Recent posters who think Bradford Bulls shouldn't be punished for going into Administration (again) appear to be lawyers, accountants etc who appear to have no clue as to how sport is managed. They just want to focus on legal entities (companies). Rugby League CLUBS are not legal entities. Their owners from time to time are.

You need to read and digest the RFL's Articles of Association which govern the sport and the Clubs who want to be members.

A small extract:

" "Club"
any rugby league club which is admitted by the Council as a member of the Company from time to time in accordance with these Articles; "

Members as at Date of Incorporation

Club Name Company Name
Barrow Border Raiders Barrow Rugby Football Club
Batley Bulldogs Batley Football Club Limited
Blackpool Panthers Blackpool Panthers RFLC
Bradford Bulls Bradford Bulls Holdings Limited
Castleford Tigers The Castleford Rugby League Football Club Limited
Celtic Crusaders Celtic Crusaders Limited
Dewsbury Rams Dewsbury Rams RFLC (Holdings) Limited
Doncaster Dragons Doncaster Dragons Rugby League Football Club (2001) Limited
Featherstone Rovers Featherstone Rovers Rugby League Football Club Limited
Gateshead Thunder Thunder Rugby League
Halifax Halifax Rugby League Football Club Limited
Harlequins Harlequins Rugby Football Club Limited
Huddersfield Giants Huddersfield Giants Limited
Hull FC Hull Super League Limited
Hull Kingston Rovers Hull Kingston Rovers Football Club Limited
Hunslet Hawks New Hunslet Rugby League Football Club Limited
Keighley Cougars Keighley Cougars RLFC (2010) Limited
Leeds Rhinos The Leeds Cricket, Football and Athletic Company Limited (also Leeds Rugby Ltd)
Leigh Centurions Sporting Club Leigh Limited
London Skolars London Skolars Limited
Oldham Oldham Rugby League Football Club (1997) Limited
Rochdale Hornets Rochdale Hornets Football Club Company Limited
Salford Reds Salford Football Club Company (1914) Limited
Sheffield Eagles Sheffield Eagles 2000 Limited
St Helens St Helens Rugby Football Club Limited
Swinton Lions Swinton Rugby League Club
Wakefield Trinity Wildcats Wakefield Trinity Rugby League Football Club Limited
Warrington Wolves The Warrington Football Club Limited
Whitehaven Warriors Whitehaven Rugby League Football Club Limited
Widnes Vikings Widnes Rugby League Football Club Limited
Wigan Warriors The Wigan Football Club Limited
Workington Town Workington Town Rugby League Football Club Limited
York City Knights York City Knights Rugby League Football Club "

Owners come and go Clubs endure.

Read the rules.

The RFL board can impose whatever sanctions it deems appropriate in respect of CLUBS' misdemeanours.

eg. Last year: "Please don't relegate us. We'll accept the idea of half the Sky money for two years if you let us stay in Super League"

Currently: RFL liaising with POTENTIAL new owners. RFL makes clear that the half Sky money deduction will still apply this year. RFL also makes clear that THE CLUB will have a x point deduction this season. (I expect the potential owners will have been told what the points deduction would be based on their business case for pitching to become the new owner of THE CLUB).

RFL 'hands up who's still interested in buying on that basis?'

Apparently 'the three' plus Lamb were interested.

Seems the three have won - in that they have convinced the RFL and the Administrator (in terms of how much they are willing to pay him for THE CLUB in all the circumstances) that they are the best new owner of Bradford Bulls.

No question of "new owners being punished". They know exactly what they are are getting for their money.

Seems the three haven't played 'hardball'. Good job they appear to have more sense than some on here. If they had, the RFL would have just moved on to the next interested buyer. But it seems clear he knows the others have got it.

As I say, you'll see I'm right when it's all announced shortly.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/26288309 new owners confirmed

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/26288309 new owners confirmed

.. are a figment of your imagination. As so often, you start with a complete straw man.


Well for one, I can confidently say I know a lot more about that than you!


Nope, that is one thing I don’t need to do. My PC has a folder stuffed with PDFs of all conceivable such documentation, thanks. Sad, but true.


See? It isn’t that difficult, is it! The members are companies, and each runs a club by its chosen name!


No. They really don’t. The club NAME may or may not live on, but that is of emotional attachment significance only. Nothing called “Bradford Bulls” exists as a legal entity and the RFL can’t contract or do anything else, other than with legal entities. This isn’t being picky, or technical. It’s just banal.


Pure wordplay. The entity that took the hits of the last administration was OK Bulls Limited. In everyday parlance you could say that Bradford Bulls were fined this, or deducted that, but to be accurate, it was the member of the league, i.e. OKBL.


You see, the money goes to the company that owns the club. It doesn’t go to “the club” in the way you seem bent on insisting. The club does not even have a bank account. It couldn’t. It wouldn’t be allowed to. Only a legal entity can have a bank account.

Wood did state that the RFL would still apply the reduced distribution to the new member. Whether that has already been decided by the RFL, or whether he was just talking loosely, or was misquoted, it doesn’t matter. The penalty would cost the new owners, which are now BB2014. Who trade as Bradford Bulls.


FFS. No! They are NOT pitching to be new owners of “the club”. They ARE owners of BB2014 and its offer to buy the assets of OKB has now been accepted. BB2014 is the legal entity that will run Bradford Bulls in Sl 2014. If they did not, and nobody else did, there would BE no fkin club, would there! You are trying to convince yourself that there is a legal entity called “a club” that exists regardless of any owner – there really isn’t.


It doesn’t really matter whether they were told what the points deduction would be, but I do believe that they did get a firm indication.


Look, however many times you want to repeat the fallacy, BB2014 is buying the assets of OKBL. Obviously the point of it is so they can be the new owners and operators of a rugby league team called Bradford Bulls but that is just a trading name (and indeed as such part of the assets). It does NOT EXIST in its own right.


A total [inon sequitur[/i. If (say) they had been told that they would only get half the distribution for 1, 2 or 3 years, and still went ahead, why would that stop it being a “punishment”? It is what it is. Its nature doesn’t change depending if you know in advance or not!


TBF few (I can onlky remember one) suggested “hardball”. I have been clear that while BB2014 do have a negotiating position, it is not a strong enough one to have any question of playing “hardall”. The RFL & Co. clearly hold most of the better cards.


“Right” about what? We all know that the RFL will in due course announce their decision about any points deduction, and a formal statement about any distribution issue. I know this. You know this. Everybody knows this. We can all read (even if some may have comprehension issues). What exactly therefore is it they could possibly announce that would “prove you right”? Go on, set it out, so we have a point of reference. Tell us something that only you know, which will then make us all nod sagely “Yes, Wooden head was indeed right”.

I won’t hold my breath – but this is your big chance.

Here is / are the predicted things that Wooden Stand claims he will be proved right about, as so far identified specifically by him :-

I don't want to fall out with you - there are more important things for RL supporters; the season has started and there are matches to watch. But I did clearly say in my post at the top of page 81 that RL CLUBS are not legal entities - the companies that own and run them are.



No. You are still not getting it! THE CLUB is the member of the RFL. CLUBS are run by the company that is their current owner. And owners come and go.

A six point or four point deduction for going into Administration is imposed on THE CLUB.

I know it's different from the widget industry or wherever you might work. But you do just need to get your head round how things work in sport (applies just the same in Soccer as RL).

This still does not square the circle so to speak. I know lawyers love to talk and go on about what it legal and not legal. But that only holds water in terms of the financial side.

The sporting side is left untouched without the operational rules.

The financial penalty has been imposed on the previous owners through loss of capital (or in this case loans).

There can be no sporting punishment imposed on what is a financial company gone bust.

The point is about the sporting penalty not the financial.

In terms of the club being a legal entity sure it's not. But it is a sporting entity.

If you take a individual who sets up as business the individual is not a legal entity and if the business goes belly up, the business folds, but the individual remains. The individual will then have to cope with any social fall out from the business going up outside the rules of the law.

The law cannot say that the persons previous friends must remain so, that they must treat them with the same favour. Even if that person sets up a new business it does not mean that others need to trade with them under the same terms as the old company, just because the person remains the same.

Legal entities are take care of by the law. But other entities, such as clubs, people are dealt with by other clubs (governing bodies) and other people.

Clubs as you are describing, and as wooden stand seems to be describing simply don't exist. There is nothing tangible about a 'club' that either isn't a simple asset the same as any company I.e a ground, player contracts, the copywrite of name, badges, kits, mascots etc. they all belong to the new co and the RFL have zero control of them.

The fans, history, trophies won etc are simply emotional standpoints, they don't tangibly exist, cannot be sold. It's simply out there in the ether.

The only way in which you could describe a club as existing outside of the company that owns them is the golden/share licence which entitles them to membership of the RFL/SL which is an asset of the business but it's transfer is decided by the RFL.

But again, if the RFL don't transfer it, then the badge, ground, kits, player contracts all still belong to the company, They simply cannot play in RFL competitions. They don't have to go into admin, the club to all intents and purposes still exists in very single way, it just doesn't play in. RFL competitions.

So the RFL can't force the new co to pay that debt, it was with the old co and stays there. They can ask the new co take it on as part of their negotiations on the transfer of golden share. If the new club refuses and. The RFL doesn't back down, the inevitable conclusion is the bulls don't finish the year.

Its taken till page 81, but I think that post is the best reasoning yet for why "the Club" should be viewed as an entity, but separately to whatever legal/financial entity owns it from time to time. You make some powerful and IMO very valid points. My compliments, sir.

You'd be disappointd if I just left it at that, of course...



I actually get the point that a "Club" is in substance - if not in legal form - an amalgam of people, staff, supporters, friends, history, tradition, brand, resources, community, assets, all of those things and more. It is as much a state of mind, a shared purpoose as anything else. I said as much, albeit far briefer, in an earlier post somewhere. If I could remember where, and wanted folk to see how smart I was (even though that sort of daft thing usually has the opposite effect...) I go find it and quote it...



But (and you would expect no less than a "but"icon_wink.gif, ATEOTD when you seek to punish a "Club", as defined, you can do damage to its ongoing history, its tradition, its brand, its resources, the community, its assets, and all of those things and more. But you cannot [upunish[/u any of those things. Becaus ethey are intagibles, or inanimate objects. Nor can you do anything to any of those things to [udeter them from doing it again[/u, because intangibles and inanimate objects can't actually DO anything by or in themselves - can they?

No, the only things you can punish are people. Staff. Supporters. Friends. It is THEY whom you set out to punish. Even though very few if any of them bear any responsibility for the train crash you are seeking to impose punishmemt for. So, when people say the "club" should be punished, what they really mean is that it is its staff, supporters and friends that should be punished. Something to bear in mind?

And, punishing those staff, supporters and friends is hardly likely to act as any deterrent against future train crashes, because in almost all cases they were niether responsible nor have significant power (apart from voting with theor feet) to influence those who in future might do it all again.

So, without in any way seeking to minimise or decry your points, I'm still not sure we have squared the circle.

In fact, I can't for the life of me think of an effective way that you can.

Thanks for all of that Adey.
So, when there have been points deductions in the past, Crusader, Wakefield, Bradford etc, who/what exactly has been punished and who/what has received a points deduction.
I know I'm thick but, in the past, it would appear to have been the club(s) ?

The new owners, staff, supporters and friends of those clubs.

Since you can no more punish a "Club", as an abstract concept, than Basil Fawlty could punish his car for not doing what a car is supposed to do.

Must admit, I never had you down as Basil Fawlty. Guess you learn something new every day, though? Just don't mention the war...

You are not thick; you are quite right. Of course it was those Clubs that received the points deduction.

Some people will try to tell us next that the 2012 Super League Grand Final was won by The Leeds Cricket, Football and Athletic Company Limited.

Not another quote-athon.

I cringed so hard when I scrolled down and saw that the ferocious aardvark had replied to the wooden spoon, practically line by line. How much pointless squirming and arguing can one man do?

This whole ''I'm an uber intellectual fountain of knowledge'' thang has now become plain annoying.

This whole thing can be plainly summed up in a few choice words - bradford are pretty much f*cked.

Somewhere in and amongst these painful topics is a straw man, someone saying "don't let facts spoil a good argument" and a non sequitur.

Jesus Christ.

Can you believe these bulls fans are spouting this rubbish?

A fairly standard concept, used across other sports as well.

But woe betide, as soon as it's the bulls......... it's abstract concepts, innanimate objects, rocket science, the space time continuam, the meaning of life.

They are RFL tenants.......they are like a spoilt child who everyone else thinks deserves a good hiding but who's parents instead mollycoddle it.........

If I compare Adeybull to the ....., will the thread be locked?

no but you'll get banned if you do it again

Please don't I hate giving out warnings and I am yet to get the ban stick out this year,

the post would be removed and the thread would continue.

I am loathed to lock it as several others would rear their heads like a hydra.

There is a point I suppose is the owner losing his money enough of a punishment??? Whilst a club is intangible, it's progress on a RL field is not. Neither is it's standing in the league. The last league is closed and cannot be opened so the only place left to lay the penalty is in the current season.

However, someone said somewhere earlier. The RFL and Bradford (what ever) will have to have come to an agreement, to continue. If that's 6 points and a continuation of the £500k penalty, then the owners will have took the view that for them, like OK it will be worth it.

In the end I never understood the £500k penalty. At first I thought it was a way to pay off the lease and buy it back, or pay off creditors, but just to spread it to the other clubs seemed a bit naff.

Simply, wrong. I understand that one or two people don't like wrong information corrected, though are weirdly happy for incorrect claims to be made, but the more times you get it wrong, the more times I will correct you.

I have a feeling you don't really understand the wording of things like Articles of Association, but anyone who WANTS to know, I'll explain, anyone who DOESN'T - just don't feckin read any more.





The subscribing Members are:

_________________________________________________________________________


Note{ 100% clearly, these members are the LIMITED COMPANIES.
Then as you say the Articles go on to list the rest of the members, by listing both their DESCRIPTIONS and their NAMES.

The MEMBERS are thus indisputably the listed companies. That is only because each of the clubs is a limited company. If they were not, eg if one was a firm eg a partnership, that would be an "unincorporated association, and that is permissible, but none of the existng clubs are unincorporated associations.



It is these member companies that participate in the competitions. The may do so as "Bradford Bulls" or whatever, but indisputably the wording refers to members, and all references to "Club" indisputably means "member" ij this context.



Now read very carefully the next extract:


That is why any new limited company formed to run a RL club has to apply to become a member. "Membership is not transferable".

If you were right, Bradford Bulls would remain a Member despite the administrations. Almost everyone knows that no such thing happens. Almost everyone knows that any new person (for those who don't know, a limited company is a legal "person"icon_wink.gif taking ownership MUST be admitted to membership of the RFL. Your theory that something called the Bradford Bulls once was made a member, and thus forever remains a member regardless of administrations, liquidations etc., really is just plain misunderstanding of the true position.

If the new member is admitted as a member of the RFL then that is only the first stage. In order to play in SL, it then needs to be granted a SL licence.

Ownership of SL is vested absolutely in SLE.



This is sensible, and is exactly the territory the Bulls are in. On the one hand, clearly the insolvent member ceases to be a member. On the other hand, clearly it is in the interests of the competition to, if it can, make a seamless transition from the former member to the new owner/member and that is precisely what the RFL/SLE is doing/has done.


That is exactly where the previous Bulls were in mid-season, and this rule is why despite the old club going bust, the new club could temporarily continue in the league; but the point is that it IS a new club, and it is NOT a member.





If as you think, there is some separate ongoing entity that played and plays in SL, which is a different thing from the company that owns it, then why the hell are we having to jump through all the insolvency hoops? If the "club" in the sense you mean isn't the same thing as the limited company that owned it and went tits?

Bradford Bulls - if when you say "the club" you mean the team that runs on the field etc. , did not experience any insolvency event; the limited company that owned it did. If you are saying those are two separate things, that the club exists separately despite the demise of the company that owns the business, then you will need to explain why a club that did not become insolvent nevertheless has to apply for membership/licence etc as if it had become insolvent and why it is subject to possible sanctions.

In case you missed it, the relevant rule states:



The points deduction is very simply a ruling that says a team in the league is minus X points. The points are not some legal thing, or real object, they are a pure notional idea. The Super League table is just the scorecard for the annual comp, it is not a legal entity.

If as you think "the CLUB" is the member, but that this is not the company, but something else, then please enlighten us on what basis it faces sanctions?

Finally, in the case of SLE, the member clubs are required to be incorporated. That is, those MEMBERS that are rugby league teams MUST be or become limited companies. If a club was an unincorporated association (eg a partnership) and applied for and was admitted to the party, it would then have to incorporate or else be expelled.


In case you missed it twice:

So, in this case, it is the new member (BB2014) that faces sanctions, under this rule. And couldn't possibly be anything else.

I don't see anything unreasonable about setting out in detail my arguments about rugby league on a rugby league forum. You are not obliged to read them but if they do in fact really annoy you, then in your particular case I see that as a big bonus and in future if I wonder whether I can be bothered, that knowledge may spur me on.

And whilst Wooden Stand does on occasion go OTT, and we can both be perhaps blunt to the point of rudeness, in this case he has gone to the trouble to explain why he thinks I am wrong, and I have done the same with regard to why I know he is wrong. We are not falling out or yelling obscenities. We are having a reasoned and reasonable debate. We are just as entitled to post on rugby league topics as you or anyone else, and if you don't like it, then you know what you can do.


Actually, things (while still extremely difficult) seem to be considerably picking up. And yes, I know that will annoy you too, so double result.

The point is actually very much both.

The cash punishment is a real and heavy burden on the limited company trying to run the business without getting into financial trouble.

The "sporting sanctions" ie deduction of points is something else, though. You need to think what it does. Does it cost the company money? Well, it might do; if for example the team as a result fails to make the playoffs.

But what else? Well, it means that the team is at a disadvantage in the league. If deducted 4 points, it will end the season with a total which will be 4 points smaller. This just means the team will appear maybe in a lower position in the final league table. If there was no relegation (as in the case of the last administration) then the points deduction doesn't punish anyone except the fans of that team, and then only to the extent (if any) that they may care about being 4 points worse off. So in our case, Bulls fans were a little peeved that we as a result missed the playoffs; but not that much as we'd have probably been thrashed away in round 1 so it was no biggie. Points deduction was thus I think overrated as a sanction. I mean, if you were a title contender the following year then maybe, but as we weren't, it wasn't actually that much of a sanction at all.

However this year it could easily mean the difference between being relegated or not. And thus, IF the new owners do agree to pay off the old company's creditors then that is the reason a points deduction would be unreasonable - it would have no obvious justification if creditors who had done business with the old company had not ultimately lost out, yet could have a hugely disproportionate outcome; certainly when compared to the last points deduction. It's a sanction which has suddenly acquired huge rows of teeth, venom and very sharp claws. The sporting sanction could turn out to be by far the biggest financial penalty of all.

What if the new owners agree to pay off the old companies creditors but then fail to do so?

Wouldn't suprise me.

It's just one big merry go round. So when this new consortium take over, it will be no suprise when sometime in the next 18 months suddenly theres ''cash flow problems'' and ''bulls on verge of administration''.

Yet bradford continue to doggedly refuse to cut costs in the playing squad where they can save most. They had their chance last year when there was no relegation.

It's become painfully obvious that bradford can't financially support a super league team. Odsal drains too much money, and the income isn't there from fans, merchandice and showpiece events.

So what will happen is, either they eventually cut their cloth in the playing squad and wind up relegated (though this is no guarantee under the 2015 structure with a few bargains and some good youngsters). Or they continue this merry go round and gradually lose quality players with few replacements due to continued off the field problems and end up in same situation as above.

Either way I don't see much super league future for them.

If Bradford can't afford SL then everyone else below WIG/WARR/SAINTS/LEEDS/HULL is pretty much fercucked.

Don't worry. With evil statements like that allowed to stand, I am out of here.

There's only a ferocious aardvark left then