[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Mar 22, 2014 4:15 pm  

mat wrote:

Nope. First two points are for going into admin. Rest are for not paying off creditors. Wakey paid some creditors hence only got two extra rather than four extra we got.

Wakefield SAID they were going to pay off some creditors, but whether they did or not is open question. Just like when Wakefield were told they had to upgrade the ground to be promoted, which they didn't do either. Wakefield have track record of getting away with this sort of thing..

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Mar 22, 2014 4:22 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Not at all. The RFL's only concern as far as the funding goes is to prove that they have the funds to run the club, instead of knocking on the RFL's door every Monday asking for more handouts.



.

Wrong. You apparently know nothing about this point. The issue of HMRC getting shafted by RL clubs has been a running sore for the RFL. As the RL lead body they have had several meetings with HMRC on this very subject.

After Moore and his mates ran away recently, Rimmer made explicit comments about paying / not paying HMRC (and other creditors). This suggests HMRC is important to the RFL. but if people need to pretend otherwise I could not care less.

furthermore. a majority of SL clubs are sick of clubs 'writing off' significant debts yet staying in SL. This is why a potential buyer may please the administrator yet fall short of getting a place in SL.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Mar 22, 2014 4:29 pm  

Pumpetypump wrote:

What is it you are agreeing with? The incorrect assertion that 6 points is the punishment for admin irrespective of how many creditors you pay? The assertion that conflicts with precedents?

On the other point I'd say aww diddums for the poor rfl. But I'd also hope any prospective owner is savvy enough to keep quiet on the points until it's signed and sealed.

Where have the RFL explicitly said the 6pt deduction is contingent on anything in the future or that this new situation has...precedents?

Wow...they would keep quiet until its signed and sealed....genius!!! Or maybe someone with the sports law background of Maurice Watkins might ensure that the thing being signed and sealed precludes such a challenge.

All very interesting, isn't it.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Mar 22, 2014 4:31 pm  

I just wonder if the RFL have put the same conditions on the new group that they are alleged to have put on Moore & Co when they tried buying the club?

Perhaps that's the reason for the delay?

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:17 pm  

I assumed that the 6 points deduction was for going into admin a record twice in two years. This after continuing to spend money they never had!

Considering that help the RFL have given you including telling porkies on your behalf, I'm flabbergasted that any Bulls fans could be so critical of them. The attitude of most Bulls fans on here makes me puke!

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:20 pm  

Don't get it on your shoes!!!

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:22 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

Wakefield SAID they were going to pay off some creditors, but whether they did or not is open question. Just like when Wakefield were told they had to upgrade the ground to be promoted, which they didn't do either. Wakefield have track record of getting away with this sort of thing..

Wrong on both glover agreed to pay some creditors when he bought the club in admin this he did maybe not all but some were settled.

The ground was updated on promotion new toilets at the south end Tarmac in front of the flats and barriers fitted by McAlpines at the time.

What you omitted was we were promoted and got no SL funding for the first 2 Seasons.

I really haven't commented on the Bulls as I don't know enough detail other than it's dragged on and on the sooner the administrator approves a deal that suits the creditors and the RFLP are happy that the new owner agreed by the administrator is fit and proper he better. I don't think the Administrator has any influence on the RFL he is only interested in the creditors good luck get hour chins up and prepare for the seasons battles.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:27 pm  

deeHell wrote:

The attitude of most Bulls fans on here makes me puke!

You should write to the RFL and demand they make all Bradford fans puke.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:28 pm  

Quote from Cripesginger---"furthermore. a majority of SL clubs are sick of clubs 'writing off' significant debts yet staying in SL. This is why a potential buyer may please the administrator yet fall short of getting a place in SL."



Please name those clubs ( your term is majority) who are sick of write offs and which clubs other than the Bulls have written off significant debts?
Your reply to FA ignores his key point about HMRC debts. Whatever Rimmer has said ,FA argues that there is no rule or RL regulation that demands all monies owed by the old company are cleared by the new company. I agree with FA that pre packs and their ilk are immoral but successive governments seem to have decided these devices are necessary to promote the continuance of businesses.
As regards the points deduction, the penalty for entering admin is 2 points. Additional deductions depend on the settlement for creditors . So in a fair world those additions should be judged when a new owner is in place and the position with the creditors finalised-- and remember Bulls 2014 Ltd were never full owners.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:30 pm  

deeHell wrote:

I assumed that the 6 points deduction was for going into admin a record twice in two years.!

You may well assume the existence of a fictional rule whereby a second administration triggers a non negotiable 6 Point deduction. You might as well assume that the rfl stipulate all monkeys attending challenge cup ties must wear trousers. That's equally as fictional.

People who crawl from their own forum to spout fiction really make me want to puke.