Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:21 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

Bricks?
Nah......the RFL haven't bought us any bricks and with the best will in the world, you'll be hard pressed to show anyone that the RFL has financed London at the same level that Bradford have received!
We're going down and probably bust because we were run badly.....you've had loans and leases purchased and more second chances than anyone.

Leases? As in plural? Can you back up that statement? Of course you can't as you're well known for making up facts and claiming them as true.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:07 pm  

[quote="gutterfax"]Bricks?
Nah......the RFL haven't bought us any bricks and with the best will in the world, you'll be hard pressed to show anyone that the RFL has financed London at the same level that Bradford have received!
We're going down and probably bust because we were run badly.....you've had loans and leases purchased and more second chances than anyone.[/quote]

Where as London have had no assistance or preferential treatment at all over the last 20 years

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:24 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

To say I'm "obsessed" by it is a bit strange. I am very concerned about my club not getting the full distribution and I am extremely worried - in the absence of being told anything specific by anyone - that we might again be hugely worse off than the other clubs.

I did see it and I did comment on it. It was highly unspecific as to know the numbers, you'd need to know how much had been paid in the second year and how much was still to come, but those figures never came then, and they have never come now.

Anyway, that remark, vague as it is, related to the takeover by BB2014 as you say - so far as I am aware NOTHING has been said about distribution penalties for BBNL. You might think that a second change of ownership also "would not affect the central money" but unless someone says so we don't even know that, and in any case, we don't know the figures, which is the real information we need.

I also have repeatedly posed the question of WHY this would be so. Why did the change of ownership to OKB effect a 50% reduction in distribution x 2 years, but the next change of ownership following a second administration situation NOT effect ANY reduction in distribution? I keep asking this as i want the RFL to explain why they crippled OKB like that, if nobody else is ever to suffer that fate.

I understand the words reported by Solly but I completely fail to understand WHY this would be the case. If you are in doubt the issue I have is why the RFL crippled my club by the last-minute one year - no money penalty, but never anyone before, nor since. Why were OKB treated that way but not BBNL? Of corse I don't WANT us to be given a fresh year's money penalty, but I do want to understand why that catastrophic penalty was visited on owners just once. And whether the RFL now admit that it was a disastrous mistake.

Yeap, nice try FA, I spelt it out once, if you want to pretend you cannot read, carry on looking like a prat to every one else on the forum.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:05 pm  

roofaldo2 wrote:

Leases? As in plural? Can you back up that statement? Of course you can't as you're well known for making up facts and claiming them as true.

Lease then.....and not forgetting the dodgy loan that led to the lease being bought to recoup the money.

herr rigsby wrote:

Where as London have had no assistance or preferential treatment at all over the last 20 years

Typical Bills fan.....when faced with the blatant favouritism shown to their club by the RFL they try to deflect by pointing out faults in other clubs......

...given your clubs illustrious and long history, your attendances are embarrassing, the flea-pit you play out of is archaic and you're now owned by and sponsored by loan sharks.......

good luck for the rest of the season and we'll see you back in administration next January

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:11 am  

Derwent wrote:

It is a completely different set of circumstances now. When OK took over the club was guaranteed a SL place by way of licensing, therefore there was a future guaranteed income to apply sanctions to. Now that licensing has been scrapped then there is no guarantee that the club will have any SL income next year. What would be the point of imposing a deduction on income that the club wouldn't even receive should they be relegated ?

Leaving aside that it would (the parachute payment), the way the fine is imposed isn't the point.

The first, and seemingly last, new owner to be fined over a million quid was OKB. Why hasn't an equivalent financial penalty been levied against BBNL?

The more relevant way of asking the same question though is: why did the RFL single out OKB to fine over a million quid, at the last minute, agree to this or else?

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:21 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

Yeap, nice try FA, I spelt it out once, if you want to pretend you cannot read, carry on looking like a prat to every one else on the forum.

"Nice try"?

I am starting to think you have issues. I am not "pretending I cannot read", and you can't have spelled out in your post the answers to questions that I had not yet asked.

If I "look like a prat" to you then so be it. I can live with that terrible knowledge. But your self-appointment as spokesman for everyone else on the forum seems to be part of your issue. It betrays a deep insecurity. But the truth is I simply made a sober and reasoned post, and your strange response was unwarranted.

Wouldn't you prefer having sensible discussion to flaming?

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:06 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Leaving aside that it would (the parachute payment), the way the fine is imposed isn't the point.

The first, and seemingly last, new owner to be fined over a million quid was OKB. Why hasn't an equivalent financial penalty been levied against BBNL?

The more relevant way of asking the same question though is: why did the RFL single out OKB to fine over a million quid, at the last minute, agree to this or else?

I won't claim to have read every word of the current 349 pages but I seem to recall it being established that the "fine" was negotiated by the RFL as some clubs who had paid their bills considered the Bulls to have an advantage by not doing so. As I saw the explanation, OK offered to forego some tv cash to appease the objecting clubs. If this is the case, the RFL kept the club in SL and the "fine" could be viewed as a sweetener.

My memory is not what it used to be so please enlighten me if events transpired otherwise.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 4:23 am  

gutterfax wrote:

Lease then.....and not forgetting the dodgy loan that led to the lease being bought to recoup the money.

Typical Bills fan.....when faced with the blatant favouritism shown to their club by the RFL they try to deflect by pointing out faults in other clubs......

...given your clubs illustrious and long history, your attendances are embarrassing, the flea-pit you play out of is archaic and you're now owned by and sponsored by loan sharks.......

good luck for the rest of the season and we'll see you back in administration next January

Typical Gutterfax fan.....when faced with the blatant favouritism shown to their club by the RFL they try to deflect by pointing out faults in other clubs......

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 5:02 am  

roofaldo2 wrote:

Typical Gutterfax fan.....when faced with the blatant favouritism shown to their club by the RFL they try to deflect by pointing out faults in other clubs......

...Ooooh. Supposed Blatant favouritism shown to London dependant on opnions v Proven and documented Loans, lease purchase and bail outs provided to Bradford.....it's gonna be close

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 5:55 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Leaving aside that it would (the parachute payment), the way the fine is imposed isn't the point.

The first, and seemingly last, new owner to be fined over a million quid was OKB. Why hasn't an equivalent financial penalty been levied against BBNL?

The more relevant way of asking the same question though is: why did the RFL single out OKB to fine over a million quid, at the last minute, agree to this or else?

Perhaps the owner who managed to persuade 7 other clubs to vote for the proposal last time has found that the support isn't there this time after the financial and reputational carnage it caused to the Bulls, SL & the wider game.