Sorry for responding to you as if you were a Trinity fan. I realise no apology can be sufficient, but you certainly have my profuse apologies.

I responded to your points because I thought they were reasoned and sensible. Just maybe you were a bit short on some of the facts - sadly all too common.

As it happens, I agree with you about the more severe points deducton. Although I think it would have been applied regardless, as a means of (they assumed) ensuring the Bulls could not make the playoffs. In the interests of the clarity that so many in here crave, it WOULD be helpful to know just what creditors were paid off though. SO we had some sort of precedent to judge against.

When we asked Khan & Sutcliffe why they accepted the condition, they said it was that or nothing. They seemed to say that paying off some creditors would have made no difference - some of the other SL clubs were adamant. I must admit, when the money was confiscated, my first assumption was that the RFL would use the money to pay off the creditors (it would have been sufficient to do that). I would have been at ease with that, as I said at the time. I was pretty staggered when it was not so applied. Even more so when I learned that it was being shared out amongst the other clubs, increasing the differnetial to £3/4m p.a.

My understanding is that the reduction in Sky money was supported by other clubs because of their anger at the underhand tactics used by the RFL in their secret bail-out for the Bulls, and the subsequent lies and spin they used to try to cover it up. The club chairmen were hacked off about that, and rightly so.

You know the guy who stands in the street with the 'End of the World is Nigh' billboard that most people ignore and some howl derision at.........

Not at all. Its not the only ground the RFL bought either, remember.

The RFL get £78k p.a. in rent. A perfectly acceptable return compared to money in the bank. More to the point, the peppercorn head lease is actually quite valuable. If they were to surrender it back to the Council, so the council could redevelop the site (a prime location just off the motorway) I would expect they could demand a good price. It would almost certainly suit the council for the RFL to do just that (and force the Bulls to Valley Parade, something they tried before).

If it was such a poor deal for the RFL and a good deal for the Bulls, why did the likes of Caisley state publically that the sale to the RFL was at a scandalous underprice, and did their best to see if they could overturn it or take action against Hood for selling it?

Maybe they, and/or others, deduced that various parties showing interest in buying the Bulls were after the site not the club, and planned to move the club to VP and get the council to buy them out of the head lease? At a big profit, no doubt? Or else allow them to develop the site for other use, again with potential for big profit?

FWIW, my own view is that the RFL win in this whatever happens. No way will they come out of this showing any kind of a loss. I'll not agree with Caisley et al that it was a deal so biased in favour of the RFL it was untrue - end of the day, the RFL held all the cards and Bulls virtually none. But I DO think they saw an opportunity and took it.

You could well be right. Although there were plenty of precedents for the RFL loaning clubs money. This whole loan business, and then taking over the stadium for what was at best an extra £400k or so, was scandalously underhand. I made a total fool of myself congratulating the then-board on what seemed to be a far-from-ideal but necessary deal in the middle of a recession, only to later learn about the loan. And the scale of it. So you'll get no argument form me now on that subject.

Fact remains though that, for whatever the reason, the other clubs were determined to punish the new owners for the sins of the old. I belive some of them were of the view "I have put many milions into my club. Let someone do the same with the Bulls." Except, no-one stepped forward to do so

This demonstrates one big difference between why the Bulls were punished far far more heavily than Wakey. And for reaons that are hard to argue with. I don't think anyone in their right mind would ever argue Wakey should have suffered a financial penalty like Bulls did.

Equally, did any other club become a football between two warring groups of shareholders? I remain firmly of the view that the loss to creditors was far more because of how the adminsitration was brought about than it would have been had the shareholders worked together. Indeed, we will never know if the club could have been saved from administration had the then-board been allowed to continue. THEY certainly believed it would. But that can only ever be an opinion.

But it also demonstrates why no two situations are the same. And therefore why, when demanding equality fo treatment, thay really requires equality of circumstance too. And, unfortunately, none of us know to what extent that is the case or otherwise, nor is it ever likley to be made public. The only ones who will are the RFL, who are tasked with determining what action to take.

Coincidence that's Woodies pie budget, I think not

Stuff and nonsense; only you could turn Odsalgate into some kind of Machiavellian plot by the RFL to make some brass out of the Bulls. I don't believe that you believe that.

I don't. Because I never said that. Caisley & co implied they thought that. I said above I did not subscribe to that view. I didn't then (and railed publically at them for alleging it) and I don't now.

What I DID say, and what I believed then and believe now, is that the RFL win whatever happens. They got a SL club able to fulfil its fixture obligations, when there was no clear alternative to take their place at such short order, and with a better return on their investment than money in the bank; and with potential to e.g. move to there from Red Hall in the future (saving loads) and develop the site as a RL HQ if they so wished. Or, if it all went tìts up, an asset the council would love to get their hands on and doubtless be open to a decent deal for doing so.

No sinister plot by the RFL; just smart business, at limited risk. Indeed, precisely what you would want to see from them?

If we could cut out some of the ad hominem nonsense, surely there could be chance of a sensible debate? That is the only reason I ever occasionally come on here (usually giving up in exasperation afetr a while), despite what you might choose to think.

ps. the "They" in the penultimate paragraph of the post you were responding to? For the avoidance of doubt, that was Caisley & co - not the RFL. Maybe I did not make that clear? I actually think the RFL stepped in, at least in part, to help prevent someone getting the club just to make a quick buck on the site.

Exactly OK offered to waive a year of Sky money. Several SL clubs suggested that rather than pass on £1.2m OK should take 50% over 2 years. Some Bulls fans like to talk about consfiscating funds. Utter rubbish. Those Bulls fans with a problem about the sky money should speak to Kahn / Sutcliffe and others with OK Bulls.

A sport governing body is not created as a front for property development. It is not the job of a sport governing body to pump significant funds into some clubs and not others. It is mainly a group of self interested Bulls fans who continually defend the odsal purchase.

I don't know what point you are trying to make, but that is the rent. Its deducted from the monthly Sky monies payment, as I understand it.

THAT is stuff and nonsense.

Indeed, Bren2k confirms what I said about the "offer" being no such thing. It was that or nothing. Regardless of what it was agreed would be said in public.

I do not even understand your second point. I cannot see what in what I said you are taking issue with? I never said any of the things in that paragraph.

See my PS to Bren2k's post above. Maybe you misunderstood my point because I did not make clear to whom I was referring?

I do not dispute the figures you quote Adey, but the RFL have clearly stated they have no intention of doing anything other than maintaining Odsal as a stadium and keeping it safe from predatory developers. The RFL's statement about saving the Iconic Stadium effectively makes that investment worthless to them.

None of us know for sure the Murkey details of the Omar Khan agreement to stay in SL, but there was considerable discontent at the Odsal deal, rightly or otherwise I had always understood that was the reason for the Sky reduction. I am sure I read that somewhere but in truth it could have been on a forum/twitter.

Accepting for arguements sake the potential value of Odsal I do have to wonder why stay with a millstone when a move could be salvation? It does seem that Previous custodians of the Bradford Club have let you down far more than I realised.

It is quite extraordinary to watch so much debate over a ruling from the RFL which has not even been made. Absolutely extraordinary, but there is so much at stake and that breeds fear and that makes the RFL decision so hard. Should the Bulls be punished for a second administration in so short a time? In my view yes, but what punishment, it must be seen to be just but also should not be so harsh that the Bulls are left without hope.

What will that punishment be? I have no idea, neither would I like to be making that decision, somebody will be upset by it and with good reason. That is what happens when rules are written to leave too much discretion. What is correct and fair from you perspective may be different from mine yet both views may be justifiable under the vagueness expressed in the RFLs documents. That is just not right.

If for example the rules stated if you suffer an insolvency event the penalty is x points, if you settle all Rugby and HMRC debt then it is reduced by 50% then there would be no dispute. The rules are inadequate and need re-written

I could not care less what you think or do / do not understand.

I was responding to a poster and not you so spare me your references to yourself or bren2k. This thread does not revolve around you.

If you do not like my comments about Kahn's offer..tough.

OK offered to take a cut of 1 year of sky money and the RFL accepted. deny it as much as you like. Your brown nosing umpteen Bulls regimes (til they go under)is a running joke.HTH

sorry all for waving a red hanky it was meant to be white

didn't mean to set him of on a rant

Proves my point exactly about people who are not interested in debate, just telling everyone they are right. And going [iad hominem[/i when they do not get their way.



Ditto

look into my eyes,
not around the eyes,
straight into my eyes,

I am not going to be hypnotised by your bull

3,2,1.

The problem with wanting debate Adeybull is that the facts are not really known so there is a lot of feeling being discussed rather than clarification of facts.
At the risk of setting a new fire.......given what you see the truth about the current slip into admin (not anything else like stadium or help from clubs) what would you do if you were the RFL?

It seems a points deduction is the set rule, though I have not seen the official line on this.
What would you do as an unbiased governing body?

Pot kettle black.

I love the way some deluded bulls fans try and make out that buying a lease on a patch of land in the middle of a recession in Bradford is an act of commercial genius. Of all the options it alledgedly turns out that buying odsal was the best option...what a coincidence...how fortunate.

Yet a brown field site ideal for house building - but wakefield's stadium - did not deserve any such consideration....funny that!

And this proves my point about people who ARE interested in serious debate.

You do not have to be able to agree to be able to debate. Just to listen to what the other guy is saying, then make your own reasoned point.

Many thanks for that. I can only agree with the large part of it. And defo about how badly previous administrations have let Bulls fans - and the game - down. And I was SO angry when I discovered that Hood - that ALL the board - separately, individually and to my face - had lied to me about the Odsal sale. I tended to assume folk were telling the truth unless or until proven otherwise. Got badly burned on that one, as did my faith in humanity.

I'm not sure the RFL HAVE clearly stated future intentions regarding the stadium though? Beyond retaining it as a RL stadium and not seeing it redeveloped for other purposes, which I believe was one of the major justifications they advanced at the time for taking on the lease. That does not preclude them, e.g. developing it into a new RL HQ, though? It is a big site, and they could save a lot of rent - and get a purpose-built HQ (not just offices, either) on a site they effectively owned. Not many other sites they could have acquired, at modest cost too, that would allow that? But thats opinion, of course.

Regarding the deal done by OK and Sutcliffe with the RFL, indeed only the parties to it know all the detail. I can only go on what the then-chairman and hois deputy said, same was as Wakey fans can go on wht THEIR chairman said to them. And that it wa smade pretty c;lear to them what they would have to "offer" to be allowed to retain a SL licence. The tragedy is that OK - or, more to the point, those working for him - was clearly assuming totally unrealistic income and costs (in opposite ways). And I have seen forecasts and financials, so - without going into details, I can say that. So I can only assume he believed he could make it work on the reduced Sky money.

As for why stay at Odsal? Well the only alternative is Valley Parade, and that proved pretty disastrous last time. Plus the ground is too short anyway and cannot be extended. If it was that or extinction, I guess it would have to be that - but I doubt it would be sustainable tbh. The options for developing the existing stadium were closed down firstly when a big Tesco with non-food was turned down (even though others were allowed in similar if not even more sensitive locations shortly aftrerwards) and then the great recession killed any chance of a sporting village option. And no plans for a new stadium anywhere else have ever got anywhere - there just is not the money anywhere.

And if it transpires the rugby creditors and HMRC do not get paid in all this, I will be angry. And will not object to any reasonable punishment.


Thanks again for all that.

Personally I dont give a flying bass what happens to the bradford team.
It would be nice if the environment of the spors management created a level and equitable scenario, in which we (trinity) could perform... but it doesnt, so I am not going to get too upset about it all... hopefully Trinity will be strong enough to play well and competitively against the other teams.. and they gain respect both on and off the field for the work done at the club.

I have no evidence (other than hearsay) that the RL official(l) actually threatened us with expulsion last year... but it would not, in any way, suprise me.

I have met a couple of the current regime and one in particular, when he came to coach youngsters we were working with in a (then)non rl area.. we had new kids and their parents.

I was stunned at the arrogance and aggressive attitude applied in this situation, He was clearly full of self importance and demonstrated a particularly unpleasant nature.

I was very suprised to see him elevate through club management and into the governing body. his macho style is incongruent with modern business requirements.

It may be that such a threat was made... but done without due consideration and authority.

Khan and his team made the sky cut offer. Staggeringly inept but no less true.

The RFL are a sport governing body and not a property development company. The decision to pump a small fortune into some clubs and not others without ever bothering to consult SL clubs or the RFL council is a disgrace.

At a time when millions of pounds were lost in sport England funding for the failure to hit targets Wood etal were busy playing monopoly with the game's money.

And a site with planning permission for housing and an owner who is wiling to sell no less. Strange eh?

It is hardly a surprise that the Bulls apologists are bleating to all and sundry about how they are really the victims in all this, their delusions of grandeur know no bounds. Apparently according to one to some superleague NEEDS Bradford. Err no it doesn't, not anymore than it needs any other club. And then we have the ones who claim they know all the facts and are putting people right yet they admit to having no inside knowledge of the dealings so know no more than what has been put in the press. Other than the hearsay that they have adopted as it fits their argument obviously. I'd say you couldn't make it up, but obviously some can and do.

Now we have the 'well should wakefield have their tv money taken then' line. The rules on administration were tightened AFTER ourselves and Crusaders went into admin so the rules and precedent for that action wasn't there at the time. It can't be done retrospectively. The Bulls board agreed to the deal in order to keep their SL place, so Bulls fans quit with the poor tale. They should have cut your cloth to suit, if you had then you wouldn't have had to take the admin route again. But they carried on regardless.

And in this latest case rules are rules, and as a second admin in such a short space of time due to financial mismanagement they should lose points at the very least, simple as that. Anything less just is not acceptable to any club outside Bradford. And it shouldn't be acceptable at Redhall either.

Indeed. As Giant Dee has so rightly pointed out in his post, referring to the climate of fear that relgation has caused. It was wholly foreseeable too that it would turn clubs and fans desperate - and fighting each other for their own survival.

Its like the two guys in the forest, see a big, angry, hungry grizzly bear bearing down on them. One guy immediately takes off his heavy walking boots, and puts on his trainers. His mate says "what are you doing that for? you can't outrun a grizzly bear!" First guy says "I know. I don't NEED to outrun the grizzly bear. I just need to outrun YOU".

As for your question - they are damnned whatever they do. In this, as in so many other things. As I said earlier, quite how you try and come up with some clear, hard and fast rules that can be applied to any permutation of causes, faults and events I really don't know. I am so glad its not down to me to resolve it!

It's the same problem with criminal sentencing, isn't it? Taking the extreme example, there is a dead body lying on the floor. Look at the range of possible causes, circumstances, mitigating factors - and punishments. They lay down ssentencing guidlines to try and bring some consistency and order and transparency to the process - they take account of all those factors - but that leads to a wide range of possible sentences, and the inevitable outcry from the e.g. Mail, or other sides of the political spectrum, if the sentence looks to them to be too light/severe/whatever.

Similarly here, should it be a fixed poenalty regardless of circumstances? SHould it vary by amount of loss to creditors? By whether HMRC are paid? By whether its a new board trying to sort it or an existing one trying to pull a fast one? By whether it is a first offence? By whether they have sought help and tried their best to avoid the crash, or just been reckless? or self-interested? In a situation where, right now, any painful sanction could send the club into relegation and (hitherto, at least) potential oblivion? I really don't know. If I was judge and jury, all I could do would be to form a subjective view - that would vary from ciurcumstance to circumstance - that leant very heavily on the extent to which the club and its owner/s had tried to avoid the situation - genuinely avoid - and how much they were to blame. But that is an unsatisfactory answer, and I realise that. I do not have a better one though.

Going forward, it LOOKS like thge new league structure and financing of it means that relegation is not that likely to lead to oblivion. Provided people act responsibly. Indeed, that seems to be one of the big plusses being advanced for the new arrangements. Once we get to that situation, I suspect that a standard, much heavier points penalty would be seen as much more acceptable than it is today?

Its a shame that a number of people on here seem unprepared to enter into reasoned debate. If you do not agree with what I say, argue your point and knock mine down by strength of argument? If you do that, and I can see I am wrong, I'll say so. Always have, and always will. You learn things that way. But just resorting to derision, and "I don't care what you think, I know what I think and I'm right" is no debate; and you learn nothing that way.

You would help your cause if you didn't make a habit of commenting on the worthiness of the people you are arguing with, based on whether they agree with you or not; it's unnecessary and appears pompous.

Personally, I think you love your club so much that you're unable to see any viewpoint other than one that is Bradford-centric; in reality, this is a simple issue - your club has experienced an insolvency event and both the rules and the precedent call for a 6 point penalty, which can be reduced later if creditors are properly dealt with. If anything other than that happens, it represents an injustice to those clubs to whom the rules were properly applied. This is compounded by the literal bucketloads of help your club has already received, both from the governing body bailing you out with secret loans and dishonest stadium deals, and from the wider RL community, who chucked money in only to see it disappear down a black hole.