for the above admin, as Bradford were given 6.'"
The time Wakefield did enter administration was what I was alluding to (or so I believed.) Wakefield neither entered administration nor received a points reduction for any of the goings on over the off season (or I've missed a dramatically huge piece of news!) my apologies for any confusion, my point was merely 6 points is the precedent for entering administration - and unless there's anything to suggest that this was more severe, there's nothing to suggest there will be a more severe punishment.
There are a lot of arguments to suggest Bradford should of followed the path Wakefield took this winter, but without full details, none of us can really make a like for like judgement. A lot of Wakefield fans seem to be calling for a greater than 6 point deduction (which whilst understandable is a somewhat selfish view as it aids them greatly) - but they have been in this boat too, and should MC (who I've gained a lot of respect for reading his posts on here) have been someone else, could of been in a similar position themselves (and almost were up to a point)
I'm not arguing that Bradford shouldn't get a points deduction, merely that it should be in line with those that have happened previously. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5214 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2006 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2024 | Sep 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="j.c"If i'm understanding things right,aren't these new operational rule that have been brought in, precisely because of Wakey in 2011 and Bradford 2012?'"
I have no idea - I recent through all the proposals yesterday (because I'm cool) now we have some figures to work with to see precisely who would be getting how much compared to now. I don't remember seeing anything about more substantial penalties (merely that they should be considered as far more severe events) certainly no figures for points deductions or the like - but even so would those rules not come into place in 2015? | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 8487 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2020 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"The time Wakefield did enter administration was what I was alluding to (or so I believed.) Wakefield neither entered administration nor received a points reduction for any of the goings on over the off season (or I've missed a dramatically huge piece of news!) my apologies for any confusion, my point was merely 6 points is the precedent for entering administration - and unless there's anything to suggest that this was more severe, there's nothing to suggest there will be a more severe punishment.
There are a lot of arguments to suggest Bradford should of followed the path Wakefield took this winter, but without full details, none of us can really make a like for like judgement. A lot of Wakefield fans seem to be calling for a greater than 6 point deduction (which whilst understandable is a somewhat selfish view as it aids them greatly) - but they have been in this boat too, and should MC (who I've gained a lot of respect for reading his posts on here) have been someone else, could of been in a similar position themselves (and almost were up to a point)
I'm not arguing that Bradford shouldn't get a points deduction, merely that it should be in line with those that have happened previously.'"
My apologies - it seemed like you were comparing the two situations between Wakey and Bulls over last few months.
In term of the points deduction, I think all clubs should be treated equally and with consistency. IMO, any form of insolvency should be met with a penalty regardless of circumstance because there's always guaranteed to be someone missing out, somewhere, whether it's a previous owner or a sponsor, or a creditor.
In the case of OK, he came in and bought the club and for whatever reason loaned the club money. Perhaps he expected more from the Bulls fans for whatever reason; clearly it didn't work and so to cover his back from going into a black hole he secured a loan to the club in order for him to get his money back as and when. Whether this ties into the club getting back to full Sky money would be interesting.
Either way, the new owners now don't want to pay that loan clearly seeing it as causing issues for the club. I don't agree with that - regardless of what else has happened. OK is entitled to protect his investment - see Directors' loans elsewhere. I'd be shocked if Cas went into admin to get rid of loans to the club made by JF. Although, I guess there's a difference in that we own a major asset in our ground, to which the loans are secured.
In this sense, they are starting with a bank balance of zero and benefit from losing that historic debt (no repayments to be made). From reading the various threads, I kind of get the points being made by Bulls fans but I still don't believe it makes it right by any stretch of imagination. Not when other clubs play by the rules (why should Cas, Widnes et al) start level with a club that over-spent?
In terms of penalties dished out, again, paying back creditors is a significant part of what penalty a club gets. Pay nothing - get highest penalty, pay some get a lesser penalty. It's for that reason I've compromised and said a 2 pt pen should be fair.
In the Policy Review document it states this:
Quote "It is further recognised that those clubs who do undertake an Insolvency Event (and accordingly “drop off” debt) have secured a competitive advantage over their rivals which demands that some level of sanction continues to be imposed."'"
OK's loan is a debt - Bulls are doing precisely that.
Under the new proposals it is proposed to:
Quote The current maximum sporting sanction, following an Insolvency Event, of 6 Super League/9 Championship points should be increased to 12 Super League/18 Championship points. Board discretion to reduce this penalty on application from a club should be removed.'"
media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Policy%2 ... 202013.pdf |
|
Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"The time Wakefield did enter administration was what I was alluding to (or so I believed.) Wakefield neither entered administration nor received a points reduction for any of the goings on over the off season (or I've missed a dramatically huge piece of news!) my apologies for any confusion, my point was merely 6 points is the precedent for entering administration - and unless there's anything to suggest that this was more severe, there's nothing to suggest there will be a more severe punishment.
There are a lot of arguments to suggest Bradford should of followed the path Wakefield took this winter, but without full details, none of us can really make a like for like judgement. A lot of Wakefield fans seem to be calling for a greater than 6 point deduction (which whilst understandable is a somewhat selfish view as it aids them greatly) - but they have been in this boat too, and should MC (who I've gained a lot of respect for reading his posts on here) have been someone else, could of been in a similar position themselves (and almost were up to a point)
I'm not arguing that Bradford shouldn't get a points deduction, merely that it should be in line with those that have happened previously.'"
My apologies - it seemed like you were comparing the two situations between Wakey and Bulls over last few months.
In term of the points deduction, I think all clubs should be treated equally and with consistency. IMO, any form of insolvency should be met with a penalty regardless of circumstance because there's always guaranteed to be someone missing out, somewhere, whether it's a previous owner or a sponsor, or a creditor.
In the case of OK, he came in and bought the club and for whatever reason loaned the club money. Perhaps he expected more from the Bulls fans for whatever reason; clearly it didn't work and so to cover his back from going into a black hole he secured a loan to the club in order for him to get his money back as and when. Whether this ties into the club getting back to full Sky money would be interesting.
Either way, the new owners now don't want to pay that loan clearly seeing it as causing issues for the club. I don't agree with that - regardless of what else has happened. OK is entitled to protect his investment - see Directors' loans elsewhere. I'd be shocked if Cas went into admin to get rid of loans to the club made by JF. Although, I guess there's a difference in that we own a major asset in our ground, to which the loans are secured.
In this sense, they are starting with a bank balance of zero and benefit from losing that historic debt (no repayments to be made). From reading the various threads, I kind of get the points being made by Bulls fans but I still don't believe it makes it right by any stretch of imagination. Not when other clubs play by the rules (why should Cas, Widnes et al) start level with a club that over-spent?
In terms of penalties dished out, again, paying back creditors is a significant part of what penalty a club gets. Pay nothing - get highest penalty, pay some get a lesser penalty. It's for that reason I've compromised and said a 2 pt pen should be fair.
In the Policy Review document it states this:
Quote "It is further recognised that those clubs who do undertake an Insolvency Event (and accordingly “drop off” debt) have secured a competitive advantage over their rivals which demands that some level of sanction continues to be imposed."'"
OK's loan is a debt - Bulls are doing precisely that.
Under the new proposals it is proposed to:
Quote The current maximum sporting sanction, following an Insolvency Event, of 6 Super League/9 Championship points should be increased to 12 Super League/18 Championship points. Board discretion to reduce this penalty on application from a club should be removed.'"
media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Policy%2 ... 202013.pdf | |
|
| | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 659 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2014 | Feb 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadwick-lawrence-solicitors/wakefield-wildcats-exit-administration/
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 ... )'"
Irrespective of what it says there, in actual fact Wakefield had 6 points deducted which was reduced to 4pts because Spirit of 1873 paid off a very large chunk of the money owed to creditors
This time around Wakefield, while still under the ownership of Andrew Glover and with CEO James Elston still running things (into the ground), were poised to enter Administration for a second time when the RFL intervened and informed Wakefield that they'd be demoted from SL down to Championship 1 if they went ahead with the Administration.
This prompted a Boardroom takeover and eventually saw Andrew Glover and James Elston leave, new Chairman Michael Carter then delivered the devastating news to Trinity supporters. A £400K defecit eventually became £600K, to balance the books approximately 28 of 32 back room staff lost their jobs. This was coupled with the sale or transfer of a whole host of prominent 1st choice and junior players.
Kyle Amor, Justin Poore, Tim Smith, Ben Cockayne, Oliver Wilkes, Paul Aiton, Frankie Mariano, Liam Kaye, Danny Cowling. We also relinquished our contractual hold on Chris Tuson who we'd signed from Wigan.
The end result of this was that Wakefield balanced the books and avoided Administration whilest also honouring their obligations to all creditors. The action has come at great cost with us having decimated our Super League team resulting in a sharp decline in season ticket sales and almost everyone tipping us for relegation.
Contrast this with how Bradford have behaved and then say that it's fair if they avoid punishment for their actions! | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 7177 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2011 | 14 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Sesquipedalian"Irrespective of what it says there, in actual fact Wakefield had 6 points deducted which was reduced to 4pts because Spirit of 1873 paid off a very large chunk of the money owed to creditors
This time around Wakefield, while still under the ownership of Andrew Glover and with CEO James Elston still running things (into the ground), were poised to enter Administration for a second time when the RFL intervened and informed Wakefield that they'd be demoted from SL down to Championship 1 if they went ahead with the Administration.
This prompted a Boardroom takeover and eventually saw Andrew Glover and James Elston leave, new Chairman Michael Carter then delivered the devastating news to Trinity supporters. A £400K defecit eventually became £600K, to balance the books approximately 28 of 32 back room staff lost their jobs. This was coupled with the sale or transfer of a whole host of prominent 1st choice and junior players.
Kyle Amor, Justin Poore, Tim Smith, Ben Cockayne, Oliver Wilkes, Paul Aiton, Frankie Mariano, Liam Kaye, Danny Cowling. We also relinquished our contractual hold on Chris Tuson who we'd signed from Wigan.
The end result of this was that Wakefield balanced the books and avoided Administration whilest also honouring their obligations to all creditors. The action has come at great cost with us having decimated our Super League team resulting in a sharp decline in season ticket sales and almost everyone tipping us for relegation.
Contrast this with how Bradford have behaved and then say that it's fair if they avoid punishment for their actions!'"
But Bradford did try to cut their cloth . A lot if wage cuts from top to bottom, redundencies, reduced hours. We lost around 4 of our best players and few others. Yes Carvell has come in and will be a top earner. I can't see the rest been on as much money as the ones who left. We will defintely be spending less than last year! Bradford didn't deliberately go into admin, like I've said previously the new owners said rigt from the off before Xmas that they needed to cut £400k. They said players could leave if they chose.
Unfortunately thy haven't been able to reach an agreement to purchase the club and the security firm which has 1 of 100 shares in the club called in the admin blokes to get the deal done.
I still think we Deseve a points deduction but I dont believe we deliberately chose to go into admin to wipe off Debts. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 2274 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2011 | 13 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| So Bradford will be paying HMRC to avoid the winding up order and Bradford council?
No they won't as that historic debt (A considerable sum) is linked to OKBulls, a company that has conveniently been taken in to administration and no longer exists 
No Bradford bulls didn't deliberately go in to administration of course not  | | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|  At this thread,
Interesting isn’t it, that the people we have seen running about criticising franchising and the fact the RFL have used the underlying business as part of a clubs ability to be an SL side, the people who have said for years and years that its only what happens on the pitch that matters, that the only criteria for being SL is winning enough games, that it is wrong for the RFL to interfere in business matters and that business matters shouldn’t dictate which division you are in are the same ones now running about screaming i demand points, relegate them, get rid they haven’t been run well enough as a business to be in SL. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 5086 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2022 | Nov 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Thank you Mr Supercilious!
I think you'll find that what the majority of people who are "running about screaming" want is a governing body that treats all it's member clubs with the same respect and applies the same set of rules to all.
How can anyone justify the governing body allowing/encouraging one club to go into administration whilst punishing others (or threatening to) for doing the same thing. Are we to understand that the RFL are completely against any club going into admin (as they should be IMO) unless it is a decision they have made to protect one of it's favourites - because that's how it appears.
The criticism of franchising was mainly for the same reasons - ie the rules were not consistently applied to all clubs. Franchising would and should have been the solution, not the return to boom/bust of promotion and relegation. But, it had to be applied fairly, consistently and openly. That should apply to all of the RFL's dealings with it's member clubs but it never seems to does it?
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Fordy"Thank you Mr Supercilious!
I think you'll find that what the majority of people who are "running about screaming" want is a governing body that treats all it's member clubs with the same respect and applies the same set of rules to all.
How can anyone justify the governing body allowing/encouraging one club to go into administration whilst punishing others (or threatening to) for doing the same thing. Are we to understand that the RFL are completely against any club going into admin (as they should be IMO) unless it is a decision they have made to protect one of it's favourites - because that's how it appears.
The criticism of franchising was mainly for the same reasons - ie the rules were not consistently applied to all clubs. Franchising would and should have been the solution, not the return to boom/bust of promotion and relegation. But, it had to be applied fairly, consistently and openly. That should apply to all of the RFL's dealings with it's member clubs but it never seems to does it?'"
No-one is justifying anything.
I also wouldn’t put much trust in a rumour that Wakefield were told they would be relegated if they went in to admin, nor would I pay much attention to those trying to paint a picture of hypocrisy between what Wakefield were rumoured to be told would happen in their circumstance, and what may or may not happen with Bradford.
It is your choice how it appears, you are choosing to see ‘favourites’ and you are choosing to see teams being treated differently. You have chosen to believe that Wakefields situation is exactly the same as Bradfords, you have chosen to believe that Bradford are a ‘favourite’ and you are choosing to fit everything around that because it suits you and feeds in to your belief that poor little Wakefield are hard done by. Its nonsense, its typical Rugby League chip on shoulder nonsense. | | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 659 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2014 | Feb 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"No-one is justifying anything.
I also wouldn’t put much trust in a rumour that Wakefield were told they would be relegated if they went in to admin, nor would I pay much attention to those trying to paint a picture of hypocrisy between what Wakefield were rumoured to be told would happen in their circumstance, and what may or may not happen with Bradford.
It is your choice how it appears, you are choosing to see ‘favourites’ and you are choosing to see teams being treated differently. You have chosen to believe that Wakefields situation is exactly the same as Bradfords, you have chosen to believe that Bradford are a ‘favourite’ and you are choosing to fit everything around that because it suits you and feeds in to your belief that poor little Wakefield are hard done by. Its nonsense, its typical Rugby League chip on shoulder nonsense.'"
What utter cods wallop!
No one choosing how this appears, it is what it is and recent actions and decisions by the Bulls and the RFL are what they are. You can choose to ignore it if you want and others can choose not to ignore it but you can't change what's happened and whats happening now.
Wakefields communications with the RFL aren't public knowledge but I highly doubt that the Chairman of Wakefield Trinity would make the statement he did regarding being told we'd be relegated if entering Administration if it hadn't happened. Equally, had he spoken out of turn or lied then I'm pretty sure someone from the RFL would have publicly refuted his claims. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Sesquipedalian"What utter cods wallop!
No one choosing how this appears, it is what it is and recent actions and decisions by the Bulls and the RFL are what they are. You can choose to ignore it if you want and others can choose not to ignore it but you can't change what's happened and whats happening now.
Wakefields communications with the RFL aren't public knowledge but I highly doubt that the Chairman of Wakefield Trinity would make the statement he did regarding being told we'd be relegated if entering Administration if it hadn't happened. Equally, had he spoken out of turn or lied then I'm pretty sure someone from the RFL would have publicly refuted his claims.'"
The chairman of WTW gets no benefit from presenting the RFL or Bradford in a fair light, he gets no benefit from presenting Wakefield as a party treated fairly. There is a big difference between the RFL saying ‘go in to admin and you will be relegated’ and ‘go in to admin and you are risking relegation, and an even bigger difference to ‘go in to admin and if you don’t come out of it properly we may not be able to keep you in SL’. All three can be paraphrased as ‘The RFL threatened to relegate us if we went in to Admin’ which as a statement panders to the chip on shoulder brigade who choose to ignore their clubs failings and the help their club receive, and choose to highlight other clubs failings and the help other clubs receive. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 2274 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2011 | 13 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"The chairman of WTW gets no benefit from presenting the RFL or Bradford in a fair light, he gets no benefit from presenting Wakefield as a party treated fairly. There is a big difference between the RFL saying ‘go in to admin and you will be relegated’ and ‘go in to admin and you are risking relegation, and an even bigger difference to ‘go in to admin and if you don’t come out of it properly we may not be able to keep you in SL’. All three can be paraphrased as ‘The RFL threatened to relegate us if we went in to Admin’ which as a statement panders to the chip on shoulder brigade who choose to ignore their clubs failings and the help their club receive, and choose to highlight other clubs failings and the help other clubs receive.'"
Oh dear | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 6297 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Nov 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"icon_lol.gif At this thread,
Interesting isn’t it, that the people we have seen running about criticising franchising and the fact the RFL have used the underlying business as part of a clubs ability to be an SL side, the people who have said for years and years that its only what happens on the pitch that matters, that the only criteria for being SL is winning enough games, that it is wrong for the RFL to interfere in business matters and that business matters shouldn’t dictate which division you are in are the same ones now running about screaming i demand points, relegate them, get rid they haven’t been run well enough as a business to be in SL.'"
It seems an obvious point, but the financial side of this thing is precisely about what happens on the pitch. Bradford will visit us in three weeks time with a squad they couldn't afford and can only continue to afford because they have adopted a legal mechanism that will result in potentially no sanction, even though the rules say they it should.
As for the Wakefield chairman presenting Bradford or the RFL in whatever light you think he has, the comment about what we were told by the RFL, that administration means relegation. was nothing to do with Bradford but at a fans forum some time ago when discussing the way forward when the change of chairman came about. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 5086 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2022 | Nov 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"No-one is justifying anything.
I also wouldn’t put much trust in a rumour that Wakefield were told they would be relegated if they went in to admin, nor would I pay much attention to those trying to paint a picture of hypocrisy between what Wakefield were rumoured to be told would happen in their circumstance, and what may or may not happen with Bradford.
It is your choice how it appears, you are choosing to see ‘favourites’ and you are choosing to see teams being treated differently. You have chosen to believe that Wakefields situation is exactly the same as Bradfords, you have chosen to believe that Bradford are a ‘favourite’ and you are choosing to fit everything around that because it suits you and feeds in to your belief that poor little Wakefield are hard done by. Its nonsense, its typical Rugby League chip on shoulder nonsense.'"
You're right of course, as you always are (or at least think you are anyway).
I'm choosing to see favourites because I'm not blind.
Did the RFL issue a hands-off notice to other clubs when Wakefield went into administration because if they did I must have missed it.
Did the RFL issue a hands-off notice to other clubs when Bradford went into administration (last time, not this) therefore protecting their playing squad.
Did the RFL "secretly" loan money to Bradford only to have to disclose some cock and bull story when found out and try and justify it by claiming that they had bought Bradford's lease to protect them from predatory developers? Who were these developers? And how exactly could they have done anything with Odsal when Bradford had a lease allowing them to play there for the next however many years?
Bradford have now twice in 2 years been into admin and written off substantial debts whilst retaining a squad they could not afford to pay without making any significant effort to trim that squad. They knew their funding was being halved yet made no effort to reduce the cost of their playing squad accordingly.
You can choose to believe that the RFL don't show favouritism if you want but I suspect that you're in a very small minority. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 659 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2014 | Feb 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="financialtimes"Oh dear
'"
Absolutely! | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 5086 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2022 | Nov 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"The chairman of WTW gets no benefit from presenting the RFL or Bradford in a fair light, he gets no benefit from presenting Wakefield as a party treated fairly. There is a big difference between the RFL saying ‘go in to admin and you will be relegated’ and ‘go in to admin and you are risking relegation, and an even bigger difference to ‘go in to admin and if you don’t come out of it properly we may not be able to keep you in SL’. All three can be paraphrased as ‘The RFL threatened to relegate us if we went in to Admin’ which as a statement panders to the chip on shoulder brigade who choose to ignore their clubs failings and the help their club receive, and choose to highlight other clubs failings and the help other clubs receive.'"
There is a difference between all 3 of those statements yes. However, the statement that our chairman made was long before any sniff of the latest Bull** drifting out of Odsal, and it was that we had been told that if we went into admin we would have to start again in Championship1. That to me is quite specific, it's not a "we may not be able to keep you in SL" or a "you're risking relegation".
I assume that you know better as always and that you were party to the actual discussion that went on. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 659 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2014 | Feb 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"The chairman of WTW gets no benefit from presenting the RFL or Bradford in a fair light, he gets no benefit from presenting Wakefield as a party treated fairly. There is a big difference between the RFL saying ‘go in to admin and you will be relegated’ and ‘go in to admin and you are risking relegation, and an even bigger difference to ‘go in to admin and if you don’t come out of it properly we may not be able to keep you in SL’. All three can be paraphrased as ‘The RFL threatened to relegate us if we went in to Admin’ which as a statement panders to the chip on shoulder brigade who choose to ignore their clubs failings and the help their club receive, and choose to highlight other clubs failings and the help other clubs receive.'"
So the RFL made a statement that was so ambiguous and loose in its message yet the Wakefield club didn't enter Administration and chose to sack almost 30 staff and decimate their Super League squad just in case!
Methinks the RFL message was delivered loud and clear and free from any possibility of misinterpretation hence the drastic actions taken by Wakefield.
Talk about seeing what you want to see. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Slugger McBatt"It seems an obvious point, but the financial side of this thing is precisely about what happens on the pitch. Bradford will visit us in three weeks time with a squad they couldn't afford and can only continue to afford because they have adopted a legal mechanism that will result in potentially no sanction, even though the rules say they it should.
As for the Wakefield chairman presenting Bradford or the RFL in whatever light you think he has, the comment about what we were told by the RFL, that administration means relegation. was nothing to do with Bradford but at a fans forum some time ago when discussing the way forward when the change of chairman came about.'"
Many teams will visit you with a team they cannot afford throughout the year, not just Bradford. If we wanted to have some kind of system which checked a clubs viability and sustainability before allowing them in to SL, then I would be fine with that ( I think a club which has just very nearly gone busts, and has just seen a huge rise in costs for maintaining the stadium with a big loss of capacity might not be on the most solid of ground there, but that’s by the by). But we don’t, we have seen people argue for years that what happens on the pitch is the only important thing. So fine, lets see what happens on the pitch.
Hull KR admit that their current spending on the first team squad isn’t sustainable, they hope it will trigger growth but it isn’t sustainable now, do we dock them points?
And surely considering Bradford have already gone bust, the problem isnt what they are spending now, but what they have already spent. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 2274 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2011 | 13 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"Many teams will visit you with a team they cannot afford throughout the year, not just Bradford. If we wanted to have some kind of system which checked a clubs viability and sustainability before allowing them in to SL, then I would be fine with that ( I think a club which has just very nearly gone busts, and has just seen a huge rise in costs for maintaining the stadium with a big loss of capacity might not be on the most solid of ground there, but that’s by the by). But we don’t, we have seen people argue for years that what happens on the pitch is the only important thing. So fine, lets see what happens on the pitch.
Hull KR admit that their current spending on the first team squad isn’t sustainable, they hope it will trigger growth but it isn’t sustainable now, do we dock them points?
And surely considering Bradford have already gone bust, the problem isnt what they are spending now, but what they have already spent.'"
Nowt like changing the argument to cover one rear end  | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 659 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2014 | Feb 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"Many teams will visit you with a team they cannot afford throughout the year, not just Bradford. If we wanted to have some kind of system which checked a clubs viability and sustainability before allowing them in to SL, then I would be fine with that ( I think a club which has just very nearly gone busts, and has just seen a huge rise in costs for maintaining the stadium with a big loss of capacity might not be on the most solid of ground there, but that’s by the by). But we don’t, we have seen people argue for years that what happens on the pitch is the only important thing. So fine, lets see what happens on the pitch.
Hull KR admit that their current spending on the first team squad isn’t sustainable, they hope it will trigger growth but it isn’t sustainable now, do we dock them points?
And surely considering Bradford have already gone bust, the problem isnt what they are spending now, but what they have already spent.'"
No they won't, many teams will come with a team they might be struggling to afford but they'll find a way or more importantly they'll find a way that doesn't contravene RFL laws, bring the game into disrepute or avoid their responsibilities to the tax man and various suppliers.
If by chance some other club does fall into Administration then they should be punished just like Celtic Crusaders, Wakefield and Bradford. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 3829 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2005 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Sep 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"Many teams will visit you with a team they cannot afford throughout the year, not just Bradford. If we wanted to have some kind of system which checked a clubs viability and sustainability before allowing them in to SL, then I would be fine with that ( I think a club which has just very nearly gone busts, and has just seen a huge rise in costs for maintaining the stadium with a big loss of capacity might not be on the most solid of ground there, but that’s by the by). But we don’t, we have seen people argue for years that what happens on the pitch is the only important thing. So fine, lets see what happens on the pitch.
Hull KR admit that their current spending on the first team squad isn’t sustainable, they hope it will trigger growth but it isn’t sustainable now, do we dock them points?
And surely considering Bradford have already gone bust, the problem isnt what they are spending now, but what they have already spent.'"
You’re right, of course Smokey, however, many clubs have a money man who is prepared to pick up the tab year on year, whereas Bradford just seem to bring in the administrators. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Fordy"You're right of course, as you always are (or at least think you are anyway).
I'm choosing to see favourites because I'm not blind.
Did the RFL issue a hands-off notice to other clubs when Wakefield went into administration because if they did I must have missed it.
Did the RFL issue a hands-off notice to other clubs when Bradford went into administration (last time, not this) therefore protecting their playing squad.
Did the RFL "secretly" loan money to Bradford only to have to disclose some cock and bull story when found out and try and justify it by claiming that they had bought Bradford's lease to protect them from predatory developers? Who were these developers? And how exactly could they have done anything with Odsal when Bradford had a lease allowing them to play there for the next however many years?
Bradford have now twice in 2 years been into admin and written off substantial debts whilst retaining a squad they could not afford to pay without making any significant effort to trim that squad. They knew their funding was being halved yet made no effort to reduce the cost of their playing squad accordingly.
You can choose to believe that the RFL don't show favouritism if you want but I suspect that you're in a very small minority.'"
You are choosing to see favourites because it suits you.
Was the decision on who was sold and kept at Wakefield made by the RFL or Wakefields administrators? Was it pre-season when a squad could be rebuilt, or was it mid-season when it would have affected the wider competition.
Did Wakefield have a stadium which a similar loan could be secured or had their stadium at that point already been used to secure a loan and been forfeited to the BoI? Was this really such a good deal for Bradford? Considering that the loan they got ended up costing them their asset and two years Sky Payments?
You get to the crux of it here, you want Bradford to suffer, you want to see their fans suffer you want them to be punished not in the interests of fairness but for one reason and one reason only, you think it makes your club less likely to be relegated.
I certainly believe I would be in the minority of saying the RFL don’t show favouritism, but Im also very confident that if you asked all the fans who do believe that the RFL show favouritism we would find that the vast majority believed their club was one of the clubs who weren’t a ‘favourite’ and their rivals were a club who were a favourite. Strange coincidence that, its almost like its just a self-serving circular argument . | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="The Devil's Advocate"You’re right, of course Smokey, however, many clubs have a money man who is prepared to pick up the tab year on year, whereas Bradford just seem to bring in the administrators.'"
And many take out loans to cover it, something Bradford will find it much harder to do now, which will limit the amount they can pay, which will limit the players the attract which will limit Bradford on the pitch. If the only thing that matters is whats happening on the pitch, the punishment is built in. | | | |
| |
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2025 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
|
|
At this thread,
