Probably, but don't remember really. However if you asked me in twenty years time which clubs do I remember being in trouble in the past. The Bradford debacle will be top of the list. Actually we might all have forgotten about RL in twenty years time the way things are going. There are currently two clubs in SL who have a net worth of around =#FF0000-£10million

Nothing there for me to disagree with. Crucially though they are all appointed to carry out a specific task with clear terms of reference that do not require them to consider the consequences their decisions may have on other aspects of the appointers operations. Staying with the example of the RFL disciplinary its why they use ex referees rather than current ones, why they appoint chairs with a legal background, who do no other work for them, rather than use the in house legal team and Its why they can be described as independent in the commonly understood sense of the word.

If the test for independence is simply, are you being paid and have you been appointed, nobody will ever pass it and we may as well have left Jeremy Hunt to get on with deciding what nice chaps the Murdochs are. We could have saved a fortune and not taken up the valuable time of Leveson, Jay et al..





I responded originally to a poster who described a scenario where a sum of money beyond this years entitlements had already been paid to Bradford, it suggested that an agreement to deduct an equivalent amount from next years SL entitlements had been included as part of the overall sale price but that no such deduction would or could be made if Bradford were not in SL next year. I said, simply, [ushould that be the case[/u an apparently clear conflict of interests would exist, with a minor moderation I stand by that. I don't suggest the scenario described has the RFL board having a preferred outcome but it does have a clear financial benefit if Bradford stay in.

The one supposition I can now see I am making is that some or all of those charged with making the decision would be sufficiently senior to have an interest in or responsibility for the financial performance of the RFL.

So you're criticism of the independence is that the RFL consider the entire impact of a decision on the game as a whole, and not simply a decision purely on the narrow, immediate, issue at hand, you want any body which makes a decision within our game, to make a decision on one part of the game and not consider if it is disproportionally damaging for the another part? Frankly the fact the RFL can take a high level overview for the entire structure, as well as looking at the narrow frame of a specific question is a good thing if anything.

If something as important as government can, within it, have three branches which are necessarily independent, even though they are paid and appointed by the state, why cant the game of RL have an independent RFL board, entrusted by SL (Europe) ltd to independently administer a licence application for the joining of SL?

No, you are supposing the RFL, have a preffered outcome for applications to join SL (europe) ltd and you still are.

You would sound less disingenous if Wakefield and Widnes went pop 20 years ago, rather than 1 year ago and 5 years ago.

If you are going to forget about it in a year like you have Wakefield, it makes you wonder what you are getting yourself into such a tizzy about.

If you are going to specifically remember this incident in 20 years, having forgotten about Wakefield after only one year, we would have to wonder why that would be, and probably question whether there was some kind of bias at play.

There is a slight difference between Widnes' & Wakefield's position compared to Bradford, with Bradford it seems not attempting to pay off the debts they owe. I think that may be why Bradford's situation should be remembered

Were you under the impression that Wakefield and Widnes paid off their debts?

Yes. What exact level of payment back I don't know, do you believe they didn't pay any debts at all?

Andrew Glover did pay off some of the debts the old company owed, which lead to a four point deduction rather than the standard six. I’m not party to how much he paid off, others may be.

No, not at all, Neither was i under the impression that eithe Mr Glover, or Mr O'connor stepped in to pay off debts rather than buy a club.

The only material differences between Wakefields administration and Bradfords administration are the time it took, and the time of year it happened.

He did pay off some, others went unpaid. And he did it to get a lower deduction and benefit his club, not out of some altruistic sense of moral judgement which lead him to over pay for a club in administration.

From memory the amount paid for Wakefield by Mr Glover was very very low, in the tens rather than hundreds of thousands, he did buy it for the lowest price he could, not for the value of outstanding debt.

That isnt a criticism of him

You might want to check who appoints the 'independent' chairman and members of the panel. You might also want to check how cases are actually referred to the panel in the first place.

The disciplinary is independent in name only.


Exactly what point? That the governing body of a sport should somehow not be involved in an important aspect of running that sport? What possible 'conflict of interest' could exist? And the three non-executive members are just as independent as the disciplinary panel that you seem so enamoured of.

All your posts share the same basic assumption - that the RFL are not to be trusted under any circumstances. You're entitled to hold such an opinion but the problem is it then affects the logic of your arguments.

Are you saying that the buy-out of Wakefield was not creditor approved?

Just looked it up - it seems it wasn't creditor approved, and Mr Glover repaid some of the debt from a sense of honour.

Right, I withdraw my accusations of bias.

It wasnt a CVA, it went through the same process as Bradford, with a new company being formed, buying the assets of the old one, and the old one being liquidated.

I don't know whether to be more or less appalled. I suppose being [iconsistently[/i weak is better?
Hmmm, yep, it is.

Bradford have to stay then I guess - which is convenient, at least.

Licensing is still poop though - can't believe it took me this long to notice.

Why the suggestions of the mini-round then? straw that bent the camel's back? The obvious Rangers comparison?

Blanket apology for drawing false distinctions. Grudging thanks to Smokey for the correction. Sickening.

Im not sure it is weakness, its just the RFL avoiding responsibility for something which, to be honest, isnt their responsibility. The tax man isnt helping to govern RL, im not sure the RFL need to be helping recover tax.
It isnt down to licensing that either Wakefield or Bradford went pop. Both were down to bad management. Whatever system we put in place, we cant legislate against idiocy. Franchising isnt about stopping idiots being idiots. Yes it should make it easier for us to recognise them earlier, and deal with them earlier, and it that respect it hasnt been a benefit, but thats not the only reason we have it. We have it so clubs can build, so that clubs arent demolished after 1 bad season. So that clubs like Wakefield can build, can grow, can look to the top rather than the bottom.


There wasnt a need. It was a matter of months between Wakefield coming out of admin and the full franchising round. Like a modern day jesus, im just trying to educate the masses, one at a time

That isn't my problem - I've never until this point been passionately anti-licensing. But I'm now confronted with a situation that makes no sense. Your system, while it has drawbacks (as they all do), is at least honest about what it is. But it differs from how licensing was represented.
The situation we have were the assessment is made to a very large extent on the business, but the licence is effectively awarded to a seperate ongoing entity, the club, is bizarre in these circumstances.
In some ways we're both satisfied with [ifranchising[/i - it's your preferred system and for me at least everyone knows where they stand, though they may be understandably unhappy about in some cases.




Good point.

Let’s just hope you get the same comeuppance

.

I have lived my life thinking you cannot polish a turd - Smokey your efforts to prove me wrong are outstanding.

Whatever happened to Saddams PR man?

He paid 30k for the club I believe and if I remember correctly he mentioned on the Supporters evening that alot of the creditors he'd paid off because we were still using many of the companies that were previously owed money by the club..

When is the verdict in s league or out s league, its got to be told soon now would be a good time if its out, it will give the team to replace them some chance

Does that count for HKR as well? On shakey ground along with Salford and Cas by all accounts...

I posted the financials from SL clubs some time back, 80% of the SL clubs are on very shakey ground! Most are operating on losses of 250-500k a year.

Broncos losses are considerably more than that

The story in yesterday's T&A confirming that the new owners have been given RFL membership said that the decision on the Bulls SL future will happen before the end of the week.

Who cares about the Bulls saga now that there's a new rag doll to throw about.

So, Hulll KR's directors want out. What's all that about then