Link?

Have you never heard of Google? Anyway [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/operational_rules[ihere[/i[/url

Btw, you will note the wording in those old regulations refers to "an act of insolvency". NOT "Administration".

Salford committed an "act of insolvency" recently, by entering into a CVA. Remind me again what their points deduction was?

(btw, IMO the coreect decision was taken there. No brainer).

Wakefield.

They were deducted four points, a week after the administrator was appointed. They were not deducted six points, then had two points restored.

Jeeze Ses, its William Eve AKA little willie....and, as one would expect, its duff info; out if date as well.

Not yet, but give it a week or two


The point im making is that although there is precedence there is no current operational rule that specifies anything. It's all case by case. So If 6 can be reduced to 4, would it also not follow that 6 could be reduced to 4, 2 or 0? Depending upon the specifics of the case and level to which creditors are fecked or not?

To give u some context, I agree we should be dealt with by precedent and depending on the level of creditor payment or not in this case we should receive a points deduction. Because although it's not in the rules, I think it should be as a deterrent, and to be the only club to enter admin, not receive a deduction, and in a relegation year would not sit comfortably with me, no matter what the rules say or don't say.

Common ground and common sense, at last!

My opinion fwiw, you can't completely ignore the Administration even if all the creditors were paid and there'd have to be unbelievable and extenuating circumstances for a points deduction to be less than 4.

An Administration is far more serious than a CVA though or are you conveniently ignoring that

Quote ="Adeybull"Have you never heard of Google? Anyway [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/operational_rules[ihere[/i[/url Btw, you will note the wording in those old regulations refers to "an act of insolvency". NOT "Administration". Salford committed an "act of insolvency" recently, by entering into a CVA. Remind me again what their points deduction was? (btw, IMO the coreect decision was taken there. No brainer).'" Adeybull. I'd suggest you read the RFL's current Articles of Association. The Bye Laws and Operational Rules are part of these Articles. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... onal_rules You'll see 'Insolvency Event' is defined at 4.10 of the Bye Laws. You'll also see (4.7 of the Bye Laws) that these provide that the RFL board can deal with a club suffering an Insolvency Event, such as Administration, in any way it wants. "Make it up as you go along". This is why some are suggesting clearer defined penalties are published in advance for the future to make it all a bit more objective. In the meantime though, the RFL will have to have regard to its previous decisions as they set a precedent (which needs to be broadly followed to avoid potential legal challenge). So, back to precedent. The current penalty for going into Administration is 6 points deduction (but at its discretion, based on the facts of each case, the RFL board can take mitigating or other circumstances into account in imposing a lesser (Wakefield, Crusaders etc) or greater (eg Barrow) penalty).

Quote ="Adeybull"Have you never heard of Google? Anyway [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/operational_rules[ihere[/i[/url Btw, you will note the wording in those old regulations refers to "an act of insolvency". NOT "Administration". Salford committed an "act of insolvency" recently, by entering into a CVA. Remind me again what their points deduction was? (btw, IMO the coreect decision was taken there. No brainer).'" Adeybull. I'd suggest you read the RFL's current Articles of Association. The Bye Laws and Operational Rules are part of these Articles. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... onal_rules You'll see 'Insolvency Event' is defined at 4.10 of the Bye Laws. You'll also see (4.7 of the Bye Laws) that these provide that the RFL board can deal with a club suffering an Insolvency Event, such as Administration, in any way it wants. "Make it up as you go along". This is why some are suggesting clearer defined penalties are published in advance for the future to make it all a bit more objective. In the meantime though, the RFL will have to have regard to its previous decisions as they set a precedent (which needs to be broadly followed to avoid potential legal challenge). So, back to precedent. The current penalty for going into Administration is 6 points deduction (but at its discretion, based on the facts of each case, the RFL board can take mitigating or other circumstances into account in imposing a lesser (Wakefield, Crusaders etc) or greater (eg Barrow) penalty).

Quote ="Wooden Stand"Adeybull. I'd suggest you read the RFL's current Articles of Association. The Bye Laws and Operational Rules are part of these Articles. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... onal_rules You'll see 'Insolvency Event' is defined at 4.10 of the Bye Laws. You'll also see (4.7 of the Bye Laws) that these provide that the RFL board can deal with a club suffering an Insolvency Event, such as Administration, in any way it wants. "Make it up as you go along". This is why some are suggesting clearer defined penalties are published in advance for the future to make it all a bit more objective. In the meantime though, the RFL will have to have regard to its previous decisions as they set a precedent (which needs to be broadly followed to avoid potential legal challenge). So, back to precedent. The current penalty for going into Administration is 6 points deduction (but at its discretion, based on the facts of each case, the RFL board can take mitigating or other circumstances into account in imposing a lesser (Wakefield, Crusaders etc) or greater (eg Barrow) penalty).'" I have read the Articles. I'm even anorak enough to have a copy printed out at home somewhere. Your will see a CVA is included within the definitiion of an insolvency event. And concluded the same as you - it leave far too much grey area, which is guaranteed to start all this sort of nonsense off whenever any lot of fans feel their club has been penalised differently to another. Even though they will never have all the facts that the RFL did when it made its decision. As you will see earlier somewhere, I actually agreed pretty well entirely with your proposal for [ugoing forward[/u - and added some refinements of my own.

Quote ="Wooden Stand"Adeybull. I'd suggest you read the RFL's current Articles of Association. The Bye Laws and Operational Rules are part of these Articles. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... onal_rules You'll see 'Insolvency Event' is defined at 4.10 of the Bye Laws. You'll also see (4.7 of the Bye Laws) that these provide that the RFL board can deal with a club suffering an Insolvency Event, such as Administration, in any way it wants. "Make it up as you go along". This is why some are suggesting clearer defined penalties are published in advance for the future to make it all a bit more objective. In the meantime though, the RFL will have to have regard to its previous decisions as they set a precedent (which needs to be broadly followed to avoid potential legal challenge). So, back to precedent. The current penalty for going into Administration is 6 points deduction (but at its discretion, based on the facts of each case, the RFL board can take mitigating or other circumstances into account in imposing a lesser (Wakefield, Crusaders etc) or greater (eg Barrow) penalty).'" I have read the Articles. I'm even anorak enough to have a copy printed out at home somewhere. Your will see a CVA is included within the definitiion of an insolvency event. And concluded the same as you - it leave far too much grey area, which is guaranteed to start all this sort of nonsense off whenever any lot of fans feel their club has been penalised differently to another. Even though they will never have all the facts that the RFL did when it made its decision. As you will see earlier somewhere, I actually agreed pretty well entirely with your proposal for [ugoing forward[/u - and added some refinements of my own.

Aye, it took a while tho


Thing is, AdeyBull and other Bradford fans have been saying this since this broke last week or whenever it was...Well done Duckman for finally getting the message across.


I said to you last week that I thought we'd get a deduction and fwiw, I still do. Edit: I cant say how many because, unlike [isome[/i fans from rival clubs that will benefit, I don't yet know what teh new owners plans are and I dunno if there are extenuating circumstances in mitigation.

LOL at bradford fans on this forum who,over the last few days have tried to turn this thread into a Wakefield thread about events in 2011? instead of talking about how Wakefield moved heaven & earth to avoid administration "again"in 2013.

And laugh out even louder at the governing body for overseeing this whole debacle for however long its been going on now

Is it true that the ring-fenced Jarrod Sammut has just been ring-fenced by Wakefield?

Quote ="William Eve"Is it true that the ring-fenced Jarrod Sammut has just been ring-fenced by Wakefield? '" www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news ... t/2014/02/ Sure is. Just confirmed by the club.

Quote ="William Eve"Is it true that the ring-fenced Jarrod Sammut has just been ring-fenced by Wakefield? '" www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news ... t/2014/02/ Sure is. Just confirmed by the club.

Excellent news.

It is to be hoped that any savings which may arise from the departures of the former ring-fenced Carvell and Sammut can be put to good use... like paying off creditors for instance and avoiding a SL points deduction.

Very sad to see a Rugby League institution like Bradford being tossed around like this.

Is there a way out for them or is the door slamming shut on them?

Aye, good player will def improve Wakey...prolly not the last either.

@WilliamEve: Agree about the creditors, tho a points deduction is pretty much nailled on.

lol....that news will light the touch paper on this thread!!

They should get a stronger fence and a bigger ring

The recent press releases from the club have been less than stellar...is there a shooting in foot smiley?

Wakefield circling like vultures

Meh, life in a big city, err, desert...both in the City of Bradfords case.

are they still going??

The question is, did Bradford offer this player to us or did we sneak in and pinch him?

If its he first then we can't be vultures steve.

The smiley face is a clue to how serious I was being...........

IIRC you are pretty much right about the Wakefield points deduction.
The precedent was set a short while earlier by Crusaders.
The two point reduction in penalty was seen as an incentive for Newco to work with the previous creditors.
From the off-set Wakefield were keen to point out that they would work with them and 'voluntarily' pay a selected few. Which I believe has been verified.
I don't think there is a sliding scale 0-6 dependent on amount paid off, just 4 points if the newco show a 'willingness' to work with creditors.
I did have the administrators report somewhere with the list of creditors, mainly HMRC (easy to rack up unpaid tax when you realise you're going bust), but generally/relatively not that much.
I don't have any figures for what (or who) was actually paid as Glover was very coy when asked about this, and, at least initially, did not have a BoD and kept financial details to himself (perhaps we now know why?).
As I say, the precedent set by Crusaders was that the 6 points would be reduced to 4 if the newco 'commits to work with creditors' and Wakefield were quick to jump on that bandwagon before the RFL could change the rules.
I think the new guidelines from the RFL seem to focus more on HMRC being paid, so who knows?