No your right it is the desired state for any business to be in.

Because someone will lost out. Otherwise what's point going into admin, and, why would the buyer not buy the club prior to it going into admin to avoid any penalty if he/she was going to pay off the debts.

Someone, somewhere is going to lose out and so there should be a penalty.

Cart before horse. The penalty should reflect the circumstances and especially how much any loss is going to be. The immediate point of admin is often to obtain temporary protection usually from one pressing creditor. Then either a deal is done, which the maj of creditors agree, and the company is saved, or a prrpsck is done where typically creditors lose out.

If you just have one fixed penalty for the simple fact of going into admin, THEN no creditors in this situation are likely to be paid, as what would be the point, from the new owners POV? All I am saying us you need to look at the overall result of the admin event, it's surely much more relevant. Not all administrations are equal. The penalty surely should reflect that.

Even if you reduce the points deduction for paying off debts,a club still needs to be a left with enough of a points deduction to make it not worth the risk of going into administration in the first place

True.

Which was better...your first or second admin in two years?

I liked the first one. The second lacked bleeding hearts, buckets and medal donations.

LOL

Poll seems pretty damned conclusive.

I have never been put into administration.

Have you ever had somebody take goods off you, then go into administration, meaning they dont have to pay you, only for them to ring you up a few days later requesting you to supply their ' new ' company as if nothing had happened?

Guess what? , it stinks

Yep, got that T shirt.

But that's a point whichjust illustrates that there are different kinds of administrations. We also had one supplier where in the end a company VA was agreed and we ended up being paid in full albeit after maybe 3 years. That's not great but surely anyone would spot the difference?

And then there is another admin, where the business is sold by the administrator, to a purchaser who actually was never previously involved in the running (down) of the business. He may have taken on the name of the business but basically you need to weigh the new proprietors up like you would any new account, because that's what it is, if none of the incompetents who bust the previous company are anything to do with the new one.

Yes, there are different kinds of administrations, just as there are different types of companies, sports companies tend to have their biggest cost being wages, primarily players wages, so there is no easy quick way to alter the financial operation of the club other than to invest heavily or reduce costs , Bradford did neither, but ultimatly there has to be a punishment, unfortunatley for Bradford relegation has returned

Tough, just live with it

would a points penalty have made you feel better or them less likely to do it?


We shouldn't allow prepacks though and anyone involved in an admin should not be allowed back into the game.

What a stupid comment. The thread is specifically on what the points deduction should be. Do you think it should be locked, or that only you have a right to a view?

It is further stupid as whatever the points deduction was or may be, what else can I do BUT "live with it"?

It is yet more stupid as you presumably have heard that an "appeal" is being set up, so that will be when it gets decided whether or not we have to "live with it".

And finally while I have a lot of issues about the methods used by the RFL, including punishing PROPOSED owners on the basis of their PROPOSED business plan, prematurely because those wannabee owners never did actually become owners, they then let the assessed points deduction against them stand. That is illogical, and I refuse to believe any sane person does not see the illogicality.

There should not have to be an appeal. The RFL should have announced that the premature announcement on points would be cancelled in view of the penalised would-be owners walking out, and gone through the self-same assessment process and reached a decision on the basis of the business plan etc of the ACTUAL new owners. Who are now in the bizarre position of "appealing" against a punishment that was not levied against them, and indeed was given at a time when they (BBNL) did not yet even legally exist.

What do the rules say? That's the deduction that should apply. If it's less than 6 the appeal should succeed, if it's 6, not sure how it can.

Are the hissy fits anything to do with relegation this year? As others have said, suck it up and get the points back on the field.

The rules say between 0 and 6.

I suspect all that poll proves is how many non Bradford fans who dont like us for varing reasons have visted this thread. If you'd added an option for immediate relgation and public floggings I supect that option would also be doing quite well, thankfully its not this website that gets to decide matters.

As a Bradford fan I'll take whatever the punishment is agreed to be - as long as it's explained and consistant with past and future similar situations....(not holding my breath on that one).

We really shouldn't be having the appeal process though, as the points deduction should have been applied when the new owners took the club out of admin and the decison was made with facts of how they exited admin and who was paid back what and when, not before whilst we had no owner. The points deduction might well end up being 6 (or 0, 2 or 4), but it shouldn't have been applied when it was - that always seemed like a mistake in the heat of the moment of whatever the last minute argument was between the RFL and BB2014 (who never owned the club).

FWIW my guess is that it will stay as 6, so the majority should be satisfied and we can move on in peace towards our next admin event.

On a side note, do we think your servers would cope with the traffic if it was 0?

You can't write off the poll by attacking anyone who gave a certain answer. Its a poor tactic. I think people largely just want consistency applied.

which similar situation is this punishment consistent with?

Not attacking anyone, but of course the poll is biased depending on who you support (or more specifically who you dont support), I think it will be 6 so I agree with the poll outcome but I voted for 2 as Im a Bradford fan who doesnt want a 6 point deduction.

I agree whole heatedly with wanting consistancy, even if it starts now with this case and we forget whats gone before, but if we had that we wouldnt need the poll.

Widnes. They got a nine point deduction in the Championship which equated to 3 games, just like Bradford with a 6 point deduction.

so we are going back 7 years and numerous insolvency events to a club in a different league under a different system.

Whatever the decision it will be inconsistent with something that has gone before as they arent consistent with each other.

You asked, I answered. Also, don't forget, the RFL prevented Widnes entering Super League because of the administation.

and thats fine, your example highlighted my point
no they didnt. Widnes applied for a licence they just didnt get one.

Because of the administration.

Let's go back a mere 2 years then, to a team who got 6 points for going into admin. Maybe you could remind me who they were?