And now there is the possibility that it's not decided until next week and reading the comments from Ross Heppenstall (T&A Bulls reporter) any penalty isn't related to who takes over the club (i assume including terms of taking over) but the sanction is [ijust[/i for the administration.

[urlhttps://twitter.com/rosshtanda/status/436109812771078144[/url

I read it that they cannot know the outcome for the creditors until the ownership issue is resolved. Which will include how much is paid for the assets (which goes to pay creditors) and how much any new owner agrees to settle with the creditors.

Bear in mimnd Heppenstall is not a financial journalist. At various times in the past, he has asked people who know more about the financial side for input...

But, this IS RL, and it IS the RFL, and so anything could happen in the next half hour...

Absobloodylutely!

And, especially, that it happens more in real time, and with the pain falling on the EXISTING owners, not the next ones. I gave some ideas about how to achieve that about 2 million posts back.

But that at least is utter and unmitigated bullcrap; as if there was just an auto penalty for administration then it would just be announced the day after. Not to mention the small matter of not being within the RFL's rulebook! For another, they have already given different penalties in differing circumstances.

My deduction is that Lamb IS making an offer. And the RFL did not expect that.

If as is reported Lamb has been up to see Calvert - what are they talking about? Why aren't they joining forces? What is the downside for Lamb if he joins forces? What is the upside in going it alone?

Is he thick?

I presume not, but as one offer by MM & Co has already been accepted provisionally, he would obviously have to make a significantly better offer to trump it. Whereas if he joins forces with the incumbents, the existing offer does not need to be increased.

I must be missing something.. but what?

71 pages PLUS (probably by the time this is posted) on a subject that NO ONE on these forums has any control of at all. (Depends on who is flying under the radar.

)

It doesn't matter.

There will be another "Bradford Bulls" club when all this is completed.

They KEY part STILL is the game on the field and the effort the team puts in. That is the PRIMARY reason for it's existence. If you don't want that version then there are others and that business can go to the wall.

It's about time REALITY kicked in in ALL sports.

Some people just want complete control if their money is involved. He's likely not met the current board before so who knows if he can work with them. Do we really need another board where a major shareholder is at loggerheads with other members?

We can speculate on what the RFL penalty for Bradford will be. Difficult, as the RFL Regulations allow the RFL board wide discretion. All we have to go on is imperfect knowledge of what lay behind precedents - Wakefield, Salford, Bradford before, Crusaders, Barrow, Keighley etc etc.

But regarding what SHOULD be the future penalties, it seems that there is agreement that they should be better defined in advance to avoid as much subjectivity and discretion on the part of the RFL board.

The penalty [iin future [/ishould be 6 points deduction for going into Administration. So this can be imposed as soon as the court issues the Administration Order. Then 2 points can potentially be given back if arrangements are in place to repay ALL creditors within a laid down timescale.

I don't buy some of the stuff being put out by some Bradford supporters at the moment. Such as "not punishing new owners" "previous owners who loaned money don't count" etc.

It's not an easy concept for some maybe, but the penalty is a punsihment of the CLUB (not of any particular entity owning the club). It's a punishement and a deterrrent. Why?

Because a club that goes into Administration and then does not repay all creditors has had an unfair advantage ON THE PITCH. The club has had players it couldn't really afford. They won points they weren't really entited to. A points deduction is to be fair to all the other clubs that did play within the rules.

"Club" is a concept different from who owns it. As set out in a list in the RFL Articles of Association. A bit nebulous for some. Guess it's like say a University - it just goes on and on for years, centuries - but completey separate from who happens to run it at any point in time. What is an RL "Club" - just a concept of players playing on a pitch with their supporters supporting 'their' players - all in the name of the club. Man Utd players kiss the badge on their shirt when they score - did so before the Glazers' takeover, did so after the Glazers' takeover. Nobody cares about owners (apart from wanting their money to be spent on their club).

If a club gets an unfair advantage the club should be punished - points deductions etc.

So Bradford Bulls went into Administration again. They should get a 6 points deduction for that. In future, mitigation of 2 points given back if all creditors are paid off soon INCLUDING OK. It was his money that gave Bradford Bulls an unfair advantage on the pitch in 2013 - including being higher up the league than they would otherwise have been (hence possibly higher attendances), maybe preventing some clubs getting in the play-offs who didn't 'cos they lost to Bradford. & Bradford should (unfairly in fact with the unaffordable payers they had) have got into the play-offs thenseves, with the related benefits.

Summary. Going into Administration essentially amounts to a club having cheated. So the club should be punished.

In practice, this time - as we are under the current Regulations - guess just some creditors will be paid off and Bradford Bulls will get a 4 point deduction.

and on that note, its a massive game on thursday night, for both teams

So, lets use Wakefield as an example last time, for Wooden Stand's proposed new rule.

If you, the new owner repay zero, you get 6 points penalty.

If you, the new owner, repay the WHOLE of their £1.2m debts, the WHOLE of it, you get a 4-point penalty.

So 2 points are woirth £1.2m - that is £600k a point.

Are you SURE its such a good proposal now? Who in their right mind would repay a cent, if that wa show much saving a point cost you? Just go spend the money on a mega team instead.

Kind of like repeatedly going into administration to get away from paying creditors?

For me, and im sure this wont be popular, but if the new owners repay all of the debts of the old regime, there should be no points deduction.

100% repayed 0 deduction
80% 1 point
60% 2 points
40% 3 points
20% 4 points
10% 5 points
0% 6 points

Fine with me - so long as the new owner is a new owner and not a new owner via a different company name only or some other technicality.

After all, there is no point punishing innocent fans or a club for a decision taken by someone who no longer works there. Heck, it seems that the fans of some clubs have already been put through the wringer.

The RFL will make their decision on how many points the Bulls will lose after their first three games.

If they beat Wakey and London they will get 4 points deducted. If they lose then there will be no deduction.

They will wabnt to keep the Bulls in SL. London are gone so they will do what they have to do to get rid of Wakey or Cas.

What you can guarantee is the RFL will not make any decision UNTIL they know how it will affect the teams they want in SL.

***** not bothered about a bit of tinkering before the new rule is finalised. Make it 4 points back, ie 2 points net penalty if all creditors are paid off if you like. Or something like Saint Simon suggests. So long as everybody knows what the rule is in advance.

More importantly, glad to see you've now seen and understood the principle that it's the Club being punished (for the reasons I set out on the previous page) and not an entity owning a Club - whether an old one or a new one.

Some clubs get good owners. Some clubs get not so good owners. That's just good or tough luck for supporters. Like life.

Put your straw man away. Show me where I have " seen and understood"? Because I remain unmoved about how the totally and and utterly illogical and counterproductive it is to punsih the next owners, not the ones who caused it.

And so, in your revised example, that means four points is now worth ££1.2m of creditors, or £300k a point. A bit better, but again would you pay off those creditors in hard cash, or take the four point deduction and spend the £1.2m on a stonking great team?

Bulls did the crime, Bulls do the time.

The name of the owner is irrelevant.

Or do you think it's ok and worthy of reward, to run a business in such a way?

It's an extreme example, but if you steal a loaf of bread - does your entire family go to prison?

The "crime" was committed by those who are no longer in charge of the club, what good does that do?

It doesn't act as a deterrent as there are no penalties for the offending party. It doesn't punish them as they have no interest, but rather innocent bystanders are punished for the actions of another.

It's the [uClub[/u being punished. Not the entity who owned it either before or after. New owners will know what they are buying. Nobody's forcing them to buy.

What on Earth are you on about?

Bulls is a business and has to be held accountable for its own actions.

Who is in charge at any given point is irrelevant.

These are rules of Law, not the RFL.

In other words the time for the crime is relevant because of how the business is run, but what is absolutely not relevant is who is running the business now or who was running the business then.

I like you. You're the only person making any kind of sense.

FMD, that is brilliant..no, really.

Looks like Bulls will win the Carvell case after all...

I am sure that if Carvell has broken his contract illegally, then Bulls will get an outcome in the courts.

Why are you so sure he wasn't entitled to refuse to be TUPEd?

I don't know by the way, just intrigued by your certainty.

Just surprised to see a Wakey fan backing the Bulls argument is all.

As to certainty...Edit: Birth, death and tax.