Nice

If the admin was just away of dealing with the OK ownership as some suggest, that would imply that Bulls 2014 have the money to pay all creditors, so it begs the question as to why a 28 day licence has been granted whilst the administrator considers offers from other people.

It also raises the question as to how the bulls 2014 could be allowed to TUPE staff and players if they had not got a watertight deal done.

The reason for going into administration appears to change depending on what particular aspect of the current farce is being defended at that particular moment.......

We seem to be in that state of limbo which is between the initial indignation and anger and the eventual announcement that no points deduction is applicable.

The RFL are well aware that people are angry, they're also well aware that the longer they leave the decision the more people will have become bored and the less furore there'll be at the Bulls lack of punishment.

They think we're all thick!

Actually, it is because other parties appear to have entered the fray as potential new owners. Until who WILL own the club going forward is confirmed, the arrangements for paying the creditors can likewise not be confirmed. So, following the Wakey precedent that penalty is mitigated by creditor payment, one presumes on some sort of scale, any penalty cannot be determined.

Almost certainly, an example of the law of unexpected consequences.

And it is the Bulls, especially the team, who are suffering. Not having a clue where they stand going into the start of the season, with continuing fundamental uncertainty hanging over them.

Someone may be thick, but maybe not the RFL?

...aye, who needs to wait for facts...Burn them!!


It may not be...


Or they could just be making sure that any sanction is fair and appropiate.




must.resist.urge...

I hope the bulls get relegated!

Good point well made.

Have a biscuit.

Does he? Or is that something you just made up in your head?

I believe the precedent was set by Crusaders. Wakefield followed that.

It will be interesting seeing how the players react on Sunday. That could show the underlying feelings at the club. The longer any uncertainty lingers, the worse it will get. Are we now waiting for Lamb to make an official bid?

The problem is that ths situation is much too complicated for many of the dimwits around here, and they can't cope.

The RFL and the Bulls new management haven't forgotten that we play our first game of the season, in SL 2014, on Sunday and both would I'm damn sure like nothing more than some certainty going forward but what even the thick need to realise is this:

The administrator has onerous legal responsibilities and whatever else happens, he ain't going to potentially drop himself in potentially very deep doo doo to be subsequently taken to task for not doing his job properly/diligently and doing the best deal for creditors.

The current new owners are by definitions simply bystanders in all this. Except they have to run the club and pretend all is done and dusted even though it is seemingly far from it.

The RFL have zero power over the administrator or the due legal process. They just run a rugby league competition. In that context if a proposed new owner applies to be passed, what do you expect them to do? They have to follow their own rules and procedures too.

If you are a prospective new owner and want to make a bid, would you make a final bid before you had done as due as possible diligence, and been approved by the RFL?

Yes, it is all an unbelievable mess. But it is neither the current Bulls "owners"/management nor the Bulls fans nor the Bulls players that will be running out onto the pitch come what may on Sunday that are making it so. So having a go at any of them is both stupid and unjustified. Those of you who follow other clubs, just count yourself lucky that all this isn't hanging over your head.

That is the most sensible post on this subject so far

Fair enough.

Same point though. Can someone post up those figures for Wakefield? I specify Wakefield still, because so many of theiir guys posting on here seem to be especially-well informed in all matters relating to this subject. I would imagine they have the figures immediately to hand.

OH dear,
Any need for the last comment!

The precedent for entering Administration is a 6pt deduction, thereafter it may be reduced to a 4pt deduction if a significant amount of the debt to creditors is honoured.

Fact 1, The bulls entered Administration, therefore a 6pt deduction is applicable, there is no debate to be had and that much can and should have been announced.

We may have to wait for the new owner to pay the Bulls creditors before we can mitigate any of the deduction.

We have all the facts required in order to act on current precedents and deduct 6 competition points from the Bulls which is the fair and appropriate punishment sanction.

I don't!

6pts is the correct punishment

Why did Wakefield get 4?

Andn who the fekk set you up as judge and jury about what is fair and appropriate? What are your qualifications?

Hopw long did we wait for Glover to seemingly pay off some creditors before Wakefield's 6 point penalty was mitigated to 4?

Still waiting for those creditor paymebnt details, btw.

The RFL obviously had confirmation of the creditors payments Mr Glover made which is why they reduced Wakefields point deduction from 6 to 4, why should Bradford be treated differently

C'mon Ses lad, you're just going 'round in circles now and I know you're not one of the ppl FA referred to in his earlier post.

In the meantime is there any chance you could help Adeybull and Pie.Warrior in their quest for info about one of Wakefields previous Insolvency Events? What% did they pay back and over what time scale?

I don't know what percentage was paid back or over how long but I do know 2 creditors that were paid back, in full within the first month of Andrew Glover taking over. Macron came to an agreement over their debt, beyond that I can't say but the RFL were sufficiently convinced and reduced the punishment to 4pts.

So, let me get this right.

You don't actually know who were paid what, and when? And, especially, whether HMRC were paid?

It looks like at least two creditors were paid back "within a month" - although not "immediately", but it DOES sound like (quite understandably) the repayments were made up to 4 weeks after the administrator was appointed? And that would make perfect sense, since it would take a while for the creditors list to be finalised and agreed, and all the various creditors contacted and discussions held. Thos of us who have actually worked in insolvency, and gone into insolvent businesses, will fully understand that some time is needed.

As it happens, the RFL took only 7 days to confirm that Wakey's deduction would be 4 points not 6.

So it seems likely that they must have taken into account Glover's intent more than his actually having repaid creditors by the time the RFL decided on the points deduction? Would you not deduce?

Yet, for some inexplicable reason, YOU are totally and completely satisfied that Bulls should be deducted six points NOW. Even though intent to settle with creditors has been expressed right from the start. (And told to me personally, btw). And maybe get some points back once it is known what creditors have actually been settled with?

And, again, we do not yet have any numbers to enable the rest of us to be so totally and absolutely certain that six points - fact - is the correct and appropriate punishment? You clearly have, else you would not have made such an unequivocal statement? And yet you say you do not? And you wonder at people's astonishment?

Well I am sure our readers will be quite perplexed by this apparent contradiction, and seeming double standards and rank hypocrisy? Although they might have little difficulty in concluding why you may be acting as you are.

Haven't the new Bulls owners already been reported in the press as having said that Mr Khan "will not get a penny" of what he is owed?

Not sure what the rules are now, but would agree that they should include for the future:
- go into Administration = immediate 6 point deduction upon the Administration Order being granted

If there was a desire for a related RFL rule about what needs to happen in mitigation to get 2 of the 6 points re-instated, then the RFL should make very clear in advance what that requirement is. Then the 2 points would be re-instated as soon as the club provided evidence that the requirement had been met.

Owner won't get paid as the business he sold had substantial net laibilities and so was largely worthless. Had he put his money in as shares, the issue of repaying him would anyway not arise. The fact that he only loaned money, as owner, should make no difference to the outcome. Substance over legal form.

I actually agree that it would be much more objective if the rule going forward was very much along the lines of what you suggest. Makes a load more sense to me, and I can imagine few who would agrgue with it. I would have a sliding scale of mitigation - say 2pts if you pay off HMRC, 2 pts for the local creditors and 2 pts for anyone else third party. Or some finessed version of that reflecting %ages?

In fact, with the new structure from next year, where relegation should not mean serious risk of oblivion unless you have a wealthy owner, I'd be looking at a bigger maximum penalty.

Going forward. Current rules - whatever they actually are, and with whatever discretion is currently allowed - have to apply until new rules agreed and put in place.

Cheers bud, like others, I am genuinely unaware/ forgotten the circs of your club during 2011 - 12, its good to get somethin other than rhetoric. Thing is(and at the risk of sounding lame(r)) I was kinda shocked to see Bulls fans being referred to as scum on one of the social media sites...Its time to dial back abit and deal in fact rather than rumour and hearsay, regardless of its source.

So we know the RFL sanction for an Insolvency Event can be anything from a 0 to 6 point deduction, depending on intent and coming to agreements with creditors...This view would also be consistent with recent statements by Nigel Wood and Blake Solly.
I’m not sure where the problem is tbh...(So far) The RFL appear to be acting entirely within precedent? No point placing a sanction until all the details are in...they’d only be accused of indecisiveness

.