So in essence you are saying that because the RFL advanced circa £300k to P&A, there was a punishment of £1m which was distributed among the other Super league clubs?

Any evidence of this being the case? Or is it just another chip on the shoulder urban myth?

So it's all the RFL's fault for digging one of the biggest names in the game out of a hole? They should have said no & let Bradford Bulls disappear? Because that is what would have happened.

Imagine the reaction if the RFL had not acted as they did and it became public.

G'day Blake

Dweeb is now reduced to doing his best Violet Elizabeth Bott impersonation of going off in a huge sulk, stamping his little feet because the nasty men are asking him hard questions.

Dweeb has posted NOTHING but this sort of rant for several pages now, and it is clear he is a busted flush, so Dweeb I suggest back in yer box unless and until you calm down enough to at least try to frame a response to something like 30-odd specific and sensible direct questions posed to you.

Tip 1: Responding to any question with some other waffling rhetorical question doesn't count.

Tip 2: Replying with "What questions haven't I answered" doesn't pass muster either. The answer is basically "none so far"
But you could start with my question as to your claim that RFL is not a creditor of OKB and whether their claim of around £900k in the administration is therefore fraudulent. Like all the other questions, you either skirt round them, like some border collie on amphetamines, or else pretend they were never asked.

There is enough in the press over the pas 2 years stating the clubs shared the Bulls share of the central funding.

If this was not the case, the RFL would have set the records straight, as the decision to let the clubs decide what happened to the cash makes them look weak and unbiased.

Do you have any proof which backs up your argument that the Bulls share of the central funding did not go to the SL clubs? Thought not!

You've lost the plot, Dweeb.

The administration receipts and payments account is a matter of public record. I am looking at it now. The figures are as I stated. Are you accusing P&A of presenting an incorrect or even fraudulent report? I have accused them of all manner of things, but deliberate falsification of a legal document would never be one of them.

All you have done is seek to justify why the RFL confiscated c.£1.3m off future, and blameless, owners, without providing ANYTHING to support the reason for that amount.

Yet it was YOU who stated, right at the start [i"It wasn't a fine as there is nothing in the operational rules regarding financial punishment. It was the RFL recouping the huge amount of funds it had to pay the administrator to prevent liquidation".[/i I think I have demonstrated that it most definitely cannot have been that. Which makes you either mistaken, seriously disingenuous or a liar.

You seem to be acknowledging, absent any rebuttal, that the confiscation WAS connected with the buying of the lease. Yet are silent on the consequence that I pointed out.

You are also resorting increasingly to the last refuge of those who are losing the argument, and putting up increasing numbers of straw men. Kindly cease attributing to me - and others - statements we have not made, and opinions we have not expressed. It is dishonest, and frankly undermines any remaining shreds of argument you may have.

You state that had the RFL not made loans to BBH in 2012 then bought the lease, then there would have been no club.

No.

BBH would have gone into administration.

HOW THE HELL do you know that no-one would have come in for the club, to acquire the assets and carry on? Given that that is precisely what has happened TWICE since then, with the club in a FAR wporse position AND with the masive financial confiscation hanging over the head of any new owner, it BEGGARS BELIEF that no-one would have come in!!! Indeed, the common asumption was that no less than Mr Caisley would have done precisely that and maybe indeed was intending to do precisely that.

You allege the rent was not paid post-purchase - another new allegation. Fine. So where the hell is the RFL as a creditor in the list of creditors at date of administration that I am looking at? Surely the rent will have been invoiced? Like any normal commercial business would do? And anyway, at £78k p.a. we are hardly talking huge amounts. And

For the avoidance of doubt, I have not, ever, anywhere, blamed the problems of the club on the RFL.

I have stated:

1 - that the actions of the RFL, in making the secret loans and then taking the stadium lease, made a bad situation (not of their making) far far worse. As a minimum, all it did was pushed back insolvency by a few months, in which time the situation became far worse and the toxic situation between major shareholders went nuclear.

2 - that the subsequent confiscation of c. £1.3m from prospective future purchasers - a confiscation that you have failed to justify in any meaningful way - was an absurd decision. It made life extremely hard indeed for blameless new owners, punishing THEM for the sins of unconnected predecessors.

EDIT: just to repeat what I said right at the start, to knock down your straw men:
[i
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 crisis, let's be clear, caused entirely by incompetant and irresponsible club managements and ownerships not the RFL) into a total unmitigated disaster.[/i



I really hope that you are just an apologist for the senior officials at the RFL, and not actually one of them as has been alleged. Because, if you are inded one of the latter, then it sadly demonstrates just what sort of people are running the show.

Are you seriously suggesting that that "redistribution" did not happen? That all the other clubs have colluded to make up a story about sharing Bradford's sky money?

How bizarre!

Oh, and one last point.

If, as you allege, the confiscation from the subsequent purchaser was effectively to recover funds that the RFL had advanced to BBH and not recovered, then would it not be fair to say that this would just HAVE to be taken into account by a subsequent purchaser in the purchase consideration?

And that, therefore, the consideration was likely to be considerably less than it might otherwise have been?

Which meant that additional funds that might have been available to pay a dividend to the creditors were not there?

Because the RFL had engineered a way to get paid in full?

Now that might be a bit more complicated than a normal "fraudulent preference", and therefore a little harder for an administrator or liquidator to recover. But I suspect such an action could be well open to legal challenge?

And, just think: All the trouble that could have been avoided, had the confiscated funds been placed into a trust to provide for settlemement of the creditors...

Not only that Adey, but if the Bulls are in the process of paying back the 1.3 million to the RFL, then this must cover almost 2/3 of the overall debt attached to the last (or one before(even 1 before that)) administration, meaning we should be due some points back in our appeal!

Unless, the RFL are suggesting that they are not an actual creditor (just a pretend one that wants its 1.3 million back).

Must admit, if What Dweeb says is the official RFL line, then if I was HMRC or one of the other major creditors, I would be asking my lawyers to check out what might be deemed to constitute a "fraudulent preference". But I suppose the action of the RFL distributing the confiscated share to the other clubs, giving them the same net outlay and therefore not having actually enjoyed any preference, would be the defence?

Funny, that.

Well, at least we've learnt how many times the same unsupported, demonstrably taken apart rubbish can be reposted and it appears to be ad nauseum.

If the Dweeb is they guy from the RFL working on the case, we now know why there has been no work done in the case of the lies told to the RFL enquiry into the Kopczak transfer, which blew open after Keith Mason took the club to court; he's spending too much time on the internet!

Adey, are you solar powered?

Rarely post but read most days, had to come on to say welcome back Adey, great posts re Mr Dweeb.
PS If Mr Dweeb is part of the RFL, I think one of his colleagues ought to take that shovel off him sharpish.

The dangers of trying to be a good Samaritan - if you see an animal dying of self inflicted wounds just put it down - it will save a lot of trouble down the line.

I know where you're coming from, but he's digging a hole big enough for Nigel to fall in.

This needs repeating.
Lets be clear. The Bulls problems are the fault of the Bulls,no-one else, it was gross mis-management from the peak of 2003/2004 (IMHO - this should have been the point in time we restructured for the long term, but hindsight is often 20:20) However, the RFL and others actions, whilst maybe trying to help in the best way, ultimately made things much worse. With hindsight we clearly should have been allowed/forced to go bust and reform before the secret loan and Odsal theft. It was help, but misguided help for the long term, that might sound ungrateful (like I give a.... before anyone bothers to call me on it) but the evidence of how misguided the help ultimately was is being played out week by week right now and will result in us being relegated.


Cheers to Adey, FA, daveyz999 for the excellent contributions, and cheers also to Mr Dweeb for filling up an otherwise dull hour. I do still wonder what would be happening now if Mrs Koucash or the secret texas billionaire had got involved....At least I'm looking forward to Saturday at the Eithad, should be lovely weather too! Excellent.

As already stated more than once, the RFL is a creditor of OK. He personally guaranteed the repayment up administration of OK Bulls within 2 years. The £900k figure was lodged with the administrator because the money went into OK Bulls coffers.

Indeed, that may well be the policy of the RFL in future. But then the fans of the next club will ask why they aren't being treated the same as Bradford Bulls.......

Your proof that it did?

Why, will the RFL not advise the employees of other clubs to place the club into administration to rid them of their employers? This is all based on hearsay, of course!

If I remember correctly it's called Odsal - and is there already!

If we leave the £900,000 figure you keep referring to, lets look at the £1.3 million the bulls are still paying back the RFL (apparently). Was this lodged officially on the creditors report when the original administration took place? I didn't think it did....... Otherwise it would have (correctly) been written off as part of the administration.

Your figures still don't add up - the Bulls never received payments adding to £1.3 (excluding the sale of the Lease). The only evidence you attempted to put forward was that Gargoyle somehow lied on his administrator report (with the aid of his buddy Caisley) which is a pretty serious allegation to make!

YET AGAIN you dodge the simple question.

YOU SAID the RFL is not a creditor of OKB.

I asked why then have they claimed £900K in the administration, albeit at the eleventh hour?

Whatever personal claims they may choose to try to pursue against anyone else is a separate matter entirely. Either they are owed £900K as they have claimed by OKB, or they are not. If not, then I repeat, have they lodged a fraudulent claim, then?

Ergo those of us who stumped up to the £500k appeal contributed to the demise as well.