Re: The two administrators : Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:56 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

I'm not going to hog your forum, but what occurs to me, from the outside, is that you are victims of timing. Had the same approach as now been adopted in 2012, at the start of a franchise, you would have a couple of years to rebuild yourself, financially and on the field, before a relegation season. Your problem isn't the shedding of players per se, but in the timing of it.

Thinking the same, if we had David Wilson in 2012 we could possible have avoided all of this, yes we would have most likley finished bottom on the league but we would still be in SL and would be much stronger going into this season as we are now.

And plus gargoyle wouldn't have run up huge a huge bill for his "services" did he actually do anything?

Re: The two administrators : Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:59 pm  

broadybull87 wrote:

Thinking the same, if we had David Wilson in 2012 we could possible have avoided all of this, yes we would have most likley finished bottom on the league but we would still be in SL and would be much stronger going into this season as we are now.

And plus gargoyle wouldn't have run up huge a huge bill for his "services" did he actually do anything?

Would anyone have even bought us in that scenario. I suppose if this strategy had been followed then, we might not have been docked 50% of the Sky funding for last season or this, so I suppose it might have had a different outcome, but with the funding shortfall I struggle to see how the outcome would be different than a threadbare squad. We'll never know now!

Re: The two administrators : Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:01 pm  

What I would like to know from Wilson is on what basis he accepted the BB2014 bid as best for creditors? What proof of funding did he see? That would help determine where the truth lay between BB2014 & the RFL

Re: The two administrators : Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:14 pm  

I think this has all backfired remarkably on the RFL. They obviously had someone in mind. The administrator said no. So the RFL threw in some extra complications so the buyers withdrew. The new buyer had obviously gone off the idea, so no the club is being dismantled. What can the RFL do now? They are not going to want the league ruined by one club going under now are they? What about their Magic Weekend?
I hope they are doing some negotiating behind the scenes with whoever they have in mind, or it's not going to end well for anyone.

Re: The two administrators : Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:20 pm  

What does the administrator see happening when the players are all sold on?
Is he still hoping to sell the club as a going concern?
Any new owner will be buying what exactly? Seeing as the players are it's only assets?

What a load of utter b*ll*cks.

Re: The two administrators : Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:03 pm  

I guess the other administrations in 2011 left Wakefield & crusaders barely competitive so guess this administration is following the same route.

Re: The two administrators : Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:06 pm  

debaser wrote:

I think this has all backfired remarkably on the RFL. They obviously had someone in mind. The administrator said no. So the RFL threw in some extra complications so the buyers withdrew. The new buyer had obviously gone off the idea, so no the club is being dismantled. What can the RFL do now? They are not going to want the league ruined by one club going under now are they? What about their Magic Weekend?
I hope they are doing some negotiating behind the scenes with whoever they have in mind, or it's not going to end well for anyone.

What I still don't get is that the administrator has a legal responsibility to get the best deal for the creditors, surely by not sanctioning the deal with BB2014, the RFL are asking Wilson to not meet his obligations? Can anyone explain that to me?

Re: The two administrators : Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:14 pm  

Mirfieldbull wrote:

I guess the other administrations in 2011 left Wakefield & crusaders barely competitive so guess this administration is following the same route.

The difference being that it didn't really matter then. This year it's very different.

[Bulliac]

Re: The two administrators : Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:39 pm  

debaser wrote:

The difference being that it didn't really matter then. This year it's very different.

That is the essential difference. Well, that and they didn't get fined full year's TV money.

Re: The two administrators : Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:16 pm  

debaser wrote:

The difference being that it didn't really matter then. This year it's very different.

Was Crusaders and Wakefield after license decisions, I honestly can't remember or be bothered to look it up? If before, you could argue it was possibly as important then.