martinwildbull wrote:
Hmm interesting one FA. How come we did not get half the other clubs? You claimed it was the gospel truth ( in other words because you not the club or the rfl said so) that we only got half the distribution of other clubs for two years,
That is almost correct.
OKB were to get exactly that, under a written agreement. Your use of "we" is too imprecise.
martinwildbull wrote:
so why are you not demanding that the club pays the excess receipt back.
That's a very odd question. You haven't noticed, maybe, but things have moved on a tad. OKB is in administration, and a deal was done to sell the club from the administrator to BB2014. Then in some strange way BB2104 acted as if they were the new owners for a month or so but then it emerged that there was some sort of period of grace of 28 days for the administrator to get better offers, or some such, and shortly after that, BB2014 pulled out. In the interim it seemed all the staff had been TUPE'd to BB2014 but now, nobody knows whether they were or they weren't.
And as for deductions, there has been no official announcement and if any similar agreement was ever signed by B2014 then I don't know of it. The only thing I heard come out was a press comment from the RFL that the new owners would be subject to the same deductions as the old club, but that itself begged several obvious questions; such as:
* did that mean just the balance of what hadn't been deducted yet from the old club?
* or did it mean that a new 2 year period of half money would apply to the new club? If not, why not, I mean if that wa s afir price for administration for OKB then why was it not the same price for a subseqnent admin? Or if it was not a fair price for an admin and was not to apply for 2 years to the new club, then why was it fair for OKB?
martinwildbull wrote:
You should at least be consistent in your arguments, otherwise you are just proving Dboy absolutely right, that you are a troll on your own forum.
Your idiotic attempt to antagonise duly ignored, what arguments are in what way inconsistent? Let me make a few things clear to you.
* I extremely strongly disagreed and continue to disagree with the 2 year half-distribution penalty. I did not and do not think it is reasonable, no other club ever got it, and I do not think a SL club can be sustained on half money
* The FACT that OKB was on half the distribution of other clubs over 2 years has NO BEARING on whatever arrangements the RFL may enter into in March 2014, they will deal with and are dealing with the administrator in whatever manner they judge fit. I presume one major concern of the RFL is to try to keep a BB club running for SL2014 in view of the mayhem of the alternative, but who knows.
* I don't know how much of the distribution had already been paid to OKB or how much was left to distribute, bearing in mind the penalty. Neither do you.
The main point with regard to the "additional money" though - and as i do not get the impression you are stupid man, so presume you can understand this - is that if "the Bulls" half-distribution is set in stone, then however much money is paid to them in any given instalment is utterly irrelevant. the ONLY relevant figure would be the TOTAL PAID IN DISTRIBUTION OVER THE 2 YEARS. Where do you get the peculiar idea from that, if a "windfall" of £300k arose, the RFL somehow "have to" treat that as a discrete item and knock off half?
However the main thing is what the RFL decided to do going forward, with the additional money, and whether it chose to use any of that to pay to the administrator or not. That would depend on simple arithmetic, i.e. if the deduction imposed on OKB is still relevant, then (a) how much of the 50% total as been paid and (b) how much (if any) is still to pay. I suspect the RFL has realised that, going forward, penalising the new owners (if there ever are any) the same full 2 years half money as they did OKB is unsustainable. But if we are stuck with the bizarre situation that
a) the OKB 2 year half money deduction still stands AND
b) there is perversely to be no similar 2 year penalty for the second administration,
... then the arithmetic would be
"the Bulls" are due [2 years distribution, including the new money recently arising] minus [however much distribution has been paid since the OKB penalty was announced]
Your question as to why I am "not calling for" part of any money to be repaid is, using the most accurate adjective I can think of, idiotic. I did not think any do not think ANY deduction should EVER have been made from the Bulls, much less then given to the other clubs, and I also think the Bulls were diddled in the calculation as well. Therefore to suggest that under any circumstances I, of all people, would ever argue that anything distributed "should be repaid" to the RFL would be truly mad.
For the reasons I have given, I think the above would be just an unjustifiable fudge by the RFL, illogical and inconsistent but they have dug their own hole, and the only saving grace for them is that they can seemingly do whatever they like without recourse or outside examination. The only interesting thing would be if and when the next meeting of the rest of the SL clubs takes place, and if anyone presents a calculation of how much of the OKB money they have had, and if they think they have been shortchanged; since clearly the RFL can only pay the precise amount of income out that it received, and if they end up paying more to "the Bulls" i.e. OKB plus interim owners now gone plus administrator then they will correspondingly end up paying precisely the same amount less in the bounty to the remaining clubs.
The final point is that the half distribution isn't just Sky money - it includes everything including Challenge Cup, the total distribution for the original OKB 2 year penalty period is not thus yet a finite figure.
