I couldnt help but read his response with an Australian accent

Nonsense. It was a financial sanction and of course that is in the rules. The RFL only used some money which would have been due to the club anyway and no funds outside that. It did not "prevent liquidation". Why would the RFL care whether or not the old company was liquidated anyway?

Nonsense. The issue with BBH was that there were so many shareholders it was a company which, if kept alive, was uncontrollable. No new owner for BBH ever did come forward. Not even its main shareholder Mr Caisley who effectively brought the old company down.

So in his original letter to all creditors, the administrator blatantly lied, did he?

But those two things are totally unrelated. You really don't understand anything, do you. Look, whether or not Green's company pays anything to creditors IS NOTHING REPEAT NOTHING TO DO WITH the administrator. If they did, they would do so direct.

So, in your head, OK's £1 million doesn't count, because... ? I would suggest that his £1m is a slightly bigger contribution than his ego, in this farrago.

Nonsense. MG is a legal entity. SSG is a separate legal entity. You need to try to understand that a limited company IS A LEGAL PERSON IN ITS OWN RIGHT. It may be CONTROLLED by one or more persons, but they and the company are not the same thing. Of course the officers of a company must execute any legal documents. Seeing as a company cannot write.
Oh, and if MG is "paying out of his own pocket" as you weirdly claim - then WHAT is he paying? You just said he isn't paying anything, which is why it's 6 points!

I don't have any prblem at all with either facts or valid arguments. You seem to me be someone who does have some information, but doesn't understand that information properly, and lack key information too. Maybe you should get someone who does know what they're talking about to explain it to you as you are struggling. Also, don't get so bristly and defensive. If you state either correct information or even tell me something I didn't know then fine. I have no axe to grind, but do dislike misinformation.

Blake could you provide us with proof of this

Onya cobber

Got a feeling you might know this, when is our appeal likely to be heard?

MG hasn't offered the administrator any amount of money to pay creditors. The appeal MG is paying for involves no offer of payment of creditors. HTH.

It will be heard & a decision reached prior to the Bradford Bulls home game with Wakefield Trinity Wildcats on 1st June

Thank you for the well informed and accurate information, the final task before the new job starts on 1st June eh? Have you got enough nails for our coffin? Can't say Im confident in the independant nature of the appeal or the RFL in general after your contribution here.

If this is true, which i'm not doubting, the thing I don't understand is why was OK penalised (financially) due to the RFL pumping money into the old regime?

OK wasn't liable in any way for the additional funds the RFL put forward, yet he had to pay for the mistakes of the previous owners, hardly seems he was given a fair chance to run a club.

Last question - what is your response in regard to the statement put out by RW last week? It appears the RFL, apparently, advised the proposed new owners to place the club into admin to rid them of their current (at the time) majority shareholder. There are other claims/allegations within the same statement that make the RFL look pretty bad. To say that the statement suggest there was an 'agenda' from the RFL is an understatement.

Blake, you do know that you're supposed to type [uFACT[/u after all spurious comments, it's a sort of re-inforcer and let's us know you're on top of the situation....

Btw, you do know you can access any number of different green font shades from the 'font colour' button above the posting box, don't you?

Why should they recoup the money that went to pay players wages [ithat the rfl had guaranteed would be paid to the end of the season in the event of liquidation?[/i

If the assurances that the players & the union were given by the RFL were honoured, every player would be given three months wages by the RFL to get them to the end of the season and effectively put on gardening leave.

had to pay the administrator to prevent liquidation" was? Since you would clearly seem to know.

The Administration Order was granted on 26/6/12. OKB acquired the assets from the Joint Administrators on 31/8/12. Statements made at the time made it clear that the RFL was continuing to pay - to the Joint Administrators - the monthly Sky monies due to a SL club. The Joint Administrators sacked the non-playing staff, and ensured they incurred no costs beyond those that were absolutely essential. A lot of people volunteered their services for free. They continued to receive gate receipts, plus the gate receipts payment from Leeds.

So, are you asking us to believe that, over a NINE WEEK PERIOD the RFL had to pay the Joint Administrators a further c. £1.3m? To "prevent liquidation"? When, in any case, the Joint Administrators were legally charged with trying to secure a going concern sale if possible, and there were clearly parties interested in acquiring the going concern from quite early on?

And nowhere in any of the reports of the Joint Administrators do we see any reference to any such receipts? Certainly on this scale. Even if what the RFL paid over that period was NEW money, it beggars belief that it could be anything approaching £1.3m - does it not?


Unless you have more information on this allegation than you have already shared, what you say would seem to be totally absurd.

2. Even if WAS some factual basis to what you say, and if perchance the RFL WAS recouping a seven-figure sum it had had to pay to "persuade" the Joint Administrators - then the RFL would have RETAINED the money confiscated from future owners. Wouldn't it?

NOT ALLOWED ALL THE OTHER CLUBS TO APPROPRIATE IT AND SHARE IT AMONGST THEMSELVES.

And take a seven-figure hit in it's annual accounts.

Is there any part of that argument that is not irrefutable?

Is there any way that subsequent events did not totally debunk your assertion?

3 - Strange that someone chooses to come on here, just now, at this particular time, seeking to try and justify the actions taken by the RFL (acts of both commission and omission)? Acts which which, with the clear benefit of hindsight, would seem to have been instrumental in bringing about the present disastrous (and quite likely irretrievable) situation? And giving the clear impression of seeking to rewrite history to attempt to retrospectively justify some of the absurd and seemingly irresponsible actions that were taken?

4 - I also note, in passing, that a guy who will assuredly know where the bodies are buried, and whose recollection of the actual events would surely make VERY interesting reading (and clear up what the hell actually DID happen and what is still happening), has just been appointed - internally - to a new, ongoing senior role within the RFL/SL structure. So I guess that's a ship that will never dock, at least for the foreseeable future?


If a club owner puts his club into administration, then buys the assets off the administrator and carries on through a phoenix company, then the points deduction should not be six points. It should be much more. Because he has secured a big financial advantage at the expense of creditors. Indeed, I would argue any such proposal should not even be allowed to proceed.


But where totally unconnected new owners seek to make a go of it, buying the net assets off an Administrator, it is patently ABSURD to severely penalise THEM - both in competition points AND massively financially - for something they were in no way responsible for. Indeed, I can think of little that would be more likely to deter precisely the kind of prospective new owners the RFL should be seeking to attract!

Absurd. Totally absurd.

And, before anyone says "ah, well the new owners will have paid sod all for the net assets, precisely because they knew they would be so penalised", let's kill THAT nonsense off quite easily: If a RL club goes bust, it will invariably have sod all net tangible assets. SO there will not be anything to pay that much for anyway. And the value in any intagible assets like goodwill must be very limited indeed. "Ah, but they get a business free of liabilities", I hear them cry? Bollox they do. They assume very considerable employment liabilities under TUPE. As well, usually, as certain essential suppliers and providers being able to force some degree of recompense or otherwise financially hamstring the new company. In the case of both cases at Bradford, I would suggest that these liabilities will have been far higher than the value of any assets acquired.

So the new owners are effectively paying a sum of money for NET LIABILITIES. AND with severe future penalties to overcome. Can someone tell me who the hell in their right mind, acting commercially, would want to do that?

Would you?

FWIW, I am expecting that, when history comes to be written, the actions of the RFL over a protracted period (including approving OK as an appropriate new owner) will be seen to have turned an ongoing crisis (a cris, let's be clear, caused entirely by incompetant and irresponsible club managements and ownerships not the RFL) into a total unmitigated disaster.

That was moving onto my next point.

Why would the RFL demand payment from the new owners that effectively makes them the priority creditor. For example, HMRC did not get paid what they were owed, yet the RFL (who can apparently make unprecedented claims upon new business owners), were paid back in full? From the outside looking in, it honestly seems like the RFL used 'Bully' tactics to ensure their money was recovered, outside the administration process, ensuring all other creditors were screwed as a result.

The money the RFL was owed should have been lost with the admin, but as they make the 'rules', they made demands that they were re-paid. The proposed owner may have agreed to this, but in reality he had no choice. It was a take it or leave it offer.

It really stinks that the RFL were paid money owed before any other creditor, including the HMRC (totally outside the administration process). This whole situation just seems wrong

Glad you came back for this one!

I suspect we may not get a response

If we are dealing with a lawyer, as I suspect, I feel sure we will.

Whether we get any more much-needed daylight - to help people better understand what the hell has been and is gointg on, and maybe even gain a better appreciation of the RFL's POV - remains to be seen.

Odsal.....

On the pitch? As pre-match entertainment? Awesome, I am getting in early for that one.

If so and for instance if we get 6pts back (which is highly unlikely) imagine how huge that game now becomes.

It will be Green v Carter in the great Chinese burns-off, to see who gets relegated. Do we get free Coral tickets due to the kids' sponsorship?

Can somebody correct me if I've got this wrong,

Did the RFL supposedly tell Omar if the Bulls went into admin within 2 years of him taking over he would have to repay the Sky money the Bulls had received(50% what everybody else had received)

If that is correct,with that in mind,going back to what Whitcut came out with last week about the muppets at the RFL advising Mark Moore and his gang to take the club into admin

If that is the case that stinks to high heaven

Where are you Blake Solly

Another interesting point - But of course, the whole story is just plain Black and White as the trolls and Wakey contingent keep saying. All these other factors are irrelevant, and this is exactly how a professional sports organisation should be run!

Anyone who has followed this situation knows its far from black and white - thats half the problem, it bloody well should be!!
But to call anyone a troll and yet believe conjecture (lets be fair this whole situation is layer upon layer of that) is a little myopic, to say the least.
Worst case scenario, everything you want to be true isn't, best case scenario, everything you want to be true is - both are unlikely and these events cover neither the rfl, OKB, BB2014... in any kind of glory.
Something down the middle with lies and half truths on all sides however is, you'll never know half it, we'll never know half of it, and next season is just another season come what may.
Enjoy your rugby.

Yeah I get that, but I probably generalised the whole Wakefield support, when in fact, some of you have been quite helpful and neutral (Apologies for that!).

I agree but you also have to ask what does this scenario also make the trio look like. When the RFL allegedley suggested they stiff Khan, not make payment, secure ownership on the cheap and potentially escape a points deduction, did any of them say, 'actually that feels wrong'?