Since a thread about this has many differing points of views, how about a poll just showing how many points Bradford should be docked at the end of the appeal.

I originally thought six was harsh in some senses so I'd say should be reduced to 4 on the proviso that if they fail again in the future they will a) be docked double or b) be ejected from Super League (on the proviso they may be there).

Don't forget that they already have previous for going into admin.....

I don’t know the operational rules, I could probably wade through a load of bumph, but I just don’t have the will.

Not only do I not know the rules, neither do I know the gory details of the whole sorry debacle. Sure I’ve seen a plethora of posts relating to the matter, but that’s only faceless people giving their take on the situation.

I’ll just leave it to the “Higher Powers” of Red Hall to sort it out, after all their getting paid top dollar to detangle the whole sorry scenario.

As a Wakefield fan I hope they get the full six points, only for the self-preservation of my club, but whatever happens, well, Que Sera Sera.

Frankly I miss the old days, you know the ones, you know, back in the day, when the only information available was in the paper or hearsay on match day, not from unidentifiable posters, many of whom appear to be un-hinged.

The question is stupid. If a team goes into administration, let´s imagine bacuse the HMRC are about to close it down, and then over the next year or two sort their finances out, so nobody loses a penny WHY should they face any points penalty at all?

I put the question in this way in the hope that our thicker contributors might at least consider that the simple act of being in administration is not, necessarly, such an evil thing that it requires huge punishment.

I would say that it isnñt the mere fact of admin, but what the RESULT is of the admin, that is the key question. The result in terms of who gets shafted, and to what degree.

As for the poll, as nobody has any idea how much (if anything) the new Bradford owners will pay off the old company´s debts, I would suggest nobody has enough information on which to base a logical opinion.

6.

Depends what the rules say and how much has been paid back??

I've not a clue how much has been repaid, I'd prefer a sliding scale. 0% repaid the full 6 points 3 points for 50%, anything over 90% repaid 0 points deducted.

But having hard and fast rules that we can all see clearly tends not to be the way.

If a player punches another player in the face, off the ball unexpectedly to take a player out, let's imagine it's because the player was losing, but after several months any injury and repercussion is gone, why should the player ever be banned at all?

I hope all would consider, smacking somebody in the face isn't necessarily an evil thing that requires a huge punishment

I would suggest that the player breaking the rules isn't in question at all, merely the RESULT of the player smacking him in the face, that is the key question. The result as in who gets shafted.

Going into admin is against the rules of the game. Even if the creditors get repaid, the negative press generated for the sport risks lost potential revenue elsewhere. When considering also the previous of the club in question, the maximum penalty should be upheld.

when does appeal get finalised?....as sept/end of season gets nearer

Didn't Widnes get a 9 point deduction, surely that should be there to vote for too?

I think that equates to the 6 for Bradford as the points system was different in the championship.

Well, this scenario doesn't match the Bulls situation does it?

They have done this twice in 2 years.

I have carefully considered your post and now believe that a 12 points deduction is more appropriate.

The points penalty cannot be increased, hence no option for more than 6.

I can live with whatever the RFL decide

BUT

if there is any change in the penalty i would want to know why as well as the exact details of what has changed.

It is a relagation year and it needs to be very very clear why something led to a change to the original decision

Yeah, I know, but having the facts of the situation highlighted by FA, it is clear that, as serial offenders, Bulls should be subject to a harsher penalty.

Maybe one day they will then learn to run a business in line with their income streams.

The Dulls shafted a lot of people over the last two years,it's time for them to suck it up and deal with it.

But do we know why they got 6 and not 2 or 4 in the first place?

The second information is useless without the first.

They could simply say the wrong penalty was impossed or money has been paid back. Therefore the penalty has been reduced. It means nothing without knowing why they got 6 points and not less in the first place.

Aslo we may want to know the exact details, but that means diddly, they don't have to tell us anything. Joe public will just have to suck it up. PR wise it would be far better to have these rules set in stone and non-discretionary, that way everyone know before hand what will happen..

No need to wait or have appeals

Personally wouldnt have a problem if we kept the -6, going into admin twice in two years isn't really acceltable. But I'm not going to be there at the hearing and wasn't there at the series of meetings when we went into admin, so hard to comment. Only way we will get all 6 back is if the independent review fine it was all the RFL's fault and admin could have been avoided. But that's just not going to happen.

They really need to just accept what was given to them. This season of all seasons it will be very hard on any team who goes down if they are less than 6 points behind Bradford. They took money from people to survive, they've gone into admin twice. They should count themselves lucky and just concentrate on overcoming the points deduction, which at this stage isn't impossible.

Its the lies and deceit by a number of people, over a long period of time that should see the club punished with 6 points, more than going in to administration. A club that played on peoples emotions and helped push people in to selling medals etc like Brian Mcdermott in to thinking they was saving the club. A club that has lied and cheated its way over a period of time. The club is lucky to be in SL and should be made an example of so that other clubs both now and in the future know that such actions will not be tolerated and will see clubs face harsh punishments.6 Points deduction is way too light after the way the Bulls have carried on over a number of years.

Hows it go now?

This

No your right it is the desired state for any business to be in.

Because someone will lost out. Otherwise what's point going into admin, and, why would the buyer not buy the club prior to it going into admin to avoid any penalty if he/she was going to pay off the debts.

Someone, somewhere is going to lose out and so there should be a penalty.

Cart before horse. The penalty should reflect the circumstances and especially how much any loss is going to be. The immediate point of admin is often to obtain temporary protection usually from one pressing creditor. Then either a deal is done, which the maj of creditors agree, and the company is saved, or a prrpsck is done where typically creditors lose out.

If you just have one fixed penalty for the simple fact of going into admin, THEN no creditors in this situation are likely to be paid, as what would be the point, from the new owners POV? All I am saying us you need to look at the overall result of the admin event, it's surely much more relevant. Not all administrations are equal. The penalty surely should reflect that.

Even if you reduce the points deduction for paying off debts,a club still needs to be a left with enough of a points deduction to make it not worth the risk of going into administration in the first place