Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:41 am  

Derwent wrote:

So yes, SLE are a self-governing body operating within a framework provided by the RFL. They have, by consensus, delegated some authorities to the RFL, but they retain the rights to over rule anything the RFL does in relation to SL.

Maybe then, last time, the clubs ( 8:5 majority vote) hit Bulls with the £1.3m "membership fee/fine" and specified it was an SLE matter.

Perhaps this time, with the reputational hit that RL as a whole took on this fiasco, either the other clubs didn't back repeating the fine, or the RFL felt they could veto it as was not exclusively an SLE issue anymore.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:58 am  

Derwent wrote:

Section 2.1 of the RFL bye-laws contained within the Articles of Association :-

2.1 The ownership of Super League, or such other competition if any as may in the future replace it, including the arrangement, management, promotion and administration of the Super League competition (and any event or competition involving Clubs in Super League and rugby league clubs from the southern hemisphere) and all intellectual property rights of any description whatsoever concerning the same shall vest absolutely in SLE.

So yes, SLE are a self-governing body operating within a framework provided by the RFL. They have, by consensus, delegated some authorities to the RFL, but they retain the rights to over rule anything the RFL does in relation to SL.

As you rightly say, the relevant power IS delegated to the RFL. Which means - the RFL have the power, not SLE.

It could be taken away. But it has not been.

Your argument is a bit like saying the government has no power and does exactly what the majority of the electorate wants, because the electorate can ultimately vote them out. The fact is, while RFL exercises its delegated power, it IS in charge, it does NOT have to, nor does it, seek approval for every step. It does (and reasonably) seek to govern by a consensus, but the tail does not wag the dog. The RFL runs the game and as such has to carry any relevant cans.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:07 am  

The rfl on paper are in ultimate control of the game in the UK, but in practice SLE have the power due to the money their competition brings - so the puppet pulls the puppet masters strings.

A lot of comment on how the rest of SL grabbed half of the Bulls SKY money and how this was unfair in the new company - but they were intent on penalising the Bulls - whoever owned them - for the perceived advantage gained by leaving debts unpaid.

Our problem was that OK seemed not to realise he had acquired what was in essence the same business which was loosing large amounts of money , put an idiot in day to day control, kept no proper records and agreed to loosing half his SKY money - and guess what we were bust again in less than a year - what a surprise - though it seems to have been one for OK.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:20 am  

Highlander wrote:

Maybe then, last time, the clubs ( 8:5 majority vote) hit Bulls with the £1.3m "membership fee/fine" and specified it was an SLE matter.

Perhaps this time, with the reputational hit that RL as a whole took on this fiasco, either the other clubs didn't back repeating the fine, or the RFL felt they could veto it as was not exclusively an SLE issue anymore.

Maybe. One point I make is that I think it is right and fair that we should be given an explanation. To me it's unreasonable that one single club has been fined over a million pounds, which has heavily contributed to its rapid demise and was unsustainable. and somebody should be held to account for that. If they now think they fooked up, they should admit it. The proper mechanism would be to set out what sanctions the new owners face, publicly and clearly, so the fans of the club know what they are. Just like we knew the sanctions for the previous owners.

It's all very well people saying you can deduce the financial sanction from a second hand throwaway comment attributed to Solly in the T&A but that is not the way to inform us, and as even that comment did not emntion any figure, it is meaningless to me. The remaining penalty could be half a million, or a pound, or anything.

It is unacceptable that not a word has been said directly as to what our actual package of sanctions is. Obviously Green knows, but why the secrecy for the rest of us, and how can it be justified?

The RFL are even silent on competition points. In the case of BB2014, they agreed a deal with RFL, and then at the last minute the RFL said they were deducting 6 pts., and publicised why (because they were not satisfied about the actual cash provision for debtors of the old club)

But now we have brand new owners, who have given a brand new plan, complete with brand new proposals (if any) for old debtors. Clearly on any reasonable view the RFL should at the point of the deal reconsider the competition points position and announce their decision.

People say that the points were a sanction against Moore & Co., for not coming up with actual money to repay old debts. I get that. But what was not known at the time was that Moore & Co. were not, in fact, the owners. Sanctions are APPLIED TO OWNERS. That is crystal from the rules. It is even clearer, (if you need bigger crystals) as it must follow that, if the RFL had been satsified as to the new owners means and willingness to pay old debts, then the points deduction would indisputably have been less.) What we have since learned is that Moore & Co., while we all THOUGHT they were the owners, were in fact in some sort of 28 day period of grace and while they were allowed to run the show as virtual owners, they legally never owned anything. Which is why they had the option of never completing the purchase, instead walking away.

So there was a points deduction. That was levied as a sanction against the owners for inadequate old debt provision. But they were not actually the owners, and walked away. Why should the next owner in line be stuck with that sanction? people say they "can appeal". But they can't. The decision was not against them. Only the person sanctioned can appeal. And so far as I can see, the RFL applied a sanction to someone who did not exist. That is, BB2014 did exist, it was not as it turns out the owner, so no owner existed.

Logically when the provisional acquisition by the prospective new owner was terminated, we had a position where the RFL had said to BB2014 "yes, you can have it, but on these terms ..... including we'll be deducting 6 points". When MM & Co. said fook that, and did not agree, but walked, the RFL should have said OK then we will leave the points decision in abeyance, and decide what it will be if and when we have an actual new owner, based on THEIR plans and documentation.

[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:32 am  

More or less my thoughts, FA.

I've thought all along that that the deduction was precipitate and should only have been decided when the 'owners' were decided and their plans could be properly scrutinised. If, at the end of the day, its a fair decision, then fine but you can't decide that a couple of months before the owners are known.

Yet another fine example of our headless 'friends' in the RFL running round the farmyard..

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:59 am  

Bulliac wrote:

More or less my thoughts, FA.

I've thought all along that that the deduction was precipitate and should only have been decided when the 'owners' were decided and their plans could be properly scrutinised. If, at the end of the day, its a fair decision, then fine but you can't decide that a couple of months before the owners are known.

Yet another fine example of our headless 'friends' in the RFL running round the farmyard..

Yes, it's both the lack of transparency, and the sense of making it up as they go along, that I can't stand.

When you cobble together the chronology and the facts that have slowly emerged piecemeal, it is obvious:
a) BB2014 proposed the RFL a deal
b) RFL said OK we accept you, but we don't like the deal much so the following sanctions will apply
c) BB2014 said no, stuff that, we do not agree
d) therefore there was no deal.

It looks like therefore the RFL acted precipitously, never considering that BB2014 might not agree (after all, the RFL had the precedent of their last minute ultimata to OK which he was pressurised into accepting, so probably they thought Moore & Co. would roll over in the same way).

But the deal was never done, and so the points should never have been deducted as that was simply a part of the deal - indeed it was a huge slap in BB2014's face precisely based on what deal they had offered. It was only what it was, BECAUSE OF the nature of that offer. The RFL simply never thought BB2014 would walk away. When that happened they should immediately have confirmed that the points proposal, like the whole deal, had never been completed.

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

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Logically when the provisional acquisition by the prospective new owner was terminated, we had a position where the RFL had said to BB2014 "yes, you can have it, but on these terms ..... including we'll be deducting 6 points". When MM & Co. said fook that, and did not agree, but walked, the RFL should have said OK then we will leave the points decision in abeyance, and decide what it will be if and when we have an actual new owner, based on THEIR plans and documentation.

Bulliac wrote:

I've thought all along that that the deduction was precipitate and should only have been decided when the 'owners' were decided and their plans could be properly scrutinised. If, at the end of the day, its a fair decision, then fine but you can't decide that a couple of months before the owners are known.

Exactly what I've been saying since we recieved the 6 points, it was a penalty for going into administration, to be applied to the new owners and the club when we exited administration, with any consideration on reducing the 6 points to 4 or 2 taken on how the new owner/club exited administration and their plans. (so the rfl have been quoted as saying) and thats all fair enough, and if it stayed at 6 and was explained why then fine...but thats not what happened.

The RFL hit us with the 6 points when they did almost in a fit of anger with moore and co, before any deal was signed and whilst we were still trying to exit admin (and it could/probably did affect the value of any bid after the deduction). The 6 points was to be a condition of the BB2014 purchase, but it was applied to the league table immediately - surely it should have been removed when the BB2014 bid failed and only reapplied after fresh consideration "after" Mr Greens bid was successfull?? (and if it was still 6 points, and explained why then fine)

The RFL have said in print that the club/new owners can appeal, and Mr Green has said they are looking at in internally, but I really, really hope they do appeal, if for no other reason as we might get some clarity on the situation, because its not clear as far as Im concerned.



edit, pretty much as FA said before I could type the above, oh well.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:16 am  

great minds and all that ...

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:33 am  

[quote="gutterfax"]...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 [/quote]


So London have received no favouritism whatsoever over the last 20 years then ?

Just a question don't want to deflect anything from Bradford's troubles..

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:46 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

The former Minister of Sport who occupies a Westminster seat which is pretty much unlose-able piggy backed a bid to buy the Bulls to make a name for himself?

And the administrator broke the law by accepting a lower bid than was achievable because the RFL were under the total misapprehension that Bradford Council were behind Omar Khan?

Where you get this stuff?

It was meant in the context mainly aimed at Omar making a name for himself and people to look to him as the "Saviour"

And i get my stuff from someone at the Bulls (who is still there) who was told this by Mr. Sutcliffe himself, and proud of it he was aswell of how they got the club.

And more to the point it wasnt even Omar with the money it was his brothers money, just like the restaurants, owned by his brother just have Omars name above the door,

And yes it may be "illegal" for an administrator to do that but we all know in this day and age nobody plays by the rules, especially if the administrator can drag it on longer than necessary for a bigger pay day !!