Just a quick question Smokey, when has a points deduction for financial failings "helped" anyone ?
And on the basis of previous similar deductions, why is the Bulls case so utterly unique, apart from the fact that it was the second such failing in 2 years.
Quite an effort really, not withstanding the withdrawing of some Sky monies, which still remains an unexplained penalty, that the public have never been made aware of.

The bulls Case isn't unique, no one should have been. Deducted points.

The most idiotic and clusterfsksy part of it is that Nigel Wood is idea logically averse to rules, he wants as few of them and as much freedom for clubs as possible, to point at which we are implementing a new system for which his answer to all failings of it was 'that's for the individual clubs to deal with' we see time and time again statements from the RFL that the clubs should live and die by what they do on the field, and that it is necessary and desirable that matters are to be decided of the field and not in some boardroom and because of finances, yet here we are, waiting for matters to be decided in a boardroom because of finances.

The only thing which should be in 'jeopardy' is Nigel Woods job, and it is, his failings aren't unnoticed and the moments the lower league clubs realise the illusion they have been sold he will be gone, however many Blake Solly's he tries to parachute in to important positions to shore up his weak power base.

Sorry I'm trying to understand the rationale for the appeal being outside of any control. Mr Green bought the club out of admin where it appears that he could have bought the club prior to him putting it into admin (although why would anyone pay OK 300k and take liability for debt when buying out of admin would be far cheaper) Hence I'm struggling to see what the grounds for appeal are.
Surely by making the appeal Mr Green has accepted that the 6 points for going into admin is an applicable sanction given the appeal is that admin was unavoidable rather than 'I wasn't around at the time so the sanction isnt appropriate'

well I'm not sure how you would appeal a sanction if you think it wrong other than appealing it. By the definition of appealing it Marc Green has shown he disagrees with it.

I think that fact he could have bought it prior to admin is a red herring, I could have, you could have, michael carter could have, anyone could have, hell even Nigel Wood himself could have. Marc Green wasn't even under RFL rule in any way shape or form at that point.

To punish Marc Green for not buying the club at that point would be a punishment to someone who wasn't bound by RFL rules at that pint for not being involved in an RFL member club, it doesn't make sense. At the point Bradford went into admin Marc Green was no more bound by the RFL, it's rules, or liable or responsible for the Bradford Bulls than Dame Edna.

I'm not arguing about the rights or wrongs of the sanction, it's been applied and whilst some may want it changed that's not the grounds of the appeal.

Bradford are appealing on the grounds of the admin being unavoidable and not because they think that 6 points for going into admin as a sanction is wrong.

Is that correct?

Oh come on!

Marc Green could have bought the club before Admin but the price would have been higher and he'd be liable to pay the creditors so he waited for Admin picked it up on the cheap and abandoned the creditors. Nothing legally wrong with that, maybe lacks morals but nothing legally wrong. He knew that buying a club out of Administration meant buying a club with a six point penalty but he got it cheap and he cast the creditors adrift yet now he wants to plead the six points as well, he wants it both ways. The independent panel should laugh him out of the room!

Some welcome common sense.

Rather than the convoluted rubbish some supposedly intelligent people seem to come out with on this issue. It really isn't difficult to understand that soccer and RL Clubs get a points deduction for cheating by spending more than they should on players and ending up going bust. If you gamble and lose you have to live with it.

It is fair that the new owner has this opportunity to appeal on behalf of the Club. The 6 point penalty was based on how much the administrator agreed to sell the Club for to those prospective owners who walked away. IF the current owner actually paid the Administrator MORE for the Club than he agreed to accept from the 3, Then there could be grounds for a reduced points penalty. Not sure if the Appeals Panel will have the required evidence from the Administrator, but he is the only one with the answer to the relevant question.

It could turn on whether paying yourself off (where the new owner was, in substance, a creditor himself) - and resulting in releasing any security you might have had - counts in the RFL's eyes as 'paying off creditors'. I'd suggest it shouldn't in respect of any Administration after Sept 2013 when HMRC (who the RFL is keen should be paid off) ceased to be a preferential creditor in law.

That's on the assumption that Marc Green ever wanted to buy the club in the first place. The story you're weaving there is that this was all some master plan to get the club on the cheap, but reality doesn't seem to match up with your little conspiracy on that one.

Let's look at the facts.

Marc Green is a London business man whose companies are based in Leeds. He's a Spurs fan and, before getting involved with lending Ryan Whitcut money, had no interest in Rugby League or Bradford Bulls.

So, explain to me why he'd hatch some master plan to buy the Bulls on the cheap just to screw over creditors.

Ha Ha, the English language is so great, "weaving" "master plan" "little conspiracy" "screw over creditors" ooooh!
such spin that can be added by a few choice words and you don't have to be that clever to do it!

I didn't say he did it just to screw over creditors, you said that not me!

He was interested enough in Rugby League to lend Whitcut money for the Bulls unless of course you're saying that was just pure business in which case he made a bad decision and he's like any other creditor who has lost their money, but he was interested enough in Rugby League to eventually become the owner of a Rugby League club!
I think it's fair to say that he has some interest in Rugby League!

He bought the Bulls out of Administration probably because it was cheaper and didn't leave him liable for the debts, that's just a pure business decision, morally questionable maybe but he's a businessman so I'm not judging him.

The reality is that he's bought the Bulls so it's safe to say that for whatever reason he at some point wanted to buy the Bulls and he did so by purchasing them on the cheap from the Administrator rather than the more expensive option of pre Administration which, as explained above, would have been more costly both in the short and long term. The downside to buying after Administration is that the RFL would impose a 6 point penalty but presumably Mr Green being an astute businessman would have done his due diligence and understood this before making his decision.
It's a simple thought process really,

[iI want to buy the Bulls
(Option 1)I can pay top dollar, pay the creditors and have no points deduction
Or
(Option 2) I can buy them cheap, pay no creditors but suffer a six point penalty
Option 2 it is then![/i

So Marc Green has enjoyed the financial benefits of buying his Rugby League club post Administration in the full knowledge that they had a 6 point penalty but is now crying foul about that penalty despite knowing it was there before making the decision to buy the Bulls., he wants the benefits of both options and none of the responsibility!

After laughing him out of the room the Independent Panel should then publicly lambast him for his waste of time and money and for dragging Rugby League into the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

One last thing, where's the Force Majeure?

Marc Green is apparently a Leeds Rhino's fan so had some interest in the game before lending the Bulls money.

Marc Green didn't bid for the club until after the Moore/Watt/Calvert bid was withdrawn and further bids were invited. Even then he wasn't the highest bidder, Lamb was the administrators preferred bidder until the RFL asked Lamb to produce proof of funding on what he described as very short notice. By the time Marc Green even bid, the 6 points deduction had already been applied so your option 1 wasn't even available because the 6 points had been applied based on the details of the Moore/Watt/Calvert bid.
I think it's not unreasonable to base any points deduction on Marc Greens take over and any deals with he makes with creditors but there has been nothing put into the public domain on that so we'd be guessing. As the points deduction had already been applied and wasn't set aside on his take over, the only route to consider the circumstances of his take over is the right of appeal. Do you think it's fair to him that he's allowed to use that right?

Had you considered that Marc Green was asked to use his legal right to appoint an administrator to protect the Bulls from HMRC's winding up order so that administrator could immediately agree a sale to Moore/Watt/Calvert? That would have resolved the ownership dispute in a timely manner prior to the season starting.

This thread is very entertaining and enjoyable. The current state is that our more excitable members have quietly abandoned their dottier theories and are now basically on the same wavelength as the Bulls supporters have been from day 1. Whilst loudly pretending that they haven't done this 180 degree about turn!



Some key points which from a Bulls POV have never changed include:
a) nobody ever argued that there should not be a link between extent of creditor shafting and sanctions on new owners. We all agree that is a reasonable link. This is the most straw-heavy of your numerous straw men.
b) The new owners have (so far as we know) never been sanctioned. There has certainly been no public announcement of sanctions, and no equivalent mention of sanctions based on business plans and creditor proposals, in complete contrast to the BB2014 announcement, which made that link very directly and bluntly.
c) The argument that the RFL intended to, and thought they had, sanctioned BB2014 remains sound and has never been refuted. Had the RFL acted reasonably and when BB2014 dropped out, withdrawn the BB2014 proposed penalties and gone through the exactly self-same process and announced appropriate sanctions against BBNL, we wouldn't be where we are now.

I presume Wooden Head [iet al[/i now basically agree this position, but are too embarrassed to climb down and concede we were right all along.
Awwwww....

All the semantics about punishing the owners who didn't go into administration is just fog, because it boils down to one thing: a person buys a business on the cheap because it comes debt-free but does suffer from a handicap in relation to its competitors as a result. You know what you are buying when you are buying. Caveat emptor. End of.

Now if he was told something different about the handicap, that's a whole different thing, but if he wasn't, that is the end of it.

Would it be fair to say Marc Greens take over hasn't been judged in those terms though? If the sporting handicap relates to the loss to creditors then that has to determined from the business that brought the assets from administration, not from someone else's business plan that was withdrawn.

Option 1 was available to Green, all you've done in your first paragraph is add details about other potential buyers but the club was there to be bid for by Green pre Administration yet he chose not to show interest until the value of the club had plummeted due to Administration. Even then, as you detail in your post, Green chanced his arm and submitted a low bid. The point stands, he waited until the purchase price was low and obligations to creditors were gone. He knew when he bid that the 6 point penalty was in place.

He has a right to appeal, of course, but as with any kind of appeal there has to be reasonable grounds and I do not see any such grounds here certainly not Force Majeure!

If all parties have colluded to avoid their responsibility to HMRC then I'd view that as despicable!
Administration is there to protect businesses who CAN'T pay not for those who'd prefer not to!

The precedents set suggest that the sporting handicap for neglecting creditors is 2 points, the handicap for Administration is 4 points.

No 180 degree turn from me, I've been consistent in my view throughout.

The precedent set for Administration penalties is 6 points with 2 points potentially returned on appeal if a significant number of creditors debts are satisfied.

The question about Marc Green being liable for receipt of the penalty is a different one but it's a question without any validity. He knew what he was buying, penalty included.

In one

I notice nobody has quoted and answered this post

Come on smokey and FA ? , away you go, either Marc Greens Bradford Bulls are the same Bradford Bulls SL club that won all those trophys or they arent ?

If they are they remain in SL and take the deduction, if not stick them in Championship 1

The ownership is irrelivant

This is what I've been trying to get at. The appeal is not based on the application of a sanction based on previous owners or we've made efforts to pay back creditors, it appears to be wholly based on admin was unavoidable.

So the question is, what constitutes ' significant ' ?

The time it has taken for the appeal to be heard is quite ridiculous and shows incompetance and or potential conspiracy by the RFL

No change there then

I'm not sure how you determine the balance between creditors vs the administration from previous events when the amounts repaid have reportedly been a small proportion of the overall debt. If paying a small amount (less than 20%) is worth 2 points back then are more points available for paying a larger amount back?

Yes, pay it all back and you get all the points back, however this should have been sorted by now, not when Bradford will know the consequences of paying their debts

A complete mess, made by the Bulls ( irrelivant which incarnation it was ) , compounded by the RFL

I didn't bother with the detail of that post as it is too silly for words. It is not usually profitable to try to argue with the uncomprehending and witless. But your point raises some interesting questions which I will address.

Bradford Bulls and before it Bradford Northern, in the sense you mean, is an emotional and purely virtual continuation of professional RL in Bradford, but the connection is also the most important, because so long as fans recognise the incumbents for the time being as their club, then it remains, in the eyes of the only people who are important in all this - the fans - their club.

The fact that different people own the various businesses that temporarily take charge of the running of the club is incidental to this. But it is also true that without a physical owner the virtual club cannot continue.

I say all this as some seem to be completely missing the real point. Which is, it wouldn't matter to the fans whether their club played in SL, C1 or the Russian Federation, if it felt to them like the same club, then it would be the same club. But if it was relegated to the Russian Federation then this would be a considerable imposition on those fans, whose only crime is to support their team.

You are trying to equate whatever actions aa purely temporary new custodian of rugby in Bradford does or does not take, with justice and fairness to the real club and its real fans. I am not, conversely, trying to completely divorce the two, but you have the priorities completely wrong, if indeed you see the distinction at all. You probably do, as you're not stupid, but if you do, I am not sure why you pretend you don't.

The end result is, of course, that if the new owner WANTED to start a brand new organisation and start to build in C1 or wherever, then he could. But then that would have no right nor reason to be called the Bradford Bulls, or Bradford Northern, with all the history, tradition etc. with which those proud names are imbued. And it is a two way street. Because undoubtedly there are strong arguments, amongst the many arguments, about what the continuation of the long and proud tradition and history of Bradford league brings to the party, which have huge significance and importance for the wider game, and this you of course also know, whether you like it or not.

Green has bought the club and is going through the channels available. If within the rules he surprisingly gets any points back, so be it, if as we expect he doesn't, then again, that's life. Our issues have been with the process, not the principle of sanctions. As for "sticking them in C1", I'm afraid that to the chagrin of the OP that particular horse has long gone and disappeared over the horizon; BBNL were admitted to SL/RFL and given the SL licence. Which s why they are now fulfilling the SL fixtures. Therefore the rather silly suggestion of "sticking them in C1" - while giving away the OP's agenda - is actually as dumb and uncomprehending as it is pointless.

I agree if there is no loss to creditors (IMO this shouldn't include debts to the owner of the business that enters admin) then there should be no penalty applied. The situation was however applied backwards and the penalty was applied before the the takeover was completed.

The mess is of the Bull's making and the RFL's handling of it has been poor.

The determination comes from the two occasions where points have been returned after some creditors received their money. Both Crusaders and Wakefield were given 6 point penalties with 2 points returned to them after they'd paid some of the debts off. That suggests to me that Administration as an event is a 4 point offence but only if some of the damage is mitigated by the repayment of debt.