We would, if it was possible, but it isn't. Those are the rules. Sorry.

Quote ="REDWHITEANDBLUE"Force Majeure [French, A superior or irresistible power. An event that is a result of the elements of nature, as opposed to one caused by human behavior. The term force majeure relates to the law of insurance and is frequently used in construction contracts to protect the parties in the event that a segment of the contract cannot be performed due to causes that are outside the control of the parties, such as natural disasters, that could not be evaded through the exercise of due care. Not having a pop by the way but looked up the definition how does this fit. My view is sort it on the pitch others including Wakey have gone into admin but not got 6 points so you may get some back I am not in the no points back camp it wouldn't bother me if you got all 6 back like I say the talking needs to be done on the pitch'" I'm no legal expert, but I don't think it just cover acts of god, "Force majeure is generally intended to include risks beyond the reasonable control of a party, incurred not as a product or result of the negligence or malfeasance of a party, which have a materially adverse effect on the ability of such party to perform its obligations, as where non-performance is caused by the usual and natural consequences of external forces " ppp.worldbank.org It can also include labour disputes I believe, either way, mr green doesn't strike me as the type to waste time on something if he thought he didn't at least have a point to discuss. He's also made it clear he's happy to except any judgement from the panel, at least our case will have been heard correctly. And I agree it should be decided on the pitch, but after an independent panel decides if the 6 pts taken from us off the pitch was correct punishment. On the poll, it is interesting to note the difference to the one on the vt. On that one it was overwelheming for the worst available outcome. On here where obviously there is more a bulls slanted view it's a more balanced outcome, with some of our visiting friends still choosing the worst available outcome, which was changed in this one to one thankfully not available to the panel. Looking at the two polls, I'd guess most people agree with a points deduction of some sort, with non bulls fans favouring the 6 or higher, with bulls fans hoping for a more lenient 4 or lower.....hardly surprising.

Quote ="REDWHITEANDBLUE"Force Majeure [French, A superior or irresistible power. An event that is a result of the elements of nature, as opposed to one caused by human behavior. The term force majeure relates to the law of insurance and is frequently used in construction contracts to protect the parties in the event that a segment of the contract cannot be performed due to causes that are outside the control of the parties, such as natural disasters, that could not be evaded through the exercise of due care. Not having a pop by the way but looked up the definition how does this fit. My view is sort it on the pitch others including Wakey have gone into admin but not got 6 points so you may get some back I am not in the no points back camp it wouldn't bother me if you got all 6 back like I say the talking needs to be done on the pitch'" I'm no legal expert, but I don't think it just cover acts of god, "Force majeure is generally intended to include risks beyond the reasonable control of a party, incurred not as a product or result of the negligence or malfeasance of a party, which have a materially adverse effect on the ability of such party to perform its obligations, as where non-performance is caused by the usual and natural consequences of external forces " ppp.worldbank.org It can also include labour disputes I believe, either way, mr green doesn't strike me as the type to waste time on something if he thought he didn't at least have a point to discuss. He's also made it clear he's happy to except any judgement from the panel, at least our case will have been heard correctly. And I agree it should be decided on the pitch, but after an independent panel decides if the 6 pts taken from us off the pitch was correct punishment. On the poll, it is interesting to note the difference to the one on the vt. On that one it was overwelheming for the worst available outcome. On here where obviously there is more a bulls slanted view it's a more balanced outcome, with some of our visiting friends still choosing the worst available outcome, which was changed in this one to one thankfully not available to the panel. Looking at the two polls, I'd guess most people agree with a points deduction of some sort, with non bulls fans favouring the 6 or higher, with bulls fans hoping for a more lenient 4 or lower.....hardly surprising.

This poll is supposed to be about what we THINK will happen. Whereas the bigot filth scum hate poll on vt is about what the poisonous beast scutters WANT to happen.

That's my neutral take on it anyway.

As BBNL haven't had their business plan appraised in order for the RFL to decide on what would be a suitable sanction in light of BBNL's proposals (if any) re old creditors/HMRC, the whole thing is just the biggest feckup imaginable. The RFL seem to continue to make it up as they go along.

2 points back is my forecast, as I don't know what on earth the grounds are, but my reasoning is that the RFL changed from zero points to 6 points out of spite for MM prematurely announcing no deduction, and therefore similarly they will want to spite Wakey for their chairman trying to exert pressure and influence the outcome.

And it would be nice to take back off them the 2 they scored at Hull

There are no grounds for the six points deduction to be changed. The Club is appealing basically because there is no downside; the sanction cannot be increased - so nothing to lose by appealing. ProbAbly. But I expect that the RFL is not too pleased with the HKR Chairman's decision to appeal his penalty. Should have just took it like the Hull Chairman.

I plan to foist myself onto the boards of any other clubs that get into this sort of bother in future, particularly if it's Wakey or Keighley.

How do you know? Have you seen and considered the appeal papers? If so, how did you get access to them, and will you publish the grounds here so we can see for ourselves?

Apart from the fact that we are a cash strapped club and it's costing [ius[/i money. I've no problem with that, but to say that we are just doing it because we can and it's no skin off our nose is somewhat disingenuous. No change there then!

more when than if imo.

Considering that neither set of sanctimonious bum holes can claim their club never went in to admin and had RFL buy a stake in their ground or had a loan from RFL. The crap they come out with is laughable.

I can not wait until they go bust again which they both will at some stage. I'm going to write to League Express about my outrage and everything.

I don't expect any reduction in the points penalty at all. Why would the RFL go to the trouble of appointing an independent panel if not to vindicate their initial decision? It draws a neat line under the whole episode.

I think the whole thing will be thrown out, due to not following procedure correctly.

Then the rfl will look at the reasons given, and use the excuse of mark green owning a new company, to apply a new set of sanctions to the new company which will be watertight the second time around.

New set of sanctions being almost identical to the old ones? Perhaps with a 4pt penalty as a headline?

I'm not getting my hopes up.

Ross has just tweeted that the hearing will not take place until the end of May

What a crock. It needs to be done early! ASAP. Does nobody at the RFL understand the need for clarity in this matter? The integrity of the competition is at stake. If the RFL don't have the resources to run an appeal in a reasonable timescale then they need to cut their cloth accordingly....

Bloody typical. You hire some lawyers to do something and they sit on their Harrises and do nowt until the deadline then ask for an extension.

What, just ahead of the Wakefield game you mean?

Heh, funny that.

I think they are doing what they did when they found out Kopout and Huddersfield were lying. Keep quiet, and just hope it all goes away!

At this rate the season will have finished before a decision is made. How long after the hearing will we have to wait for a decision?

And yet they certainly managed to apply the points deduction sharpish originally.

Without knowing how much was withheld from Creditors, when the club went into administration for the original 6 points to be deducted, and without knowing how much has been paid back to creditors from the new management, how can anyone make any reasonable guess at the final outcome?

Would be far simpler to have fixed rules. Admin resulting in an automatic penalty, reduced percentage wise on any buy outof the club and any resulting percentage debt repaid.

There would be no need to have any decision or appeal.

Why May? What are we waiting for?

Someone else to go into administration so we can all forget about it?

But they didn't, and that's just one of the obvious inconsistencies.

I hesitate to add any facts for your information any more, as it seems to annoy people, yet posting incorrect "facts" (not aimed at you btw) weirdly does not seem to have the same effect.

But many on here and the VT will tell you that the club - meaning OKB - were docked 6 points pretty much automatically "for going into administration". They reckon it's the deal. Go into admin, that's like your fixed penalty.

if that is true, then why didn't it happen?

OK Bulls went into administration on 31 January 2014. No sanction was applied to it. Not then, not ever.

It was on February 25th, 5 days after BB2014 had been announced as the winners of the auction, that the 6 point penalty was announced and implemented. And it is certain, however many times the misinformants want to claim this is some sort of fixed penalty, that it is no such thing, but that it was arrived at only after taking into account the proposals and plans of BB2014 i.e. NOT as a quid pro quo "for OKB going into admin":

Of course we now know (and the RFL presumably knew then) that they were not in fact the cub's directors, as they owned nothing, they were directors of BB2014 which had won the bid but was only in a conditional waiting period, and being allowed to run the business effectively as caretakers for the administrator, in case a better bid came along.



These remarks are concrete proof that the 6 points was based on the RFL's dim view of what BB2014 proposed to do about debts/ business plans. NOTHING mentioned about OKB.

It is hardly semantics to point out that it MUST follow, like night and day, that if the RFL HAD been more impressed, then we would not have been docked the full 6 points. (For Bradford to NOT drop off debt as a result of the administration would NOT have significantly impaired the integrity of the competition, so a lesser or nil points deduction would logically be fair).

Otherwise, the RFL have tied the two things (proposals & plans / points penalty) together for no apparent reason. Which clearly isn't the case.

I see this as a fundamental and massively important fact, for the club and the fans. If I need to spell it out, it MUST mean that (if the process is to be done consistently and fairly) the RFL needed to do exactly the same routine with the new new owners - BBNL - and base a new decision on exactly the same sort of factors, as they announced prematurely would apply to BB2014 (but never did, as they never owned the club).

Interesting points FA. I don't have the legal knowledge to state with certainty that you are correct, but I certainly follow your logic.

That got me thinking, unfortunately I do not have a link but I am certain at a significant point in the process, during the RFL/Mark Moore war of words after BB2014 withdrew there was a statement from the RFL (I believe by Blake Solly but not 100% certain). That statement was in advance of the most recent bid process and stated that debt would be addressed through the administration.

If my recollection is correct, does that mean that the RFL had approved that course of action with the Administrator. If it did then was that decision effectively taken jointly by RFL Administrator? If that was the case are BBNL being punished for an RFL decision? Or am I missing something?