Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:37 pm  

Derwent wrote:

The money isn't the RFL's to distribute or deduct. The money belongs to SLE, of which the RFL are an equal shareholder along with all other SL clubs. The RFL merely act as SLE's agents in collecting and distributing the money. As far as I am aware, the decision to reduce the club's funding was a democratic one made by the shareholders of SLE and not the RFL. Therefore, any decision to reinstate the Sky funding would need to be a majority decision by SLE's shareholders.

Whilst we have RFLL, RFL(GB)L, and SLEL, it is convenient to just talk RFL as they run the show. The RFL do not act as mere agents, they (well, if you want to be technical, RFL(GB)L) have the responsibility for governing the game. They must of course do so using the framework of rules agreed on by the members.

The distribution penalty would have applied WHATEVER league the Bulls played in. That is, it would have applied whether they were members of SLE or whether they were in SL or not.

The penalty was imposed (by agreement) on OKB as part of the price of admission to the party. It simply does not apply to any other company. Therefore, to be accurate, a decision would have to be taken as to what sanctions were to be imposed on the new member company of RFL/SLE as the case may be.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:56 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Whilst we have RFLL, RFL(GB)L, and SLEL, it is convenient to just talk RFL as they run the show. The RFL do not act as mere agents, they (well, if you want to be technical, RFL(GB)L) have the responsibility for governing the game. They must of course do so using the framework of rules agreed on by the members.

The RFL administer the game and it's Operational Rules. In terms of commercial and finance matters relating to SLE, then SLE has autonomy and the RFL are merely the conduit for collecting the revenues and disbursing them. They do not decide who gets what.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The distribution penalty would have applied WHATEVER league the Bulls played in. That is, it would have applied whether they were members of SLE or whether they were in SL or not.

And quite rightly so. Many other lower league clubs have had their central funding withdrawn after going into administration and/or CVA. Bradford may be the first SL club its happened to but they aren't the first RL club to suffer it by a long chalk.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The penalty was imposed (by agreement) on OKB as part of the price of admission to the party. It simply does not apply to any other company. Therefore, to be accurate, a decision would have to be taken as to what sanctions were to be imposed on the new member company of RFL/SLE as the case may be.

That decision would need to be made by the shareholders/members of SLE. Seeing as they were the ones who imposed it initially, and then benefited from it, then its unlikely that you would get a different outcome if a new vote was taken. ATEOTD, lots of people like to blame "the RFL" but in this instance the decision lies squarely with the other SL clubs. The RFL can't unilateraly decide to reinstate the funding as it doesn't belong to them.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:34 pm  

Derwent wrote:

The RFL administer the game and it's Operational Rules. In terms of commercial and finance matters relating to SLE, then SLE has autonomy and the RFL are merely the conduit for collecting the revenues and disbursing them. They do not decide who gets what.

None of them do. It may be "take it or leave it", but the question of distribution cannot be imposed, it would have to be agreed.

Derwent wrote:

That decision would need to be made by the shareholders/members of SLE. Seeing as they were the ones who imposed it initially, and then benefited from it, then its unlikely that you would get a different outcome if a new vote was taken.

That may or may not be so, but I disagree. I think many clubs will now realise it was a mistake. What i would point to is the fact that, to date, nobody has suggested that any new owners will face the same penalty. Why is that, do you think?

Derwent wrote:

ATEOTD, lots of people like to blame "the RFL" but in this instance the decision lies squarely with the other SL clubs. The RFL can't unilateraly decide to reinstate the funding as it doesn't belong to them.

I tend to agree. I suspect that the reason all the RFl have said is one reported comment that the distribution deduction of the old club would continue to apply is because the clubs' decision to distribute the penalty was made, and to reverse it would mean depriving themselves of however much bonus they are still due from OKB's misfortune.

But it skates over the position of a new owner, out of whose share of distribution any such balance would obviously have to be deducted. That's why I posed the question, if it was fair to take the equivalent of one year's distribution from the then new owners, OKBL, as a sanction for the last admin., why wouldn't it be fair to take a fresh one year penalty from any new owner after this admin.? As against which, can you imagine any new owner agreeing to join on half-money terms. because I can't. I can imagine them reluctantly conceding the rump end of whatever deduction was left for OKB but I can't imagine anyone taking the similar one year distribution penalty that OKBL did.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:51 pm  

no-one else will be accepting the penalty in future as they wont be "buying" a 2 year SL licence. The financial penalty wasn't for going into administration it was imposed by a majority of small minded petty club owners/chairmen who had an axe to grind with the RFL over undisclosed unsecured loans and buying a lease to a ground..........

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:09 pm  

pie.warrior wrote:

no-one else will be accepting the penalty in future as they wont be "buying" a 2 year SL licence. The financial penalty wasn't for going into administration it was imposed by a majority of small minded petty club owners/chairmen who had an axe to grind with the RFL over undisclosed unsecured loans and buying a lease to a ground..........

Indeed. The absurdity is that the penalty was being imposed on the Bulls when their beef was mostly with the RFL.

It would have better for all concerned if the Bulls had gone bust under the Hood regime without the shenanigans of the loan and lease and before the fans had dipped into their pockets. It would then at least have been conceivable that the club could have been resurrected albeit from outside SL.

Instead the club "survived" but with a burden placed on it (and agreed by an owner with little knowledge of commercial sport and a ludicrous belief that pop concerts and weddings in the Coral Stand would offset the loss of funding) which merely delayed the inevitable. Prolonging the agony just long enough to make it financially impossible for any future owner without megabucks to get involved.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:38 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

But it skates over the position of a new owner, out of whose share of distribution any such balance would obviously have to be deducted. That's why I posed the question, if it was fair to take the equivalent of one year's distribution from the then new owners, OKBL, as a sanction for the last admin., why wouldn't it be fair to take a fresh one year penalty from any new owner after this admin.? As against which, can you imagine any new owner agreeing to join on half-money terms. because I can't. I can imagine them reluctantly conceding the rump end of whatever deduction was left for OKB but I can't imagine anyone taking the similar one year distribution penalty that OKBL did.

One obvious answer to that would be that when OK took over they were guaranteed to be in SL for the remaining period of their licence. Any new owner would not have those guarantees, they are taking the risk of buying a club which may be relegated and the obvious financial implications of that event. This time around you could not say that the club will be deducted money over x amount of time as there is no saying that they will even qualify for those reduced payments in the future.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:31 pm  

Derwent wrote:

One obvious answer to that would be that when OK took over they were guaranteed to be in SL for the remaining period of their licence.

But if you recall, they weren't.

* At the time that OK signed the original half-distribution deal, they absolutely did NOT have any guarantee where they would be playing.

* When later they were approved to play in SL, the initial approval was just for the current season, it was only upgraded to the second year as well much later on.

It is the case though that if in the second season they had not been kept in SL, then the 50% distribution penalty of the first season would have been an end to it ( contradicting btw those who say the penalty was one year's distribution, just spread over 2 years for payment purposes).

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:17 pm  

I don't have the time to read all these posts, nevermind contribute constructively, but I ain't half enjoying it. Keep it up guys.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:47 pm  

tigertot wrote:

I don't have the time to read all these posts, nevermind contribute constructively, but I ain't half enjoying it. Keep it up guys.

In short, it's basically certain Bradford Bills fans saying that it's all the RFL's fault that they are up the creek without a paddle and attacking anyone who dares point out that the reasons the Bradford Bills find themselves in this state is 100% down to slap-shod management and piss-poor business acumen.

My take on this saga is:

Bradford's old owners got into debt trying to buy more success, they were bunged a brown envelope of cash by the RFL (under the table) and when they looked like not being able to pay that back, they offloaded their biggest asset to the RFL, the bank narrowed their line of credit, they were going tits up, they shook a bucket, a restaurateur "saved them", he then hocked some of his own properties to "loan" them some more cash, he agreed to sell to a barman and a web based bed broker, they reneged on that agreement, the barman bailed, the bed-broker and his new buddies said they needed to restructure some of the cash flow from the TV deal (which apparently was so they could use this money to buy the club, but not from the restaurateur as he isn't getting any of his money back), the RFL were having no more of this "hand-out" mentality that has become engrained at the club and the Lawyers are now greedily looking at the carcass of what was once an Iconic club, which they can pick the bones clean in a dick measuring contest.

All the while, the poor fans of the Bradford Bills are treated like mushrooms and still expected to dutifully roll up at the Iconic Ground they rent from the RFL every second week to try and stave off relegation, when in reality, they will probably stay up quite easily, IF they can steer clear of liquidation.

Players and fans have started to drift away and the future is looking pretty bleak unless someone is willing to buy the club and immediately inject 2 x 7 figures with little chance of a return.

THE END!

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:43 pm  

Would be better for them all just to be put into a pit and forced to fight it out haha