you can't argue that two wrongs dont make a right, but then also argue BRadford should be punished wrongly because Widnes were.

Widnes werent denied promotion because of their administration, they were allowed to apply, did, failed, and then regrouped and got it right. And good on them for it.

I don't think you read my post, I didn't argue two wrongs dont make a right, I agreed with you.

I didn't say Widnes were wrongly punished with a points deduction, it was the correct decision and Widnes abided by it.

In Bradford's case it is also the correct decision, they should also abide by it.

It's not rocket surgery.

Why is it the right decision? What did Steve O'connor do to deserve a points deduction?

Rocket 'surgery'???

It is the right decision because it is in the operational rules.

Steve O'Connor didn't do anything to deserve a points deduction, but he did know there was one imposed/pending when he took over the club, he had the choice to walk away from it if he wasn't happy with it but he stuck by the club.

Thisand this
are mutually exclusive.

Smokey, I don't think you personally are able to distinguish between the business and the owner.

In any business a prospective new owner should be aware of everything that is going on within that business, if you are not happy then don't buy in.

The business was penalised,the prospective owner knew this but still bought in, is it right for him to then turn round and complain about something he already knew about before investing?

I dont think knowing about it is really a justification for it. It doesnt mean it is a good or right decision simply because it was known about.

As you say, if they know about it they could not invest. But why dont we want them to invest? Why are we making a struggling club LESS attractive?

As with Widnes, it matters not who owned Bulls, yesterday, today or tomorrow.

The club were punished under their membership of the Rugby Football League, not Khan, not Green, the club.

As much as you don't like FA, it's a fact.

If your assertion was correct, Bulls wouldn't be appealing the punishment, they would be legally challenging the RFLs right to impose such a sanction, which they aren't.

the reason they arent legally challenging the decision of the RFL is that any club which legally challenges the RFL immediately surrenders its membership of the RFL and its right and ability to participate in RFL competitions.

Ah, so they do know the rules then?

We should have the clearest rules possible on this, just like football...if you go into admin, you get relegated/x number of points deducted immediately.

And just like football, it matters not which person owns the club at any given point in time.

But we don’t and rightly so. The rules regarding football are as idiotic as the rules you suggest.

And if you did know the rules you would know that the members of the RFL are the holding companies of the clubs, not ‘the clubs’ as you refer to them because that concept does not exist in any tangible form.

So Bradford, as a member of the organisation you describe, are author and party to the rules they are subject to.

They are in a club of entities that has written its own rules...but now they don't want to play by the rules.

Clubs get into difficulties, yes, but in Bulls case it's been an insidious attempt to be competitive beyond their means and they have done it twice! And been clandestinely aided by the governing body.

If any club deserves punitive action, it's Bulls.

Well fortunately, the member of the organisation now you refer to as 'bradford' are a different entity to the one which got into difficulties.

By all means punish the Bradford who got in to financial difficulties. In fact be draconian with them. Punish that entity and the people behind it, that entity however no longer plays RL, is no longer a member of the RFL and those behind it are no longer under the RFL jurisdiction, but deduct them a million points for all it matters.

We know they are different entity if only for the fact if they were the same entity you wouldnt have anything to punish them for. Not even ridiculous hyperbole.

The organisation they are a member of is the Rugby Football League.

Nope, the old Bradford are not a member of any organisation.

The New Bradford are a member of the RFL + SL(europe) ltd, by virture of their ownership of the Golden Share. That Golden Share belongs to Bradford Bulls Northern ltd. A company which took over the club a matter of weeks ago.

Yeah. You know. It's similar to Brain Science.

The Bulls that are in SL now are the same Bulls that we in last year.

The new owners did not have to apply for membership, the club was already a member. Only the owners have changed.

The penalty is correct.

And let's not forget, this thread is about how one club can be told admin equals relegation, whilst another, apparently iconic club takes that route, without relegation.

No you are wrong. They arent. The previous holders of the Golden Share were OK Bulls (then apparently for a short period of time we are supposed to forget ever happened BB20014), it is now held by Bradford Bulls Northern Ltd. The Golden Share, and such the membership of the RFL and SL(e) were transferred by the RFL.

Yes, they did. Thats why the RFL were allowed to interfere with the due legal process the administrator had to take. The RFL only has any say in how a club exits admin, and who it exits it to because they control the transfer of the Golden Share which bestows membership of the RFL and SL(e) upon its holder.

As Blake Solly explains “The transfer of both the Super League and RFL membership from OK Bulls to the new company is subject to RFL approval"

You were wrong.


except, even Mr Carter is rowing back from that claim.

Where has Carter backtracked?

Link?

You know what, if all that is true, someone should have told the prospective owners that sanctions were in place BEFORE they decided to buy the Bulls.

Oh, wait...

Yeah, let's Dock Omar Khan 20 points and draw a line under the whole affair

Thats a funny way of saying "i was wrong"

Any way, when originally on the Wakefield board we were told Carter had said if Wakefield were to go into admin they would have been immediately relegated,

that seems to have changed now 'If we had gone into administration, we probably wouldn't have got our licence to play this season"

I have no idea why Mr Carter thinks that Wakefield should have simply been able to dump debts they clearly could pay, nor why he isnt thinks that 'If there is no penalty for going into administration, then what's to stop us going into administration? We wouldn't do it now because our debts aren't particularly great" he would lose the club, his investment in it and his house apparently. Seems a fairly clear penalty for admin to me. I would think the 6 points would pale compared to that.

Just because we are aware of a decision, doesnt in any way make it a right of justifiable one.

Wakefield being scared of relegation isnt a good enough reason to dock Bradford points. If anything it simply highlights the failings of the return to P+R

Ronald McDonald is as responsible for OK Bulls as Marc Green is. We may as well dock points from Ronald McDonald as Marc Green.

The only thing Marc Green has done is take over a struggling RL club. For that we have decided to take 6 competition points away from his club. You are right, it is