Well what a surprise,not. Did anyone really think they would be put into the championship. Never in a million years. Another embarrassment for our game.

Why?

Do teams get automatically relegated in other sports for going into administration? No: they get a points deduction.

If they folded and reformed then yes.

I will still not be going to Bradford next season - but only because of the aid they have been given. It's been grossly unfair to other clubs and I think it is abysmal that they've not been forced to release players to reduce their wage bill.

Rangers?

Rangers ceased as a company. They then created a new company, hence their relegation.

Bradford haven't.

But they will when leaving administration. Or are you suggesting the new owners will take on all the historic debt?

In that case shouldn't Wakefield have been relegated for the same reason?

You are, as always Gronk, too easy.

It's well known that Glover took on, and paid, the debts that he didn't have to.

The RFL have already stated that Bulls future in SL is dependent on the historic debt being covered.

Gronk is right.

Wakefield created a new company (Spirit of 1873). The debts sank with the old company.

You're saying Bradford could create a new company. You're right - Glover did take on SOME of the debt. Not all. And no one knows the true figure.

What is stopping Bradford's new owners doing the same? By token, Wakefield should have been relegated if you're going down that route. In which case, you cannot moan about Bradford being kept in SL.

No both you and Gronk are wrong - or are the RFL lying when they stated Glover covered debts he wasn't liable for. I believe he did this, not to retain the licence, but to try and rebuild an element of good faith with the business community affected by the Richardson board.

"Glover did take on SOME of the debt. Not all. And no one knows the true figure." What a gem this is!! You say I am wrong (despite the RFL clearly stating otherwise), and then say no-one knows!! Apart from you and Gronk, of course.

Wakefield DID create a new company, this is a fact.
Bradford are creating a new company which you want them kicked out for, despite the fact Bradford might take forward some debt, that is not known yet.
What's the difference? You're being the blinkered troll you always are, it's the exact same situation.

It's also a fact we don't know exactly how much debt Glover did take on, if any at all because we were never told, convenient.

Yes, a new company that took on some of the debt of the old company, which it did not have to do.

I do not know the level of that and neither do you...but you seem to want use that to justify your misguided oponion that it never happened.

The RFL clearly stated it.

The same is to be expected of Bulls if they want to retain the licence.

No, I said we were never given any proof, just the word - the company/companies never came forward.

What if they only paid back the debt owed to say...West Yorkshire Windows (if they were owed anything).

And Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon.

No. You're saying kick Bradford out for doing exactly the same.

It wasn't the old Wakefield company that paid the debts was it? Let me make this simple for you: Wakefield went into administration under old company, Andrew Glover (under Spirit of 1873) purchases the club and transfers club into new company. Old company is wound up with debts. New company is debt free. Andrew Glover agrees to honour some of those debts.

You appear to be under the illusion that we're arguing that this wasn't the case. We're not at all. Either that or you've completely misread my post.

What we're arguing is that Bradford CAN do exactly the same.

i.e. They're currently in administration under their existing company name. A new company could be created and buy the Bulls. Debts sink with old club. What's stopping them from honouring some of the debts like Glover?

And then you're arguing they should be relegated. In which case, Wakefield should have been relegated as it would be exactly same that you're asking for.

Hope this simplifies/clarifies things easier for you.

So Gronk/you agree that Wakey correctly weren't relegated, having taken on (an however unspecified) amount of debt the newco wasn't liable for, and that Bulls would be expected to do the same in order to retain the SL licence?

One major difference is of course, the levels of debt - Wakey crashed for 300k, Bulls is 10 times that.

That would be the case yes, but you're the one who was saying Bradford should be kicked for making a newco, just like Wakefield did, hence the original comment




Don't forget the continued (ridiculous) RFL assistance so they didn't have to sell players...

I think you are mixing me up with someone else Gronk...where have I stated that Bulls should be relegated for going to a newco???

For clarity, I believe they should indeed lose the licence if they don't make good on some of the historic debt and TBF to the RFL, that is what they have stated.

Apparently this is what the clubs want, in order to prevent other clubs running up massive debts, chasing success they can't afford, then going into admin. and offing those debts and continuing.

I couldn't agree more strongly with on your last point - pay their wages so they can keep a squad they couldn't afford in the first place, is perverse!

Well, according to [url=https://www.duedil.com/company/02623391/wakefield-trinity-rugby-league-football-club-limited/financialspublicly available information[/url, as of the end of 2009, Wakefield Trinity still existed with liabilities of £1.4m. So if your 'crashed for £300k' figure is accurate, Spirit of 1873 took on £900k of debt.

I struggle to believe that's the case. We'll see when either company files some accounts...

I was going by the administrators report, which they have to create when disposing of the their involvement with companies...I am certainly no expert in such matters.

I understand the £1.4m, includes the charge held by BoI on the ground, which is actually a serviced debt and not an outstanding liability.

Bulls are a basket case of a different sort altogether. The RFL had to help them, otherwise they would just have waved goodbye to the £1.4m that they propped them up with, on the lease arrangement (which ironically occured because the Bulls couldn't pay back the £700k already loaned to them by the RFL).

Wakey asked for a considerably smaller amount (advance), when the poop started and were refused!

But I'm not bitter - if they had helped then, we may still have had the Richardsons'!

Very interesting piece from the Liverpool Echo regarding Hull KR's stance on cutting loose the Bulls and Saint Helens view point on reducing SL and keeping the Bulls in :- www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/ru ... -31883811/

Very interesting piece from the Liverpool Echo regarding Hull KR's stance on cutting loose the Bulls and Saint Helens view point on reducing SL and keeping the Bulls in :- www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/ru ... -31883811/