Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:51 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Sounds about right.

But why does the new company, which had nothing to do with the old company, have to "pay off" whatever remains of the old company's distribution "debt"? Has anyone advanced a justification for that?

because it is the club, ie the franchise the Bradford Bulls, that has suffered the deduction, not the vehicle of the owners whosoever they may be.

Lets put it in terms that you might understand in a hypothetical situation. Two owners of properties enter a covenant relating to those properties which lasts two years. One owner sells at the end of year one. The covenant still runs for a further year despite the change of ownership because the covenant is "attached" to the property not the owner, the new owner being told about it during all the usual legal stuff and therefore having to accept it or not buy the property. It therefore follows that if Green had taken over the Bulls franchise with a newco a month after OK bought it rather than 12 months, Green would have suffered 23/24ths of the one year funding deduction OK only 1/24th (assuming green held on to the club until the end of this year). Or vice versa.

And whatever they started out with, both the RFL say the final agreement was one years usual funding deducted over two years ie 50% of the usual funding, and the club (at least OK) say the same, so you are wrong that the final agreement was 50% of the other clubs distribution. again, putting it another way may help you to understand. If it had been spread over three years instead of two, it would be a third or 33% of the usual distribution over three years.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:01 pm  

dddooommm wrote: The new board member is Danny Potticary. He will be the clubs new commercial director. More info: http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ls_mantra/ I am surprised nobody, especially our resident hawks and advisors, haven't been around. Does he meet with universal approval, then? I have not heard of him (not that there is any reason any of us should have) but when it says he runs a Huddersfield-based alcohol distribution company I am assuming this could be THE ORIGINAL WHOLESALE LIQUOR STORE LTD of Brighouse, set up in Oct 2010 which has Mr. MR DANIEL GORDON POTTICARY as a director. This is presumably our man? This faced a first notification of strike-off action in Feb 2013 which was presumably for a late filing of annual return as shortly after a return was filed and the notice discontinued. He is also shown as connected with MATURE & CHILLED WINE DISTRIBUTION LIMITED of Leeds, set up in 2004 and with no events listed except routine. Finally he is listed as connected with PANORAMIC WHOLESALE LIMITED which was formed in 2010 and dissolved 2 years later, seemingly struck off, no returns having been filed. At least perhaps we will be able to source our booze cheap? Anybody know what he did before 2004? Edit: From the article: Potticary – who, like Green, is a Tottenham-supporting Londoner – joins a five-strong board of directors and attended his first-ever game of rugby in either code during Sunday’s home clash with Oldham. Rumour has it he was told Oldham were the world champions, and signed immediately after seeing how we destroyed them “I’m 60 in October and all I’ve ever done in my life is make money,” said Potticary. Well you can't argue with that. “I wanted to do something different that was going to turn me on and excite me. I didn’t expect that to be Bradford Bulls but the timing couldn’t have been better.“I wanted to do something different that was going to turn me on and excite me. I didn’t expect that to be Bradford Bulls but the timing couldn’t have been better. I genuinely wish him all the best. He looks quite avuncular.

dddooommm wrote: The new board member is Danny Potticary. He will be the clubs new commercial director. More info: http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ls_mantra/ I am surprised nobody, especially our resident hawks and advisors, haven't been around. Does he meet with universal approval, then? I have not heard of him (not that there is any reason any of us should have) but when it says he runs a Huddersfield-based alcohol distribution company I am assuming this could be THE ORIGINAL WHOLESALE LIQUOR STORE LTD of Brighouse, set up in Oct 2010 which has Mr. MR DANIEL GORDON POTTICARY as a director. This is presumably our man? This faced a first notification of strike-off action in Feb 2013 which was presumably for a late filing of annual return as shortly after a return was filed and the notice discontinued. He is also shown as connected with MATURE & CHILLED WINE DISTRIBUTION LIMITED of Leeds, set up in 2004 and with no events listed except routine. Finally he is listed as connected with PANORAMIC WHOLESALE LIMITED which was formed in 2010 and dissolved 2 years later, seemingly struck off, no returns having been filed. At least perhaps we will be able to source our booze cheap? Anybody know what he did before 2004? Edit: From the article: Potticary – who, like Green, is a Tottenham-supporting Londoner – joins a five-strong board of directors and attended his first-ever game of rugby in either code during Sunday’s home clash with Oldham. Rumour has it he was told Oldham were the world champions, and signed immediately after seeing how we destroyed them “I’m 60 in October and all I’ve ever done in my life is make money,” said Potticary. Well you can't argue with that. “I wanted to do something different that was going to turn me on and excite me. I didn’t expect that to be Bradford Bulls but the timing couldn’t have been better.“I wanted to do something different that was going to turn me on and excite me. I didn’t expect that to be Bradford Bulls but the timing couldn’t have been better. I genuinely wish him all the best. He looks quite avuncular.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:02 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

because it is the club, ie the franchise the Bradford Bulls, that has suffered the deduction, not the vehicle of the owners whosoever they may be.

Lets put it in terms that you might understand in a hypothetical situation. Two owners of properties enter a covenant relating to those properties which lasts two years. One owner sells at the end of year one. The covenant still runs for a further year despite the change of ownership because the covenant is "attached" to the property not the owner, the new owner being told about it during all the usual legal stuff and therefore having to accept it or not buy the property. It therefore follows that if Green had taken over the Bulls franchise with a newco a month after OK bought it rather than 12 months, Green would have suffered 23/24ths of the one year funding deduction OK only 1/24th (assuming green held on to the club until the end of this year). Or vice versa.

And whatever they started out with, both the RFL say the final agreement was one years usual funding deducted over two years ie 50% of the usual funding, and the club (at least OK) say the same, so you are wrong that the final agreement was 50% of the other clubs distribution. again, putting it another way may help you to understand. If it had been spread over three years instead of two, it would be a third or 33% of the usual distribution over three years.

Id like to think im fairly clued up and have a good understanding of things but im still none the wiser

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:17 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

because it is the club, ie the franchise the Bradford Bulls, that has suffered the deduction, not the vehicle of the owners whosoever they may be.

Not so. The club suffers the sporting sanction, It cannot suffer a financial penalty since it is not a legal entity that can be financially penalised. Anyway even that is all irrelevant as the distrubution reduction was by a written agreement between the relevant parties and the one which agreed to take the hit was OKBL.

martinwildbull wrote:

Lets put it in terms that you might understand in a hypothetical situation. Two owners of properties enter a covenant relating to those properties which lasts two years. One owner sells at the end of year one. The covenant still runs for a further year despite the change of ownership because the covenant is "attached" to the property not the owner, the new owner being told about it during all the usual legal stuff and therefore having to accept it or not buy the property. It therefore follows that if Green had taken over the Bulls franchise with a newco a month after OK bought it rather than 12 months, Green would have suffered 23/24ths of the one year funding deduction OK only 1/24th (assuming green held on to the club until the end of this year). Or vice versa.

The analogy is poor, though. The owner did not sell. It went into administration.

The new owner agreed a fine in return for getting a ticket.

When that owner went tits, logically we should be back at the point where the RFL has to start afresh with sanctions against the new owner. Like they did with the previous owner.

If not, then tell me why OKBL did not simply inherit the distribution penalty that applied to BBHL? (i.e. nothing)

Leaving aside the illogicality, you also don't address one of my major peeves that we actually do not have a clue how much, in pounds and pence, our penalty is. Or that we haven't been told what debts we are repaying if any. Nor any more details on the hints by RFL that any new owner would have to repay advances made to the administrator. I am concerned to know because all these could add up to one enormous sum of money. And i see no valid reason why any of this would be in any way confidential, quite the reverse. If a party who is NOT to blame for anything on any view, ends up paying someone else's penalties, why should that be secret, and indeed what purpose does it serve by being kept secret? Surely, pour encourager les autres is the main point of these penalties?

martinwildbull wrote:

And whatever they started out with, both the RFL say the final agreement was one years usual funding deducted over two years i..

If they say that, then they are lying, it was to receive half the distribution received by other clubs

martinwildbull wrote:

and the club (at least OK) say the same

I haven't seen the club say anything. OK would obviously not say this as OK was a party to the agreement and knows what the agreement was.

martinwildbull wrote:

so you are wrong that the final agreement was 50% of the other clubs distribution.

If you want to believe something that is untrue, having been told the facts, that's fine.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 4:03 pm  

OKs press release in the TnA para 2: http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/10192651.Khan_hits_out_at__selfish__Super_League_rivals_as_they_share_out_Bradford_Bulls__TV_cash/. article with Blake Solly quote: http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/10980461.New_Bradford_Bulls_owners_to_seek_approval_of_deal_from_RFL_as_Khan_threatens_legal_action/ I have not come across a single reference to the deduction being 50% of other clubs. Please post a link to an independent source where it clearly states 50% of the other clubs, or finally come to terms with the fact that you are wrong about the amount of the deduction. The calculation is pretty easy. the pennies can look after themselves. take the funding of a year ago, I believe around £1.2M. so 50% of that. voila, about £600K.

OKs press release in the TnA para 2: http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/10192651.Khan_hits_out_at__selfish__Super_League_rivals_as_they_share_out_Bradford_Bulls__TV_cash/. article with Blake Solly quote: http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/10980461.New_Bradford_Bulls_owners_to_seek_approval_of_deal_from_RFL_as_Khan_threatens_legal_action/ I have not come across a single reference to the deduction being 50% of other clubs. Please post a link to an independent source where it clearly states 50% of the other clubs, or finally come to terms with the fact that you are wrong about the amount of the deduction. The calculation is pretty easy. the pennies can look after themselves. take the funding of a year ago, I believe around £1.2M. so 50% of that. voila, about £600K.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:49 pm  

mystic eddie wrote:

<snip>

However, I cannot let this, above, lie. <snip>.

Fair enough and well put too.....I proffer my sincerest apologies if I caused you offence.

I was spot on about Whitcu*t though, wasn't I

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

gutterfux is an attention seeker. He tends to post crazy shiit like that when he's feeling ignored, just like the 3 year old in the supermarket aisle having a tantrum to get her mam's attention.

Careful antboy....I'll be looking for a new SL club to follow in 2015 and the Bulls seem to have the right level of disfunctionality to suit me fine

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:55 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

Careful antboy....I'll be looking for a new SL club to follow in 2015 and the Bulls seem to have the right level of disfunctionality to suit me fine

You think we'll be in SL in 2015? Love ya man.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:15 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

...
Please post a link to an independent source where it clearly states 50% of the other clubs,

As the agreement was confidential, you won't find a link.

martinwildbull wrote:

...The calculation is pretty easy. the pennies can look after themselves. take the funding of a year ago, I believe around £1.2M. so 50% of that. voila, about £600K.

And that is precisely the same mistake that the RFL (seemingly) made. Because if when you do the distribution, each club receives £1.2m but the Bulls only get £0.6m, you find that, actually, you haven't completed the distribution - you would find that leaves you with a "spare" £0.6m.

At this point, all you need to do is sit down and work out WHY your figures don't balance and you quickly realise your mistake.

Now, if everyone was agreed that that went to pay creditors - or even into the game's coffers, that would be one thing- but you do get a blindingly obvious problem in one situation - and that is if instead you pay that money to the other 13 clubs. And then their distribution is increased from £1.2m to £1.2465m
(£1.2m + £46,513) = 1,246,513. The Bulls are stuck on £600,000. And are thus not receiving half a distribution, but only 48.134% of a distribution share and not the agreed 50%..

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:07 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

As the agreement was confidential, you won't find a link.

And that is precisely the same mistake that the RFL (seemingly) made. Because if when you do the distribution, each club receives £1.2m but the Bulls only get £0.6m, you find that, actually, you haven't completed the distribution - you would find that leaves you with a "spare" £0.6m.

At this point, all you need to do is sit down and work out WHY your figures don't balance and you quickly realise your mistake.

Now, if everyone was agreed that that went to pay creditors - or even into the game's coffers, that would be one thing- but you do get a blindingly obvious problem in one situation - and that is if instead you pay that money to the other 13 clubs. And then their distribution is increased from £1.2m to £1.2465m
(£1.2m + £46,513) = 1,246,513. The Bulls are stuck on £600,000. And are thus not receiving half a distribution, but only 48.134% of a distribution share and not the agreed 50%..

Have you been peeking at Adeybulls notebook? Both calculations are correct it just depends to which argument you want to use for which one. The fact that Solly went for the simpler one is no surprise!

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:46 pm  

Blotto wrote:

Have you been peeking at Adeybulls notebook?

No, I actually pointed out the mistake to him. He considered it and agrees I am correct.

Blotto wrote:

Both calculations are correct it just depends to which argument you want to use for which one. The fact that Solly went for the simpler one is no surprise!

Maybe it isn't but both cannot be correct. And whilst it may depend, you don't actually have the choice. Once an agreement to use one particular method is agreed between the parties in writing, then you must use that method. You can't choose the other, however much simpler you may find it.