Too many words in this thread now. It hurts my head. Can someone synopsise for me please?

According to the dweeb, the points penalty was applied to OKbulls, yet clearly and publicly the RFL, Ralph Rimmer specifically, stated that the factors within the decision were the businessplan and contribution to previous creditors by BB2014.

So whomever this person is, expects that it is acceptable and normal and all within the plan, to penalise OKbulls for the actions of bb2014 who never owned the club and apply that penalty to completely new member in BBNL

The RFL should really learn it's much easy to admit your Fack up and start again, than try to defend an obvious Fack up

You're wasting your time FA - the man has the ability to write but clearly has no ability to read and comprehend.

What was that old expression, something about there being none so blind as those who [idon't want[/i to see?

And so it is because tonight, Matthew, Marc Green [size=150IS[/size OKB. And SSG. And BBNL. And BB2014. And Astra Zeneca. And HSBC. And....

So when is the decision on the points deduction?The sooner the better, as could cause lots of friction if bulls stayed up by a point, if given all 6 back. Even with all 6 back, it will be still difficult with the squad.

Hearing and decision is the week leading up to the Wakefield game (1st June), according to our RFL poster

The sooner the better mate. Got a soft spot for Bradford, as always down to earth fans and i rather you stayed up though. But unless get a run of wins soon it will be very tough. Cheers anyway.

Why do I have so little confidence he's got that bit right either....?

He seemed confident (although confidence doesn't seem to be something he/she lacks).

The poster does seem privy to information, although I don't think he was expecting [imere fans[/i to know certain 'truths' relating to the recent on-goings, hence his contradicting posts and continual failed attempt to prove that Bradford Bulls (regardless of ownership) owed the RFL money for paying wages.

He has also gone quiet on the claims that the clubs received a share of the money held back from OK Bulls.

Well my poll thread has certainly taken an unexpected turn. Mr Dweeb, if not Blake Solly, is clearly someone from or connected to the RFL and has had sight of, or knows people personally, who have had sight of documents and conversations not in the public domain.

Which they are now using on here to paint the RFL's side of events as having no blame or fault or any wrongdoing whatsoever. (even if some of the "help" was in of itself clearly counter productive)

Disappointing. Im not getting involved in a semantic argument with anybody, but the two points that stand out for me are;

- "Urban myth" that other teams got our allocation shared??!?
- Did the RFL or did they not suggest admin as Bb2014 say?
One side is clearly lying.

The whole affair has beaten me down, and I suspect Im not alone (anyone suprised at the low attendances this year needs to give their head a shake btw), I now fully expect the "independent"

appeal panel to side fully with Mr Dweeb and the RFL and uphold the 6 points. We'll struggle on, pick up a couple of wins but it wont be enough to avoid the inevitable. I suspect on 2nd of June we will need to begin preparations for competing in tier 2 next season. And to be frank, I'm almost past caring, (very definately the wrong word but im not sure how else to put it when you care so much that you just want he suffering to end) just get the appeal done, get this season done, and hopefully we can move on and rebuild with a sustainable club in the 2nd tier and look to get back up at some point in the future.

The sanction was applied to OK Bulls. BB2014 had the opportunity to reduce that sanction upon takeover. As no creditors were to be paid, the maximum sanction was upheld. Quite simple really. The sanction applied to OK Bulls remained in situ and was upjheld upon the takeover by BBNL.

I can't believe I am getting involved in all this but....

Was it? Was the sanction applied to OK Bulls? When were "OK Bulls" who no longer owned the Bulls told of this sanction? And when were BB2014 told that they were taking on the sanction applied to another owner regardless? Before they agreed to take it on, or after?

I do realise money was pumped into BB Holdings. What I don't realise is how the debt could manifest its way onto the new owner of the club?

Again, now we have gone through another 2 admins, the debt to the RFL still appears to be there. The RFL have somehow guaranteed their cash, above any creditor, even the taxayer.



I do indeed.



BB2014 agreed to repay all creditors (with the exception of OK) over a 5 year period. The creditors were then notified of the plan put forward by BB2014 confirming the same. The owners (at the time) withdrew their offer as the RFL failed to consider their offer of payment as a way of reducing the debts.

except that just doesnt work does it. You can't apply a penalty to OKbulls for the actions of BB2014 and you certainly cannot apply a sanction to OKbulls and actually apply that sanction to BBNL

The sanction cannot have been 'in situ' because it was applied to an entirely separate member. Any sanction applied to BBNL would have to be an entirely new sanction.

That sanction was also publicly justified by BB2014s actions and business plans, are you now telling us Ralph Rimmer lied in his statement explaining the reasons for the sanction?

You can apply all the sanctions you want to OKbulls, they aren't members of the RFL any more, nobody would care.

You clearly contradict yourself, you state the penalty was applied because no creditors were to be paid, that was a BB2014 action not an OKbulls action and at the point the penalties were applied definitely not a BBNL action?

Whichever twisty turny attempt at covering this Fack up you make, you cannot escape the simple truth that OKbulls were sanctioned, for the actions of BB2014 but that sanction applied to BBNL.

In other words a clusterfsk.

Summary:

OKB were penalised 6 points for an insolvency event which under RFL membership rules had to apply to this 2014 season irrespective of who controlled the club. (membership bye-laws 4.6 final sentence). Self-evidently, being insolvent OKB could not mitigate the 6 points by paying off creditors. BB2014 proposed to pay them off in the expectation of full mitigation, however withdrew (seemingly after the business plan underpinning those repayments was examined). Enter BBNL who as a condition of RFL membership accepted the penalty and the right to appeal against it. That appeal is not mitigation based on paying creditors back, but uses force majeure as its basis. The nature of that force majeure has not been publicly declared, so open to conjecture.

It is also worth noting that under the membership bye-laws the RFL can pretty much decide what penalties - sorry, conditions of membership - they want to dish out, and can disregard any precedents if they so wish. The main issue is not what the RFL have blatantly done according to the rules, ie correctly applying the points deduction to the 2014 season, but the transparency of the process by which they determine the conditions of membership (ie penalties attached to membership being granted). If they do not follow precedents, then that whole process behind such a decision should be open to scrutiny, including by the fans.

Tweedldweeb makes it sound as if the OK refund was a side deal, but I cannot see how it could be. Penalties, and all conditions thereto, are surely part of the conditions of new/continued membership? Even the necessity for a PG would be a condition. Which wouuld mean that to invoke the PG, the RFL would first have to demand repayment from OKB, and upon not being satisfied, invoke the PG. Having some statutory accounts for OKB would have been helpful in this context, as if it was a condition of OKB membership then it would have been in the balance sheet as a contingent liability, and on the fundamental accounting principal of grossing up, OKB's Pg would also have been declared as a contingent asset.

I hope that clears things up.

It doesn't clear anything up because it is the same clearly and demonstrably wrong nonsense you have been peddling for weeks that has already been shown to be clearly and demonstrably wrong.

Your timeline isn't even right.

The weird thing is, you along with everyone else understands the RFL could apply a sanction as a condition of membership, yet for some reason you insist this didn't happen, but that the original points deduction stands.

As you are not substantiating your first point, theres nothing to comment about.

The RFL reserve the right to defer applying the penalty, so that they can help the insolvent club out. That clearly happened in this case. They can declare the penalty whenever they want, subject to it being declared in time to be applied to the current season, or if offseason, the following season.

For the sake of clarity, the RFL could and did apply a sanction to BBNL as a condition of RFL membership. This has the [ueffect[/u that the original points deduction stands, as does the right to appeal it.

The problem is that the wording of the relevant passages seems to be too much for you. The RFL do not reserve the right to defer a penalty at all. They can choose not to serve the Notice that terminates the insolvent member's membership.

One link you need to make is the one between "sanctions" and "Member". As if there is no member then sanctions cannot exist in a vacuum, and for that rather obvious reason, none could be applied.

The way it works is, in steps:
* Member suffers an insolvency event
* RFL can if it wants serve a Notice (indeed must do so within the stated time frames) and if it does, membership ends. If that happened then end of club. No sanctions, as nothing would exist.
If the RFL for the time being decides not to serve a Notice then for the time being there will be no sanctions. The Notice being a pre-requisite for sanctions.
Those sanctions will be applied to that Member if (and only if) the Member applies to be and is re-admitted.
Or else sanctions can equally be applied to a new member (which is the situation in the case of Bulls).

The situations envisaged are that either the club in financial strife sorts itself out up to a point and comes cap in hand wanting to carry on (ie the existing company); or else it cannot, but a new owner comes along and applies for a new membership.

I would have thought it blindingly obvious that if OKB were served a Notice and thus ceased to be a member, and did not seek reinstatement, and nobody else applied to be a new owner, then even the thickest person would understand there would in those circumstances BE no club and so sanctions to something that did not exist would be pure farce.

However, if you still don't get it, then before we go any further, please point me to the rule clause or law that gives the RFL jurisdiction to apply sanctions to anyone OTHER than members. Could they, for example, sanction Tesco? Or Manchester United?

I do not know when (if ever) the RFL served its Notice on OKB but surely you can understand that if OKB died, and n new owner applied for membership then nothing would exist to which sanctions could be applied?


When? On what date? Where is it reported? Link? For the sake of clarity, I will not accept you simply baldly stating "the RFL did apply a sanction to BBNL". You have nothing at all to substantiate that claim. I

In any case that sanction could not be the 6 points, as that was announced pre-BBNL. So if BBNL was to suffer a 6 point sanction then the previously announced one would need to be lifted, and a fresh sanction imposed on the new owner.

This is definitely a losing the will to live moment???

A succinct appraisal.

The RFL made the administrator aware of the figure guaranteed by OK as it had actually been paid to OK Bulls as part of the licence deal and would therefore be shown as revenue for the business.

OK Bulls is not liable for the sum of money, OK is. Therefore the RFL is technically not a creditor of OK Bulls, but of OK.

There is no attempt to prove Bradford Bulls owed the FL money. It's simply the case that th RFL funded the lengthy administration of BB Holdings in order to prevent the club from disappearing. Had the RFL not done so, there would have been no source of income tosustain the business & the administrator would have been legally bound to liquidate it.

It was simply not feasible or logical for the RFL to take ownership of and continue to fund the business in perpetuity. Given that BB Holdings had already received it's full allocation of Sky money prior to liquidation, it isn't incumbent upon the RFL to simply write off he money provided during administration.

Thus, OK Bulls had it's Sky allocation reduced in order that the RFL would not have funded one beyond the normal distribution of central funds.

What funding did other clubs receive tat OK Bulls did not? And when?

BB Holdings was still a member and had competition points sanctions imposed upon it. OK Bulls was still a member and had competition points sanctions imposed upon it. Both sanctions were applied within the same timescales to both members and they were consistent levels of sanctions for an act of insolvency where creditors would not be paid.

I fail to see what the issue is.

When did the RFL ever announce a sanction against OKB, then?


And so the RFL have nevertheless claimed £900k+ as a creditor, presumably fraudulently?