Quite right FA, so take the points deduction and suck it up, would Marc Green had bothered appealing if it had been last season ?

The previous owners debts are dependant on how they were defined, if loans then potentially yes they are, I feel for Mr Khan, the way he has been vilified on here by Bulls fans is a disgrace IMO

As soon as you resort to that, you've lost the argument!

Who do you think you are!

So bigoted are you that you believe anyone who doesn't share your view is "uncomprehending and witless"!

Dear dear

Better than they are is the answer, they still think they are the SL and Challenge Cup winners
the truth is they are stuffed, they play in a hole, pay rent for it, have lost 50% of their old fan base, financially they are a basket case

Potentially they could completely collapse down in the Championship , but that is still no reason for them not to suffer relegation, it is all of their own making

the trophy etc are all a just personal viewpoint. I don't really care or think it important at all to go into that, if people want to say those trophies do t count I couldn't care less. To me they do, if someone disagrees it's not important.

With regards to starting at the bottom, I don't disagree It's a possibility. There would be logic and continuity in making them do so. The clubs and RFL had to vote against that situation. Bradford had to reapply to the league and RFL. SL and the RFL had to vote to let them back in the RFL and SL. Had they decided the opposite is would have disagreed with it being the best thing for the game but would have agreed with the logic that got us there.

OKBulls couldn't pay. It is not Marc Greens responsibility to pay OKBulls debt any more than it is yours or mine however much you pretend it is.

HTH

So what does Marc Green's business plan say about repaying creditors and what steps has he taken to do so? It's a pointless argument if his stance is, "it was someone else's plan that didn't offer, so I'm going to get this club cheaply and not bother because there is no point".

As has been said, too many people are trying to make it a technical argument when it is simple: administration costs six points unless you pay creditors, and in which case the penalty can be less. Simple as that. He knew it when he bought it.

If he'd said, "can the penalty be reduced if I pay creditors, something that was missing from the business plan that the penalty was based on?", I would have sympathy. If he has repaid creditors, I would have some sympathy. If he is going to, I would have some sympathy. So is he, or is he hiding behind the "it wasn't me, it was them" argument?

And as for the "it didn't matter then because there was no relegation", doesn't it say an awful lot for those clubs who repaid creditors when there was no obvious incentive to do so, and an awful lot for the clubs that don't when there is.

I'm not pretending anything such at all, if you bother to read the thread you'll see I was responding to this:



HTH

Investor comes in, says I have a million pounds to spend, I think using that million pounds I can make a struggling SL club sustainable.
Club A goes into admin, it owes about £500k to HMRC and others, and about a million to its previous owner.

Said investor looks at Club A and says well, for a million pounds I could build a new academy, get in a good quality marketing manager, spend a bit on marketing and improving the stadium, but to do that we will get a big points penalty risk relegation and a huge drop in crowds, sponsorship and TV money which I can't afford.

To avoid that I can pay all the companies debts, but that's 500k for some debts some other idiot ran up but I'm not obligated in anyway to pay, and another million to the idiot who ran up those debts. That's £1.5m before I have even spent anything trying to change things at the club.

So the choices are pay nothing but open yourself up to a relegation you may never recover from, or pay 150% of what you intended to use to improve the club just on paying someone else's debts.

That's the situation the RFL have created and it is no wonder the only realistic bidders for Bradford were two sets of people who had no money to even lose on the risk and wanted to load the new club with debt and couldn't even pull that off, and a guy who pretty much got them by default because he was a creditor.

Yes, the RFL are dumb enough to create a situation where our struggling clubs are made even more risky and unattractive, for no benefit for the game, and yes some fans are short sighted and self interested enough to be cheering them from the sidelines

Absolutely it's not. But it's how you mitigate the points loss. It's a business decision: do I repay creditors that are not my responsibility to:
1. improve the chances of survival.
2. Make my business one that new creditors will be prepared to deal with

Or do I just enjoy that I got it cheap and complain that all that went before is nothing to do with me?

You certainly are, when you say admin is for businesses that can'tay their debts not those who don't want to.

In this situation a business who couldn't pay went into admin. Not one which didn't want to.

And if those debts aren't Marc Greens responsibility, what is he being punished for

The worry slugger is that the appeal is being delayed until Marc Green can make a judgement on where paying a ' significant ' % of the creditors will affect Bradfords final league position and therefore their avoidance of relegation

And it would seem the RFL are complicite in this delay

Which begs the question, are Bradford able to pay the rent on Odsal in the Championship?

He's not being punished. He bought a business on the cheap knowing the handicap attached to it.

Why are we asking him to rectify someone else's mistake and the punishing him for choosing not to in that case?

The punishment, as we have been told numerous times by numerous people is decide in part by what Marc Green chooses to pay Omar Kahns creditors. It cannot possibly be the case that Marc Green bought a company with a handicap attached if the punishment is decided by what his company chooses to pay the previous creditors.

If the punishment is dependant on Marc Greens actions as new owner, then he can't possibly by a business with that handicap attached.

It also doesn't make any sense whatsoever to have a situation where because Marc Green chose not to pay back the creditors, the RFL will choose an action further depressing the purchase price, further reducing the amount the administrator receives to redistribute to those creditors in an effort to protect them.

As Slugger beat me to it, Marc Green isnt being punished, he bought something in the clear knowledge of its position, if he didnt, then he is a bigger idiot than any poster on here

I don't know the reason for the delay. It could be simple availability of the panel.

If his stance is "I will pay x% of the creditors IF you give me 6 points back", he won't get far, unless he can show a ring fenced fund.

If his argument is force majeure, it is clearly that it was because of decisions made by the previous attempt to buy. But how different is his plan in relation to creditors, which is the crucial factor?

To use a legal analogy, it's like a defendant saying in an assault trial, "it wasn't me, but if it was, it was self-defence". Regardless of the previous consortium, what does his plan say? Smoke and mirrors.

Your timeline is wrong. The punishment isn't handed down or calculated until a buyer and their plan is known, said buyer cannot be in clear knowledge of this prior to purchase if it isn't decided until purchase

Marc Greens purchase of the Bradford Bulls is the equivilant of buying a car with an noisy engine without a warranty, you know there is a problem, just not sure of what the eventual consequences will be, ie, bought as seen, no use taking it back a month later

Except such a situation wouldn't exist because we have consumer law to protect the public from such deal. Had that happened people would say they had been conned. Why are we running our game in that way?

If you buy a house cheaply because it's got a rotting roof and leaking windows, you can hardly complain when you've got to pay to fix the roof and windows.

No one is asking him to rectify anything. People are just expecting him to put up with the points handicap that comes with the deal of getting the Bulls at a much cheaper price than it would have cost had he bought it as a complete business.

So,why have we doubly punished the creditors by depressing the purchase price and so how much is available for distribution?

And you wouldn't complain if you bought a house cheaply because it had rotting roof and windows, you might do if the next door neighbour then came round and smashed own the doors because the previous owner owed him £50

Your wrong. You can sell defective goods provided you make clear the defect exists.

No I didn't, you're wrong!

I stated that Administration is for businesses that CAN'T pay their debts, true as far as I'm aware!

It's not for businesses seeking to avoid paying their debts, also true as far as I'm aware!

Both statements came after a poster asked if we had considered that Marc Green et al had been advised to place the Bulls into Administration to avoid the HMRC winding up petition.

There's no accusation aimed at anyone from me, merely a response about the ethics of business or lack thereof if the cap fits.

I agree the creditors have been punished. Hence the points deduction. I'm struggling to understand your point.