I guess it was forseen and unavoidable you Wakie lot would be on here talking crap

Dunno. But Mr Green thinks it was unavoidable, and he wasn't the owner at the time, although as the debenture holder, he put them into administration. So he must have demonstrable concerns which he feels will hold up at a tribunal.

And as members of SL, all 14 clubs are contractually bound to abide by the appeal decision. So thats ok as well.

We have been in admin and ended up selling some of our players.
To ensure we didn't go into admin last year, MC did cut our cloth accordingly.
As for calling Wake unprofessional, I think everyone and his dog knows we have been run badly for ages.
Bradford now have been in admin twice in about 3 years and the only player you lost first time round was Kopczak and you moaned like mad at that.
Didn't see any major cost cutting after this and this is probably why you are now where you are.
The letter that was wrote maybe ill informed but isn't this why MC asked for clarification from the RFL on what the consequences of administration are?
To get a Super League licence your finances had to be vetted by the RFL, yet 3 or 4 months into the first season you went into admin.
Marc Green can put his case forward for the Bulls and whatever the outcome of the decision is, the RFL needs to have in place in black and white, the penalties for entering admin and not play guessing games.

Tricky0.2309 I asked the same (good) question when the appeal was announced, or rather that the RFL agreed that there was a basis for an appeal to go ahead. From that wording it would seem to me that the RFL check that there are grounds for an appeal and that its not frivolous. However as you point out it is not obvious what the force majeur was. the only thing I can think of is OK not fufilling his obligations under the deal struck to transfer ownership, under which the trio presumably would have taken on responsibility for payments, including to HMRC. They did make their position clear, no ownership no responsibility and had indeed already resigned once over the issue, for an agreement to then be brokered by the RFL. All conjecture, anybody else any idea of what the force majeur or uncontrollable external event was?

No one is preaching, maybe just pointing out that it's best if people in glass houses don't throw stones.

I think you'll find that between our 2 admins we lost Kopczak, Whitehead, Bateman, Winterstein, L'estrange, Langley, Platt and Mick Potter, all of whom were probably on decent wages. Plus there's all the backroom staff that got made redundant. Then since the 2nd admin we've lost Sammut, Scrutton and Carvel. Whether we wanted those people to leave or not, I would hardly say that costs have not been cut. The main reason that we ended up where we are now is because we had £1.2m taken off us and shared between the other SL clubs.

If Carter wants a level playing field for going into administration, and I believe he mentioned deducting 10 points, then Wakefield need to be retrospectively deducted a further 6 points and fined £1.2m for their last admin. That might make it fair.

Although Wakefield and now more financialy stable I don't think they are particularly rich so if I was Carter I would keep my mouth shut. You never know, they may just find themselves in financial dificulties again sometime.

I think people do get into a bit of a lather about 'admin' and 'winding up', etc, as though this was some awful cardinal sin. This procedure is neither illegal nor uncommon and, in fact, the capitalist system couldn't function without this re-assigning of assets and 'recycling' of failed companies.

As I understood the situation, the big thing everyone was totally against was the scenario where a failing company is taken into admin [iby the owners[/i, who arrange a pre-pack, and return -emboldened and debt free, to continue the ownership and running of the company under a different name.

I assume the 'force majeure', may well a fair way of looking a the Bulls situation, in that it wasn't the directors of the company who instigated the procedure in a naked move to gain profit, but it was 'forced' by a creditor. The fact that it was the same creditor who took over the club muddies the waters slightly but the principle remains intact, imo.

Kopczak used the get out clause like Carvell.
Whitehead was sold after extending his contract.
A transfer fee was turned down for Bateman.
As for the rest, they were shed at the start of the second admin.
So in theory, the first time you went into admin you lost two players and carried on regardless.
I don't know the in's and out's of the £1.2m but it has been mentioned that OK agreed to this so the Bulls could retain their SL place.
What MC is saying, is that the rules need to be in black and white, not a massive grey area, left open to individual interpretation, a bit like what refs do.

Which bit of, "all these players left our wages bill", are you having trouble with?

So you don't know the ins and outs of the £1.2m, well, when you go into admin the next time, I can tell you there will be letters being written about 'level playing fields' if you aren't made very much more aware of the problem.

The bit where they have been made out to be off the wage bill first time around.
If we do go into admin again hopefully there will be a blueprint for all clubs to refer to and understand the consequences that go with it..

Bulliac there was no prepack and Ok is clearly not in control, its Marc Green. and yet 6 points have been deducted. The RFL seem keen to draw as hard a line as possible, otherwise any excuse could be used for going into admin with no penalty. As FA would say, the way to sort out HMRC was to pay them, that was within the clubs control. Imo it needs a genuine outside of the clubs control reason for the appeal.

The fact remains that they have gone, flown the coop, no longer here, are no longer on the books. When is irrelevant.

I doubt there will be any 'blueprints', the RFL seem to like adding 'nice little surprises'..I guess our 'little surprise', the £1.2m, is now part of the scheduled bit..

The 'when' is very relevant, as the Bulls line up for the first fixture of 2013 against us doesn't look to have been ravaged by player sales and cost cutting.
A least we can agree that there will be no concrete guidelines from the RFL.
Just more rumour and speculation to keep the forums going!

MC is also saying that if Bradford get their points back he'll think about leaving RL. Obv trying to sway the decision of the appeal panel against Bradford to benefit his own team. To me that makes him a complete and utter tool. I totaly agree with him on the fact that there needs to be clear rules and penalties for entering admin, but at the time of ours there wasn't. So he should stop trying to bring Bradford down just so that Wakefield can survive.

F'ingFofF, explain this: if a player doesnt want to be tuped then off they go, but all the rest are tuped across at exactly the same terms and conditions, ie other clubs can cherry pick but the new owners cannot, they have to take every player and on the same terms. do you seriously think that any bulls fan would have taken on Platt if there was a choice? not forgetting the trio saying any player could go when they were looking for £400k savings, having asked the players to take a wage cut, and reducing non playing staff? also look at the article in the TnA as to what the problems are for us squad wise, from an independent expert.

I've just re-read my post and don't think I suggested there was a pre-pack or that OK was in control Martin - I think you may have been confused by the general preamble about admin in general, and what I feel is the [imajor[/i bugbear that many have about the system, in the first two paragraphs and the Bulls specifics at the bottom.

On FA's way to sort out creditors, well yes, it's perfect - the one flaw, maybe, the fact that if all the companies could afford to pay the creditors there would be no need for the whole admin/winding up procedure in the first place. Of course, every business [ishould[/i 'live within its means', etc but back in real life we all know what happens from time to time. Maybe every company should be legally forced to have untouchable 'clients accounts', then HMRC should never be a problem?

Ah diddums, just take a couple of seconds to think how much much much (get the idea by now?) worse that timing was for us, and also read the article in the TnA. You are already lining up the excuses for relegation. the first admin of course the RFL insisted on the squad being kept together so that it was a level playing field for teams, this time they seem to have passed their own verdict on whether it materially affects Wakefield by allowing a cherry picking free for all.

Not making excuses at all.
If the RFL insisted you kept your squad together to maintain a level playing field, maybe they should have insisted that for you to be able to do this, you could afford them?
As for players being able to leave to raise part of the £400,000.
One minute they were, next minute they were 'ring fenced'.

And lets look at the wildcats will be demoted for going into admin issue.

what they would have suffered for deliberately going into admin (ring up and ask what the consequences would be - and then claim it is unforeseen- hahaha) would be 6 points. Now comes the harder bit. the entry fee for a franchise for the year is all the sky funding. Full stop. No two years over which to spread it. the only outcome of these two would be relegation. So Carter might just be putting a slant on the friendly advice he got from the RFL, that because they would have to ensure a level playing field the penalties for going into admin were so ONEROUS that the only foreseeable outcome was relegation. Or have
Wakefiedl fans not heard of PR? and can they do arithmetic? -6 points - £1.2M = relegation x 100%

MC made hard and unpopular decisions when it came apparent that we could go into admin, he grasped the nettle and sorted it.
We started our clear out about September time, Bulls probably could have done the same but waited til December.
Bradford dragged their feet and by the time it was accepted they were in trouble, the situation had become much worse.
Resulting in having to release players from their contracts and getting peanuts for the ones that were still under contract.
I think Wake fans and the club can do arithmetic a little better now than the first time around.

The Bulls initial administration was to get rid of the previous owner. Players did not need to be sold, as the new owners would fund the club. The offer made to the administrator, apparently, included paying all creditors in full (think over a 5 year period).

At this point of the saga, I don't think we needed to 'cut our cloth'.

yes, one more great bit of timing for us. OK decided hed had enough, and sort of handed the reins (or did he) over to the trio who said they needed to make the savings as OK Bulls, and then saw that they needed a clean start hence bulls 2014. the ringfencing was declared for the newco bulls 2014 - or should have been, as the deal did not go through. and again, no owner in their right mind would shout firesale, come and get them, buy one prop get one free!!!

Carter is doing a very good job building what is called in sports motivation circles "the siege mentality". The only trouble with it is that under a siege, those subject to it are restrained within the confines of their own chosen locality. So hes not quite got it right just yet. its the players that should be running around causing a riot on the pitch, not sugar-rushed trolls running around causing havoc on other forums.


added following your last post "mc made hard and unpopular decisions..."
I have great respect for what Carter is doing behind the PR front. Again, timing. I wish that OK had got out when he said, and with a hand over in place. But he did not. OK was not interested, and quite rightly in my opinion the trio were not interested in assuming responsibility without ownership. and that dragged on and on. so yes, Wakefield are very fortunate that they got the timing right. But dont assume that that fortune was shared by the bulls, it took admin before the trio could contemplate wrestling ownership from OK. critical time, as Wakefield have shown.

and its a bit difficult to argue with my (sorry, the RFL's) arithmetic, isnt it? just in case you have forgotten, 6 points deduction and 1.2m funding deduction = championship for certain, dress it up how you wish.

Fair play, not got a problem with this explanation.
Just the troll bit.

I think it will be very difficult for a successful appeal.
The company OK Bulls was making losses of £100000 a month to Ok"s resignation.

No attempt to cut costs was made.
Until the new ownership saga dragged for 5 months.
Indeed costs increased under Ok and revenue fell.

No proper books were kept which are fundamental to understanding of a companies current financial position.

The £1.2 million withheld from The club was known about from the outset of OK"s tenure.

Some points may have been recovered if Marc Green was to commit to pay all the creditors or even some as in the Wakefield comparison.
But with results and crowds of the past two weeks and championship staring in the face ....Would you?

No a proper balls up has been made and it would be ridiculous to try isolate single events (EG HMRC wind up petition mid January)as been an event under force majoeur.

The Bulls went into admin because.
1.The owner had run out of money
2.The owner blindly carried on regardless depite been aware he was losing 3600k a year in guaranteed income.
3.the owner increased costs (Robbie backroom staff )at atime he was struggling to pay existing contractual arrangements.Look at the creditors list.Some go back nearly 12 months without been paid.

The club was broke lock stock barrel.

Of course admin could have been avoided.
By recognizing the problems faced as early as September 2012 and acting accordingly.
The deluded are clutching at straws.

Its been a complete set of for over three years.
And no doubt I will be added to that list as fans desperatelt try to find justification and argument for a complete basket case.
I"ll get me coat