I have a question regarding several clubs entering administration in the last couple of seasons. IIRC when the likes of Doncaster and Widnes entered administration (2007 I believe) all of their players were released from their contracts and free to talk to other clubs, can anyone clear up when this rule changed?

when it suited the RFL? I guess if players are still being their full contract entitlements then there is no need to rip them up. I would imagine it is only if contracts can;t be homoured by the administrators they become null and void.

It was never a rule, Widnes and Doncaster were reformed as entirely new companies, therefore all their players had to be signed to contracts with the new business. If the RFL wanted to be pedantic, they could have relegated both clubs to the lowest level of the game and made them start from scratch as they were, in practice, brand new clubs.

Wakefield have entered administration, this doesn't dissolve the current business, and as such, the players remain under contract.

I thought that if you entered administration then you had no choice by law than to start again as an entire new company with a new director so I partly disagree with your post. However I do think that my question has been answered by JB and yourself as the players must still be being paid by the company currently being run by the administrator and will then sign new contracts with the new company once it is formed. This must be a good sign for Wakefield as it appears that their situation is not as bad as that of Doncaster or Widnes a few years ago.
Hopefully the new regime (whoever they may be) will be able to put an infrastructure in place that will enable Wakefield to come back stronger than before in a similar way to what appears to have happened at Widnes.

Reading the press, there is no administrator appointed yet, although they have asked the court to appoint O'Haras.

Quote However, Rimmer admitted that Wakefield's hopes of obtaining a new Super League licence could be damaged by their financial plight. Three-year licences that take effect from 2012 will be handed out in March, with clubs from the Championship guaranteed to be handed a place in the top flight. "We have to be realistic," said Rimmer. "There is a weighting system attached to acts of insolvency. There are other aspects to licensing but certainly it is a consideration." Rimmer also confirmed that the Wildcats will be deducted up to six Super League points for entering administration. '" news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 386378.stm I think Wakefield have had the final nail in their SL coffin unfortunatly.

Quote However, Rimmer admitted that Wakefield's hopes of obtaining a new Super League licence could be damaged by their financial plight. Three-year licences that take effect from 2012 will be handed out in March, with clubs from the Championship guaranteed to be handed a place in the top flight. "We have to be realistic," said Rimmer. "There is a weighting system attached to acts of insolvency. There are other aspects to licensing but certainly it is a consideration." Rimmer also confirmed that the Wildcats will be deducted up to six Super League points for entering administration. '" news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 386378.stm I think Wakefield have had the final nail in their SL coffin unfortunatly.

Final nail in the SL coffin it may well be, but surely to be consistent then the RFL must put the Crusaders in the same boat? I know it could be argued that the Crusaders play in a better stadium (which seems to be the main talking point when it comes to this franchise business) but it must be remembered that they moved over 100 miles to this stadium from the one they were in at the beginning of the current licencing period, so should Wakefield move down the road to Barnsley in the near future ie before the SL applications are submitted would they be looked at in a similar light to that of the Crusaders?

When you then add the fact that Wakefield's community programme is generally regarded as being the best in the League, that they never finished bottom or have being relegated from SL then suddenly things start to distort somewhat! Didn't they also win the Academy GF 2 seasons ago?

I don't know much about Wakefields community programme tbh so I can't comment on that, but I agree that things do become distorted as there are a lot of variables involves. I surpose this the way the RFL want it as it gives them the choice to put the spin they want on it one way or the other. Yes Wakefield's U18's won the Gillette academy the year before it was restructured in 2010 into its current format were I think Widnes finished top of the pile.

no going into administration does not mean closing down the company and starting again, or employees contracts becoming null and void. That would only happen if the company was wound up and made insolvent.

You can disagree if you like, but you're wrong.

If you enter administration that isn't the be all and end all. You can either get sold to a new owner, or the company gets wound up and has to start again.

Did Rimmer say that when the Crusaders went into administration?

Buyer pulled out suprise suprise

I don't believe so. You surely aren't suggesting any similarity between the 2 cases?

Crusaders went into administration. Wakefield went into administration. Completely different.

Quote ="king warrior"Buyer pulled out suprise suprise'" Incorrect again. www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2011 ... ownership/

Quote ="king warrior"Buyer pulled out suprise suprise'" Incorrect again. www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2011 ... ownership/

Cancel the obituaries. Within the last few minutes a statement has been issued to say that the administrator has accepted an offer for the club.

Quote ="Wildthing"Incorrect again. www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2011 ... ownership/'" Parkin pulled out though, right? Glover was your 2nd choice.

Quote ="Wildthing"Incorrect again. www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2011 ... ownership/'" Parkin pulled out though, right? Glover was your 2nd choice.

Good Luck Wakefield and Mr Glover

As supporters we have/had no choice in the matter. Two people bid, one pulled out. Both parties passed the RFL's 'fit & proper' test and I can't see that O'Hara's would be bothered who bought it as long as the price was right.

My personal choice? How do you know that Lewis?

You are obviously dissapointed after your admittance on the Wakefield forum that you hated us.
Never mind.

Naturally supporters get giddy when they see a multimillionaire linked with their club, however none of us were privy to the actual deals on the table so could not make such a decision on first and second choice.

Personally I have been encouraged by Mr Glovers attitude since he first publicised his interest and he appears to have the right intentions towards the club and its future, be it SL or the Championship.

Not at all, you said that the poster before you was wrong that someone pulled out when really he wasn't and I was just pointing that out.

Well at least you can concentrate on getting smashed about on the pitch by us tomorrow now

Congrats Wakey, good luck with your new owner.

As regards some of people's picky comments about the new sugar daddy, be grateful it's not Leighton Samuel. Here's hoping you get treated no worse by the RFL than the Wcrusaders.

Yes god forbid we would be treat the same!