Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:26 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

LAST time's administration.

You went, paid off a few of your creditors (how much did HMRC etc get...?) and got 4 pts. And 100% Sky money.

Bulls went, paid off no creditors, and got 6 pts. And 50% Sky money.

Bulls go for a second time - RFL agrees with Wakey, automatic relegation.

Wakey, now having lost their Sky money, go for a second time.

RFL agrees with Wakey - automatic relegation.

Jubilation on the terraces of london, Cas and Widnes (as a minimum) that two of their perceived relegation rivals have so spectacularly been blown up in a cycle of Mutually Assured Destruction ("MAD").

Good arrows, guys. And, this time, maybe not even Hope will be what remains in Pandora's box.

To be fair, I think the letter is doing nothing more than seeking clarification why there is an apparent difference in treatment, and I don't think is asking for relegation. I don't think the people involved want the Bulls relegated, and that is not the aim of the letter. They just want transparency and equal treatment to all the clubs, and I suspect is using the letter to make that point.

I don't want the Bulls relegated. The people behind the Supporters Trust are decent, intelligent reasonable people. I haven't seen a single post from those concerned that suggests the Bulls should be relegated.

I think the letter is more about the way the RFL treats clubs differently, and this is more than just the Bulls, than it is about the Bulls.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:30 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

To be fair, I think the letter is doing nothing more than seeking clarification why there is an apparent difference in treatment, and I don't think is asking for relegation. I don't think the people involved want the Bulls relegated, and that is not the aim of the letter. They just want transparency and equal treatment to all the clubs, and I suspect is using the letter to make that point.

So did they forget to include the page where they asked about the confiscation of Sky money, and divvying it up amongst the rest of the clubs? A 100%-related point where equal transparency is required?

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:36 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

So did they forget to include the page where they asked about the confiscation of Sky money, and divvying it up amongst the rest of the clubs? A 100%-related point where equal transparency is required?

That has no relevance. The issues raised in the letter deal with two seemingly identical scenarios occurring in the same off-season.

Wakefield's Sky money wasn't confiscated in 2011, but then again the issues over loans from the RFL and the ground ownership were different. I could prattle on about how Bradford were treated differently, but I won't, because the letter deals purely with the identical scenarios occurring in the same time-frame.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:43 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

If the RFL feels it is disingenuous, they will say so, and point out why it is so.

Will they? Which RFL? The one that runs the game, you mean? That one? If so, then I wouldn't hold my breath. We are still waiting for them to point out why, alone amongst clubs, the Bulls had a year's Sky distribution docked despite there being no provision for this in the rules.

Slugger McBatt wrote:

I agree that not everyone will feel it is a dead issue, and that is their right, but if there is no explanation or response, you can hardly complain if peoples' opinions become entrenched.

First, in the relevant cases, they already ARE entrenched. No additional entrenchment is required.

Second, I don't complain, I just provide correction / derision in appropriate measure.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:54 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

That has no relevance. The issues raised in the letter deal with two seemingly identical scenarios occurring in the same off-season.

Wakefield's Sky money wasn't confiscated in 2011, but then again the issues over loans from the RFL and the ground ownership were different. I could prattle on about how Bradford were treated differently, but I won't, because the letter deals purely with the identical scenarios occurring in the same time-frame.

Except it does not.

Wakey's "issue" followed on from a previous administration. 4pts and no confiscation.

Bulls's "issue" follows on from a previous administration. 6pts and £ 1 1/3m confiscation.

The scenarios are far from identical. Which is why the letter is so disingenuous.

You are right to raise the ground ownership issue though. Quite a few people at the time were convinced that the lease had had to be sold to the RFL at an undervalue, given the respective bargaining positions of the RFL and the Bulls, and (it was alleged) the naivity or worse of the the-Chairman. Indeed, a former Chairman went on record saying precisely that, and that the RFL now had a handy asset yielding a decent return at a bargain price. I was never as sold on that argument as were some others, but now you have brought it up it IS generous of you to highlight another example of where maybe one club was disadvantaged because of the distressed state it found itself in.

Look, I KNOW the guys on your Supporters' Trust are decent. I helped some of them when it was set up. But I think they have taken a very unwise step here, and certainly in blasting it all over the media. As a minimum, they have backed the RFL into a corner, in public which is never a good idea. And they have risked opening cans of worms - maybe affecting also their own club - that maybe would really have been better left unopened.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:56 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Jubilation on the terraces of..... Cas .... that .... their perceived relegation rivals .

Surely mid-table mediocrity rivals? We aspire.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:56 pm  

I think its a genuine shame that supporters are having to argue and counter these matters.
I am fairly certain the game has been bent far longer than i have been watching it, but the fact that we are all over this instead of who has the best team etc only goes to show what a colossal bunch of pratts are running the game.
Honesty, clarity, fairness and openness would negate all the rumour and conjecture.
I'm an idiot and i can see that, why cantt/won't they!!

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:59 pm  

If they had not brought in two-down at the end of this season, the various protaganists would be far less desperate.

Yet another example of the law of unexpected consequences.

Bulls go into this season ALREADY severely disadvantaged compared with every other club. For something the fault of an earlier board and set of shareholders two years ago. And, in the current mess in good part because of being likewise disadvantaged last year. In a relegation year, how would you expect Bulls fans to feel about that?

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:12 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

I think its a genuine shame that supporters are having to argue and counter these matters.
I am fairly certain the game has been bent far longer than i have been watching it, but the fact that we are all over this instead of who has the best team etc only goes to show what a colossal bunch of pratts are running the game.
Honesty, clarity, fairness and openness would negate all the rumour and conjecture.
I'm an idiot and i can see that, why cantt/won't they!!

I don't think the game is bent at all. It annoys be greatly when people make stupid, throwaway comments to try & ingratiate themselves. We have had some good administrators & some mediocre ones, same as all sports. What the RFL have to do is to try & balance the demands of powerful & rich chairmen with the sustainability of a precariously balanced game. Bradford is worth saving due to potential of the club. Your team, & my team, are probably expendable; one not both, due to the proximity. But there is no-one in the championship, at the moment, who are any better. Halifax used to be, maybe could be. Relegation might add some end of season excitement but it will lead to more financial disaster. SL needs Bradford, it doesn't need more than one of the 5 towns. Get used to it.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:19 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

If they had not brought in two-down at the end of this season, the various protaganists would be far less desperate.

Yet another example of the law of unexpected consequences.

Bulls go into this season ALREADY severely disadvantaged compared with every other club. For something the fault of an earlier board and set of shareholders two years ago. And, in the current mess in good part because of being likewise disadvantaged last year. In a relegation year, how would you expect Bulls fans to feel about that?

I dont think any rational fan would suggest you arent, but that is aver different matter to the rock and hard place ultimatum Wakefield were given for attempting to do what effectively the Bulls have done.
The sadness (and you can take it as ingracious if you choose) is that supporters of a sport are falling out about the failings of administrators be that the rfl or club chairmen, but thats the divide and conquer attitude that prevails in modern day RL sadly.