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

Apologies for my keyboard yet again.It was £600k a year lost in guaranteed income.Not 3600.

The RFL were also paying the wages for some time and had a request to put the club into admin within 6 weeks of OK resigning.Once some figures had been cobbled together from shambolic records.

Lets just put this into perspective... since the first administration the Bulls have released/sold 28 players from its books, whilst only signing 10 (two of whom have since left - Carvell and Winterstein).

In's
Jamie Foster
Adam Sidlow
Gareth Carvell
Dale Ferguson
Luke George
Matty Blythe
Lee Gaskell
Adam Henry
Frank Winterstein
Jamal Fakir

Out
Tom Burgess
Kyle Briggs
Ben Jeffries
Ian Sibbit
Olivier Elima
Bryn Hargreaves
Jason Crookes
Craig Kopczak
Paul Sykes
Callum Windley
Karl Pryce
Phil Joseph
Alex Ball
Shaun Ainscough
Liam McAvoy
Cain Southernwood
Jobe Murphy
Elliott Whitehead
Keith Lulia
Jamie Langley
Michael Platt
Curtis Naughton
John Bateman
Heath L'Estrange
Frank Winterstein
Gareth Carvell
Jarrod Sammut
Nick Scruton

Before you start saying that most of them were not worth keeping, 16 of them are currently on the books at either a SL or NRL club and 2 of them play in the Championship.

Compare this to Wakefield who released/sold 10 players last year and replaced them with 8 more this season, I'm not seeing the cloth cutting that some suggest.

That's staggering when you look at it like that. But still, not as hard done to as Wakefield, eh?

Well then,that should well and truly put Wakefields made up "facts" to bed once and for all

And yet they still couldn't balance the books.

Agreed, staggering. Just staggering.

Unfortuneately despite all the goings over comings the wages bill stayed the same......right up to salary cap.

Other clubs in difficulty will argue they did not pay up to cap as they recognized they would not have the income to pay up to cap.
Ok very proudly told fans from the off he would be paying up to cap.

But by August last year was struggling to and indeed the RFL had cause to intervene far far earlier than this year in January.
Of course the RFL know a great deal about the bulls insolvency situation.
They have continually in 3 years had to intervene at various times when players could not be paid.

The whole game needs to take one big long look in the mirror.
Look how the money men are behaving.The Doc gets rid of Nobby as success was not delivered inside a couple of minutes.Bit like the Chelsea man.

What I think even Bulls and Wakefioeld fans agree on is the rules and more importantly the penalties need to be clearer to take account of any eventualities that could arise in future.
Otherwise someone will always feel hard done to.
Like £1.2 million"s worth of unpaid bill people.
That could be nearer 32 million if Ok is believed or proved to have spent on the bulls behalf £600 grand the administrater can find no record of.

Shambles.
You would not run a school tuck shop as badly as this

Apology again.£2 million not 31

Or even 32

This is the kind of attention to detail that keeps me reading.

We were never spending up to the cap under OK.

Don't care what more you say on this point, we were well short last year, even the workers in the 'tuck shop' would be able to tell you the same!

I think time & an administration have shown what OK says & does & what actually happens can all be completely different to each other.

Tbf OK did say he would sell all his shares to MM and RW for 300k and signed the deal, giving them time to pay. It was the buyers who then never paid the agreed money. Leaving personalities aside is there anyone on here who would be happy with signing a deal to sell something
for 300k but the buyer then not paying? Be that as it may, MM and RW thus acquired ownership of OKB. Although - and unsurprisingly in the labyrinth that is Bulls business dealings, even that seemingly simple transaction is mired in legal disputes in the litigation commenced by OK to enforce payment which so far as I know is still ongoing.

Wasn't it case that OK agreed to sell his shares to Moore and whitcut for 300k but whitcut subsequently announced that all money OK had 'invested' in club was actually only loans which would be repaid in addition to the 300k sale price?.