You can trot out this same old crap time and time again, it isn't going to change anything. Only if the RFL read your posts on RLFANS and then do a big u-turn on their policies will what you are proposing be implemented. Why keep regurgitating the same old posts when at the end of the day, there are only 2 things certain about Bradford's punishment.

1. They have been given a 6 point deduction.
2. They are appealing said points deduction.

IMO only after the appeal will they review their policies (if they actually feel the need to) and maybe change the way they deal with insolvency events.

I am sure Smokey can respond for himself, but what a strange question!

If other posters keep repeating incorrect and frankly befuddled claims, why do you think those mistakes shouldn't be corrected, if someone wants to correct them?

Why don't you berate the people who keep repeating the same mistakes and misinformation instead? There would at least be some point to that.

I don't get this argument that a points deduction for the Bulls isn't a deterrent because it doesn't affect the people who ballsed up in the first place. Surely, the idea behind all punishments is, partly, to serve as a deterrent to others. One of the reasons I don't break into and burgle my neighbours' house is because I don't want to go to prison ie. the prison sentence that's been handed down to others is a deterrent.
"..... pour encourager les autres" as Voltaire said.

I am sure the RFL are just stalling until they can come up with a mind boggling, complex, logical sounding reason to give Bradford the points back. Knowing the history of 'punishing' the so called bigger clubs, I cannot see them wanting Bradford in the lower leagues. Watch out Wakey.

But if the perpetrator isn't punished the it isn't a deterrent.

You don't burgle people becauseif you got caught robbing you go to prison and you don't want that, that is a deterrent. If however you're neighbour was burgled and instead of looking for you (the robber) the police simply put the next person to enter your neighbours house in prison that wouldn't be a deterrent would it.

Omar Kahns business went into admin, nothing you do to Marc Green is a punishment or deterrent to the company which went into admin.

If say Adam Pearson were contemplating putting hull fc in admin, threatening to punish the next owners isn't a deterrent is it.

So by both your and FAs logic the Bradford Bulls RLFC should not have any sanction because it's not the same Bradford Bulls RLFC as the one which failed. By that measure they should also start at the bottom of the League structure or are you wanting your cake and want to eat it!

Of course ok bulls have been punished, the value of their asset tie the Bradford bulls is massively diminished.

Do we really believe that if the points deduction had not been in place that the price that the new owners paid for the company would not have been significantly higher ?

The points deduction was not against Marc green and it is not his punishment, but he knowingly bought the company fully aware that it was a three legged horse.

Spot on!

No, it is just you have comprehension issues.

I have never said there should be no sanction against a new owner.

I have always said that the decision on what -if any - sanctions must be made based on the new owner's proposals. Then there is a point.

Wasn't it Marc Green who forced them into admin to protect his debenture as a winding up petition from HMRC was looming?

Is Marc Green the new owner of the company running the Bulls?

Based on the answer to both questions above being "YES", it seems a bit rich for them to be basing an appeal on a "force majeure" event, when it was the current owner who seems to have set the chain of events in motion

... would be hypothetical, because it's not.

I am sure when he took over he referred to forcing the admin due to the HMRC winding up petition looming

the money paid by MArc Green does not go to Omar Kahn, it would go to the creditors. You are suggesting the punishment is in place to reduce the amount paid to creditors as a punishment for, deterrent to, an protection from creditors losing money

I am saying that a going concern is generally more valuable than a company in administration and with a points deduction . That was how ok bulls were punished.

What punishment has Marc Green received ?

So what's the solution?

Do the RFL give Bradford 6 points back and say ''don't do it again next season'', knowing full well we will have to go through this whole charade again if they do?

His club has been deducted 6points.

The points deduction by making the company less valuable punishes the creditors and new owner, not the people who put it into admin.

Ok bulls were not punished by then 6 points, ok bulls doesn't exist anymore OKbulls (in administration) becoming less valuable punishes no one but the creditors and new owner

'Bradford' aren't going to do anything again. If BBNL do go bust, it will have nothing to do with a points deduction. Just as this points deduction didn't stop Omar Kahn putting his business into admin, should the time come a points deduction for the next owners would not influence Marc Green either.

The only people 'deterred' by this process are those who may wish to invest in one of our struggling clubs

It's a perspective point of view.

Some are saying this is a punishment on the new owners.

But you could see it as the reverse. It is a reward for repaying all the creditors. The more you pay, the more points you get back.


As for why should we be concerned that a new owner should do this, I would say for the wider reuptation and credit worthiness of the competition.

If we become a competition that is known for shafting creditors when the sporting ambition takes over the business sense. Then we will attract less credit. If however we encourage new owners to repay those debts owed. We are more likely to be treated better by creditors as there is an assurance that as a competition even if the worse does happen we will do our level best with in the law and the laws of the game to make sure creditors are repaid.

Whilst the Bulls are a stand alone company, the competition as a whole is tied up with these stand alone companies. Similar to how a shudder in one part of a market will reverbarate around the whole market.

If there was no comeback on the league as a whole about clubs going into administration we would not have rules about it.

The points deduction is quite rightly a sporting sanction against THE CLUB as a result of an insolvency event. The Club thereby having cheated the other clubs by spending more on players than they could really afford. The points deduction against the cheating club helps most other clubs do better (finish higher up the league than they otherwise would etc) . The other clubs can therefore also do better financially (get into play-offs, higher prize money in the Championship etc). This all then helps redress the balance after the Club that went into Administration cheated in the first place eg maybe having cheated another club out of a play-off place or a cup match win etc.

Who thinks ok would do it again after all this?

He really has not. What he has is exactly what he bought and AFAIK no further endorsements have been made. There was nothing to stop him purchasing the company from OK prior to it going into administration with no points deducted but with the associated debts.

Instead he chose to buy from administration.

Spot on!

That won't do at all; the point of any Bradford discussion is to pore over the semantics of what each contributor has said, then ponder the metaphysical realities of whether a club actually exists at all, then to use those non-arguments as irrefutable proof that Bradford should never have got a points deduction in the first place; finally, to ensure that any arguments that are in favour of natural justice disappear in a puff of logic, and declare yourself the winner.

If you go around saying sensible, straightforward things like this, it spoils it for everyone.

I reckon the point of the discussion has become to simply and repeatedly lie about what anybody from Bradford has stated, to claim their views are the opposite of what they post, and to repeat blatant misconceptions ad nauseam as if simple corrections had not in fact been offered a thousand times already. Knock yourselves out.

Wednesday 4th June now

i doubt any of Bradford's creditors give a fig about a different business being deducted points in a sporting competition and I really don't think that paying back debts of those no longer in the game, so those in the game for now,can run up more debts is a very good idea (or logical, practical or realistic)