Interesting that Bradford’s appeal has been put back to 2nd June the Day after Wakefield match! The table could look a whole lot different if Bulls win and are given the 6 points back, I feel sorry for Bradford but if they win the appeal it we make the whole disciplinary process for club entering administration a complete and utter farce! Lets not forget 2011 - Crusaders - Administration - 4 points, 2011 - Wakefield - Administration - 4 points

We have to trust that the RFL will make the decision based on the rules... Bradford must have a strong case otherwise it wouldn't of been pushed back.

I just can't look past the decision being made on the on field results leading up to it.
Rugby league tends to like hitting the headlines for the wrong reasons.

Surely it would be better for Bradford to know sooner rather than later... So they can plan for the future and get some decent players willing to play in the lower league.

The direct opposite is the case, it is precisely because the system IS such a farce that we are where we are.

It would help if people didn't keep trotting out the phrase about mythical sanctions "for a club going into administration" when we know 100% that the decision (in the case of brand new ownership) is directly based NOT simply on the mere fact of an insolvency event, but critically on the new owner's proposals for dealing with the failed company's creditors, and it was exactly and publicly that basis on which the Bulls decision was made and announced by the RFL.

If in real life there was a clear and certain penalty simply "for going into administration" then we wouldn't be here, now would we? So can we put this myth to bed at last?

It would not be fair if Bradford got any of their points back what is to stop other clubs doing it get into trouble go bust 6 points then some one takes them over and then appeal like Bradford,get the points back no way and I like Bradford and wish them luck feel sorry for their fans

Nothing! If you are right, feel free! We are having absolutely great fun at Bradford following our "doing it", it's been a right barrel of laughs, and as every fan knows, as a result of "doing it" we have now made ourselves the strongest force in world rugby. The only morsel for other clubs is that your club can do it too. So crack on. Why wouldn't you?

Rubbish. The current system is not a farce. I agree with cravenpark1

There is a standard points deduction penalty for a Club going into Administration of three wins (ie 6 points deduction in SL and 9 points deduction in the Championships).

The RFL may commute some or all of the points deduction sanction depending on how the Club comes out of Administration. It depends on the extent to which (if at all) the old creditors are paid off as a result of the way in which the Club comes out of Administration.

In the cases of Crusaders and Wakefield in the past, a proportion of old creditors were paid off resulting in the RFL announcing a reduced sanction of 4 points deduction.

In the case of Bradford, the most recent 6 point deduction was announced when it became clear to the RFL how much of the old creditors were to be paid off following the Administrator agreeing to sell the Club to new owners.

Those proposed new owners then walked away. So Bradford now has a different new owner. Hence the current appeal. As part of that appeal, the RFL wil be assessing the extent to which (if at all) the old creditors were paid off as a result of how (and for how much) the Administrator sold the Club to the (new) new owner.

That's just inaccurate nonsense. However you already know that because you have already been told.

When you can't get a detail as basic as who is conducting the appeal right, you shouldn't bother

Total joke., should have been sorted already!

seems the RFL are just waiting to see how many wins bradford can get before deciding how many points to give them back!

the only reason they have appealed is because of the relegation coming into force... previous clubs werent bothered to get the points deducted

Pretty sure the appeal is heard by an independent panel not the RFL, it should have been sorted at the start of the season.

Personally I can't wait, it's all I can think about really.

On the other hand we are all going a bit mental over on the Saints board so we will have something to distract us for the next few weeks until the real stuff kicks off.

It feels like we've all gone back in time with the Ardvark and Smokey ready to defend the Bradford club against the rest of the RL world.
The one certainty is that the constant delays in ratifying the 6 point deduction don't help Bradford, or the other SL clubs and our game will be mocked again from the outside and from within.
It's been a painful few months, not least for the supporters of the Bulls and those who's livelihoods are dependant on the club and the saga does seem, once again, to be prolonged further than ought to be necessary.

If Salford are still on 9 points come the 2nd of June and Bradford get all 6 points back it'll be interesting to hear what Kouca$h has to say...

Agreed this should have sorted before a ball had been kicked, I still find it strange that the appeal has been put back to 2nd June the Day after Wakefield match! Its ridicules the outcome of the appeal could have a massive impact on all clubs involved in the relegation battle

Exactly!! This is so unfair on Bradford supporters but all clubs and fans involved and it does make the SL look a bloody joke!!!

And Salford play Bradford on 15th June so the Doc will have something to say!!

Crusaders - Docked the equivalent of three competition wins - 6 points - reduced to 4 points after paying a significant number of Creditors

Wakefield - Docked the equivalent of three competition wins - 6 points - reduced to 4 points after paying a significant number of Creditors

Widnes - Docked the equivalent of three competition wins - 9 points (Championship)

Bradford - Docked the equivalent of three competition wins - 6 points

So where's the inconsistency
The precedent is set and on record
The punishment under appeal is the correct one and unless Bradford pay off a significant number of Creditors they should not receive any points back.
If they do pay off a significant number of creditors then they should get 2 points back

Er, that in previous cases, the deduction of the points meant actually practically zero. Whereas now, it will almost certainly result in relegation from Super League. I'd say that is a pretty seismic difference, making the comparison silly, wouldn't you, if you think about it?


I do not actually disagree with the principle of points being dependent on the extent to which creditors end up being shafted, but if (for example) a club (any club) sorted its affairs out and no creditor lost out (and I am not saying this is Bradford's case, it is not) then why should they suffer any points deduction at all?

Only someone who either can't read, or didn't bother to, would make such a bizarre claim. If you disagree with any particular point I have made, do feel free to say.

Out of interest Aardvark, what do you believe should be Bradfords punishment points wise? And are you Robbie Paul in disguise

I have to ask why, as a sport, we are so keen to go over and above legal and national safeguards to make sure creditors get paid.

It's a noble sentiment but it ignores that every single penny a new owner spends paying creditors, is money flowing out of the sport.

I may be being a little mercenary, but I would much rather Marc Green spent £1m on Odsal or Bradford's youth development than altruistically paying back the debts of someone else's company.

Sorry "Ardvark", I didn't think it was bizarre.
When there have been previous threads concerning any points deduction/punishment etc.
Yourself and Smokey have spent much time and many pages picking up on the finer points of the Bulls situation and this thread is a likely return to the endless should they / shouldn't they and the slightly less articulate posters will no doubt have their comments micro dissected as though we were in a court of law.
Lets face it, the subject was done to death previously and it seemed that yourself and Smokey and lone voices for the Bradford cause and against any punishment against the Bradford club (in whatever guise it may be)

Financial performance was one of the considerations taken during the licensing evaluations. Interestingly Bradford Bulls were given a high rating for their financial plan just months before going bust.

It can be viewed that loss of licence/relegation were both brought closer by poor financial performance, therefore there's little or no difference now.

I've Said it before, the RFL as a NGB are obligated by Government to have some form of punishment for clubs who have insolvency events particularly Administration. If they don't then they lose funding as such legislation is a prerequisite for Sport England grants etc...
The HMRC also demand that the NGB of a sport has some form of deterrent and punishment for clubs entering Administration. They will not be compliment with member clubs if the NGB are soft on TAX debt.

Even in my most recent post I stated in plain terms that I am not against a punishment of points relating to creditors being shafted. Thus when you respond by falsely claiming I am "against any punishment against the Bradford club" you are, for whatever reason, simply lying, and must know you are. Why?

I am vehemtly opposed to HMRC being shafted, as I am in re any creditors; but in the case of a company which totally FAILS i.e. in this instance, OK Bulls Ltd., it cannot be punished (it will soon be liquidated) and it can not be deterred (it has gone tits). You and many others struggle to put into words exactly in what way penalising a new owner works as a deterrent. Of course, the idea is illogical. It would work as a deterrent for comapnies doing a debtswerve into and out of administration, and I am all in favour in [ithose[/i cases, but why can you not make the simple distinction?

"Do not go bust, as if you do, your liquidated company will lose 6 points". Or even, "any new owner of the team will lose 6 points". Like, that owner of the bankrupt company would remotely care about that WHY exactly? HOW would the owner of the bankrupt company be deterred?

The first part is just wrong, Bradford's licence review explained that the club faced problems,

The 2nd part contradicts your own argument, any punishment to Marc Green now does not punish a club for going into admin nor act as a deterrent because it punishes the wrong person. It's not only shutting the door after the horse has bolted, it's shutting the door after the horse has bolted, died, gone to the slaughterhouse and been BBQ'd as a tesco burger.