It's my understanding that the RFL sanction for Administration is 6pts, not 0 to 6 pts!

-6pts is the starting point, the behaviour of the new owners towards paying creditors can see the -6pts retrospectively reduced to -4pts. What's so hard to understand?

I never mentioned HMRC or any other creditors apart from the two I know, it's as safe to assume they were all paid immediately as it is to assume they waited 4 weeks. The fact is we don't know and there's no reason why we should know. However, in the case of Wakefield we know that the RFL were satisfied that the creditors were or would be paid and were therefore happy to reduce Wakefields Administration penalty from -6pts to -4pts. Maybe Andrew Glover placed funds intended for creditors in an ESCROW acct, maybe he bank transferred the money to each creditor while Nigel Wood peeked over his shoulder.

What you seem incapable of grasping is that the precedent for an insolvency event like Administration is set and it dictates a 6 point deduction immediately and, as I said earlier, the new owners can see that retrospectively reduced to 4 points if, IF they can satisfy the RFL that they have paid a significant amount of the previous owners debt off!

Your understanding is wrong...unless you can link or post the actual RFL Bye-Law of course...

I can quote Wakefield, Crusaders and Bradford as 3 clubs who have all been subject to that sanction and in Wakefields case the subsequent reduction to 4pts

Can you quote me recent cases where a SL team has entered Administration and hasn't been subjected the that sanction.

So you cannot or are unwilling to, quote the relevant RFL Bye-Law which will back up both yours and Wooden Stands assertion of an automatic penalty....
Circles again bud.

Seeya.

FFS!
You're in denial!

Show us where it says any of this in the Operational Rules?

I do not for one second believe those of the Wakey creditors who were paid off were paid "immediately".

My understanding, btw, was that it was that it was a relatively small proportion of the total value who WERE paid, but that was only third-hand hence me asking - again - for the actual numbers - and, now, dates of payment - that so many seem to be so sure of? I really WOULD like to know.

You just can't seem to grasp that you are demanding different treatment for the Bulls now than was the case for Wakey. Or, at the very best, you totally lack ANY of the necessary information required for ANY of us to make a more informed judgment.

No.

You are making statements that you cannot substantiate.

See my last post!

Nah, Yorkshire...

Which statement, the one where the last 3 clubs to enter administration were deducted 6pts or the one where I state that a precedent has been set?

On second thoughts, don't bother. . . Bradford haven't really been in Adminstration, they don't have any creditors in fact their still World Club Champions and SL Grand Final winners..wake up fella!

Can you quote me how much of the creditors each one of those clubs' new owners paid off? For Bulls it was zero. How much for the others, please? 1%? 5%? 10%? 50%? We know it was not 100%.

If you think it should be 6pts administration, reduced to 4pts if creditors paid off, what % of creditors should that be? if owner A pays off 1% of the creditors, owner B pays off 10%, and owner C pays 100% off why should owner C receive no additional mitigation for that than diod owner A? If he does NOT receive any mitigation, why the fekk would he pay off more creditors than the bare minimum? indeed, why would he pay any off at ALL? For the sake of 2 points, keep the cash in your pocket and spend it on players!

Why can you not see your logic is false, and makes no sense?

As Adeybull has suggested....you are making claims you cannot substantiate. First you say six points then say well, it could be 4...And you demand the RFL do this without even bothering to find out whether the sanction is appropiate and fair.

You mean the current Bradford model!

As for the false logic that's laughable!

As a matter of interest what penalty do you think is fair for Bradford Bulls insolvency, failure to pay creditors, staff losing their livelihood, players being asked to take pay cuts, bringing the game into disrepute etc...

God just wish the RFL would hurry up and dish out the penalty to the Bulls for going into Admin twice…..

Hellooo
Thought you'd left?

I just want the RFL to act with an even hand and treat Bradford Bulls and their insolvency event in the same way they've treated other clubs.

What's to find out?
Bradford went into Administration didn't they, or dd I dream that bit.

The current penalty deduction for having an Administration Order issued is 3 wins (ie 6 points in SL and 9 points for Championships' clubs). Can be mitigated for paying off some creditors. But this is not codified - it's at the subjective discretion of the RFL board**. Would be better if there were a clearly laid down requirement for the future. www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/j ... nt-penalty : Bradford received the maximum penalty laid down in the RFL's operational rules. The RFL board of directors exercised some flexibility by docking Wakefield and Crusaders four points when they entered administration on the eve of the 2011 season after taking into account the new owners' willingness to pay off some of the debts to creditors. "We expected a deduction of points by the RFL and of course we accept that penalty," said Bradford's interim chief executive Gary Tasker. "We are not yet in a position to be able to offer any recompense to our creditors and, as such, a six-point deduction was what we expected. " **See the attached extract from the RFL's Articles of Association (of which the operational rules are a part) 4.7 In the event of a member ceasing to be a member upon notice from the Company by virtue of Acquisition, Change of Control or Insolvency Event, the Board, at its absolute discretion, shall have the right to readmit the member or admit a new member as a member on any terms as it sees fit, which for the avoidance of doubt, may include financial, administrative and/or sporting sanctions. In the event of membership continuing the Board may determine that membership shall be deemed to continue to subsist as if the member had not ceased to be a member at all. The Board will from time to time set out policy for the exercise of its discretion but is not bound by such policy or precedent decided under such policy or previous policy and the Board shall be entitled to amend any policy with immediate effect.

The current penalty deduction for having an Administration Order issued is 3 wins (ie 6 points in SL and 9 points for Championships' clubs). Can be mitigated for paying off some creditors. But this is not codified - it's at the subjective discretion of the RFL board**. Would be better if there were a clearly laid down requirement for the future. www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/j ... nt-penalty : Bradford received the maximum penalty laid down in the RFL's operational rules. The RFL board of directors exercised some flexibility by docking Wakefield and Crusaders four points when they entered administration on the eve of the 2011 season after taking into account the new owners' willingness to pay off some of the debts to creditors. "We expected a deduction of points by the RFL and of course we accept that penalty," said Bradford's interim chief executive Gary Tasker. "We are not yet in a position to be able to offer any recompense to our creditors and, as such, a six-point deduction was what we expected. " **See the attached extract from the RFL's Articles of Association (of which the operational rules are a part) 4.7 In the event of a member ceasing to be a member upon notice from the Company by virtue of Acquisition, Change of Control or Insolvency Event, the Board, at its absolute discretion, shall have the right to readmit the member or admit a new member as a member on any terms as it sees fit, which for the avoidance of doubt, may include financial, administrative and/or sporting sanctions. In the event of membership continuing the Board may determine that membership shall be deemed to continue to subsist as if the member had not ceased to be a member at all. The Board will from time to time set out policy for the exercise of its discretion but is not bound by such policy or precedent decided under such policy or previous policy and the Board shall be entitled to amend any policy with immediate effect.

except the maximum penalty is no longer laid down in the operational rules. Unless you would care to post the link to prove otherwise? It used to be more specific, its not now.

Quote ="Wooden Stand"The current penalty deduction for having an Administration Order issued is 3 wins (ie 6 points in SL and 9 points for Championships' clubs). Can be mitigated for paying off some creditors. But this is not codified - it's at the subjective discretion of the RFL board. Would be better if there were a clearly laid down requirement for the future. www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/j ... nt-penalty : Bradford received the maximum penalty laid down in the RFL's operational rules. The RFL board of directors exercised some flexibility by docking Wakefield and Crusaders four points when they entered administration on the eve of the 2011 season after taking into account the new owners' willingness to pay off some of the debts to creditors. "We expected a deduction of points by the RFL and of course we accept that penalty," said Bradford's interim chief executive Gary Tasker. "We are not yet in a position to be able to offer any recompense to our creditors and, as such, a six-point deduction was what we expected. "'" Wow! Thanks Wooden Stand!

Quote ="Wooden Stand"The current penalty deduction for having an Administration Order issued is 3 wins (ie 6 points in SL and 9 points for Championships' clubs). Can be mitigated for paying off some creditors. But this is not codified - it's at the subjective discretion of the RFL board. Would be better if there were a clearly laid down requirement for the future. www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/j ... nt-penalty : Bradford received the maximum penalty laid down in the RFL's operational rules. The RFL board of directors exercised some flexibility by docking Wakefield and Crusaders four points when they entered administration on the eve of the 2011 season after taking into account the new owners' willingness to pay off some of the debts to creditors. "We expected a deduction of points by the RFL and of course we accept that penalty," said Bradford's interim chief executive Gary Tasker. "We are not yet in a position to be able to offer any recompense to our creditors and, as such, a six-point deduction was what we expected. "'" Wow! Thanks Wooden Stand!

Like I said, you're in denial but it's worse than I thought!

Assuming you actualy think that Bradford have done something (anything) wrong
What do you beleive should be the penalty?

Its RLFans bud...the Hotel California on the internetz...and 'sides, I was just checking you were still awake




So do I...


Dunno bud, you're not even sure what the automatic sanction should be or on what page/ paragraph it is to be found on in the Bye-Laws.

[url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cacheicon_surprised.gifBAvWV6AMN4J:www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/5053+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ukLINK[/url

RFL introduce insolvency rules
26th of February 2006

The RFL has introduced new rules relating to professional clubs who undertake acts of insolvency.

Following the agreement of the RFL Council and a change in the sport's Operational rules, the new regulations will apply at both engage Super League and LHF National League level with immediate effect.

Any club undertaking an act of insolvency will now face an automatic deduction of six competition points.

If the act of insolvency occurs during the season, the deduction will apply with immediate effect. If the insolvency occurs in the close season period, the deduction would apply to the next League campaign.

The RFL's Director of Finance and Chief Operating Officer, Nigel Wood, said: ‚"Having reviewed the Rules in respect of club insolvency it was widely felt that some punitive measure needed to be imposed on clubs, who it could be argued, had obtained a competitive advantage over their rivals as a consequence of unaffordable overspending.

"The game unanimously supports the imposition of a points deduction which will address this imbalance."

Also, in a further proactive step to improve club financial management, all engage Super League and LHF National League clubs will now be required to regularly demonstrate to the RFL that their statutory financial responsibilities are being carried out with due probity.

Wood added: ‚"The new rules are intended to provide an early warning system in respect of clubs falling into arrears with their statutory obligations.

"Whilst these new regulations cannot guarantee that clubs will never again face financial difficulties, at least they provide for the possibility of an earlier intervention."

Far far from it fella, I'm absolutely certain of what the punishment should be, I've stated it a number of times, pointed out the precedent and named examples. I've been consistent throughout the whole debate going back a number of weeks. Even when others were calling for Bradford to be demoted I maintained that that wasn't what I wanted as despite Wakefield apparently being threatened with such there actualy wasn't a precedent for it.

I asked earlier, can you name me a recent example of a Super League Club entering Administration and NOT initially being deducted 6 competition points?

Thank you William Eve

Except...those regulations are no longer in the Operational Rules.

They were removed in a subsequent update.

The part re financial obligations - most specifically, ensuring HMRC is paid on time - remains, and has been beefed up a bit IIRC.

Go check them out on the RFL website.

btw. Where was the bit in those rules about mitigation of penalty, as happened with Wakey?