Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:44 pm  

Ignoring the rights & wrongs, I can't see how they will give points back if they expect you to be in the relegation mix. If the 2, 4 or 6 they give you back was the difference between staying up & relegation....I can hear the boos & cries of cheat from Belle Vue (sic) already.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:51 pm  

Bull Mania wrote:

Don't expect any points back. Whatever happens, with it being completely independent no one can start moaning RFL favouritism, RFL are against us, RFL are corrupt etc

I wonder if it will be completely independent or I wonder if the usual gentlemen from the RFL will be in disguise.Could be a rather large guy listening to the appeal wearing a Elton John type wig to conceal his identity but crumbs from a Gregg's steak bake on his chins could blow his cover

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Apr 14, 2014 2:44 pm  

So we appealed ages ago - the administrator did it - but nobody thought the fans needed to know.

Great.

I still think the whole thing stinks, and is massively corrupt. The RFL told BB2014 what terms they would get the ticket on, at a time when they were NOT yet the owners, and had the option to say yes, and the option to say no. Presumably the RFL never imagined they would say no, and so prematurely announced the decision including the 6 point sanction against BB20014.

But as BB2014 never actually onwed the club, the sanctions are of no effect. You can only sanction an owner, not a club (see rules).

Unless the RFL were to claim they sanctioned the club in the form of its interim "owner", the administrator, butsadly that doesn't fly, because the stated reason (so far as was made public) for the 6 point penalty was specifically because the RFL were not satisfied that there was concrete money for creditors. And so the link between the owners and the creditors and the points was set in stone.

As the deal never came through, the sanctions never applied. Like the emperor's new clothes, the RFL are just pretending everything makes sense.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:37 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You can only sanction an owner, not a club (see rules).

Rubbish!

It was THE BRADFORD BULLS CLUB that got docked 6 points as a Sporting Sanction by the RFL.

What on earth would be the point of docking the company that owned the club at the time 6 points? It isn't the board of directors of the owning company that takes the field for 80 minutes each week!

On your logic, it would be OK Bulls Limited pursuing the appeal. But that is clearly not the case. It is THE BRADFORD BULLS CLUB pursuing the appeal.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Apr 14, 2014 5:33 pm  

Wooden Stand wrote:

Rubbish!

It was THE BRADFORD BULLS CLUB that got docked 6 points as a Sporting Sanction by the RFL.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is NO SUCH THING as the Bradford Bulls Club in the sense that you mean, that is, some independently existing body that exists as well as the companies such as OKB or BB2014. It does not exist in isolation, it is the trading name of a business operated by some owner or other. If the owner ceases to exist so does that business.

In essence what the RFl does is give a new business/owner permission to carry on running the franchise by that name and leaving everything in relation to the comp in place as if nothing had happened. Or else not quite as if nothing had happened, if sanctions are applied.

Wooden Stand wrote:

What on earth would be the point of docking the company that owned the club at the time 6 points? It isn't the board of directors of the owning company that takes the field for 80 minutes each week!

Again, you completely misunderstand the point. Probably deliberately as it is hard to believe you could be that thick. But anyway, the simple enough fact is that the points are docked as a SANCTION AGAINST THE OWNER and obviously are docked from the league table under the name of their business. You have a mental block that keeps stopping you from getting the concept that the club and the owner are not two different things, the owner is the legal "thing" and it trades as the business/franchise/call it what you will.

Wooden Stand wrote:

On your logic, it would be OK Bulls Limited pursuing the appeal. But that is clearly not the case. It is THE BRADFORD BULLS CLUB pursuing the appeal.

[/quote]

If there is no owner then there is no sanction. The club does NOT EXIST without an owner and the sanctions are applied to an owner.

What is confusing you is that the six points are a "sporting sanction". In other words they are not "real" like a money fine but are "virtual" as they only exist virtually, in the totally made up concept of a league table.

How could it be OKB who appealed? You are talking about the entirely wrong points deduction!! OK Bulls did indeed get penalty points docked. Did you forget? That was the last time. Had they not had, we would have made the playoffs.

The "appeal" would have been by the owner BB2014 because it was to them that the RFL had decided to apply the brand new sporting sanction of THESE 6 points. But they never actually were the owner.

And to prove you are wrong, consider the REASON BB2014 were docked 6 points. It was said to be because the RFL were not satisfied as to BB2014's proposals for repaying creditors.

To again prove you wrong, the RFL has said on many occasions that they will wait to see what the deal on the table is from the new owners, before deciding on sanctions.

The entity that is appealing is clearly BBNL. I have pointed out that this is ludicrous as they were not sanctioned (well, they may have been, but the sanctions against the new owners have not directly been announced to date). The "Bradford Bulls Club" cannot appeal as an entity separate and distinct from its owners, it cannot do anything at all. or if it can - then HOW? What if Mr. Green and his directors did not want to appeal, but this mythical Bradford Bulls Club did want to appeal? How would you KNOW this Bradford Bulls Club wanted to appeal? Can it talk? Who represents it? Who signs the appeal papers? How can this Bradford Bulls Club appeal, if its owner BBNL, Mr Green and his directors were against it?

If you were right, then the new owner would be irrelevant to the process. And points would just gratuitously be deducted from the team's league position, for no apparent reason. And what a futile exercise it would be, too, since if the new owner never did come along, there would BE no team. SOMEBODY has to "own" the team, whether the old owners, or the administrator, or the new owners. No owner= no "club" in existence - of any form of existence. Think about it, man.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Apr 14, 2014 5:41 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is NO SUCH THING as the Bradford Bulls Club in the sense that you mean, that is, some independently existing body that exists as well as the companies such as OKB or BB2014. It does not exist in isolation, it is the trading name of a business operated by some owner or other. If the owner ceases to exist so does that business.

In essence what the RFl does is give a new business/owner permission to carry on running the franchise by that name and leaving everything in relation to the comp in place as if nothing had happened. Or else not quite as if nothing had happened, if sanctions are applied.

Again, you completely misunderstand the point. Probably deliberately as it is hard to believe you could be that thick. But anyway, the simple enough fact is that the points are docked as a SANCTION AGAINST THE OWNER and obviously are docked from the league table under the name of their business. You have a mental block that keeps stopping you from getting the concept that the club and the owner are not two different things, the owner is the legal "thing" and it trades as the business/franchise/call it what you will.

If there is no owner then there is no sanction. The club does NOT EXIST without an owner and the sanctions are applied to an owner.

What is confusing you is that the six points are a "sporting sanction". In other words they are not "real" like a money fine but are "virtual" as they only exist virtually, in the totally made up concept of a league table.

How could it be OKB who appealed? You are talking about the entirely wrong points deduction!! OK Bulls did indeed get penalty points docked. Did you forget? That was the last time. Had they not had, we would have made the playoffs.

The "appeal" would have been by the owner BB2014 because it was to them that the RFL had decided to apply the brand new sporting sanction of THESE 6 points. But they never actually were the owner.

And to prove you are wrong, consider the REASON BB2014 were docked 6 points. It was said to be because the RFL were not satisfied as to BB2014's proposals for repaying creditors.

To again prove you wrong, the RFL has said on many occasions that they will wait to see what the deal on the table is from the new owners, before deciding on sanctions.

The entity that is appealing is clearly BBNL. I have pointed out that this is ludicrous as they were not sanctioned (well, they may have been, but the sanctions against the new owners have not directly been announced to date). The "Bradford Bulls Club" cannot appeal as an entity separate and distinct from its owners, it cannot do anything at all. or if it can - then HOW? What if Mr. Green and his directors did not want to appeal, but this mythical Bradford Bulls Club did want to appeal? How would you KNOW this Bradford Bulls Club wanted to appeal? Can it talk? Who represents it? Who signs the appeal papers? How can this Bradford Bulls Club appeal, if its owner BBNL, Mr Green and his directors were against it?

If you were right, then the new owner would be irrelevant to the process. And points would just gratuitously be deducted from the team's league position, for no apparent reason. And what a futile exercise it would be, too, since if the new owner never did come along, there would BE no team. SOMEBODY has to "own" the team, whether the old owners, or the administrator, or the new owners. No owner= no "club" in existence - of any form of existence. Think about it, man.[/quote] couldn't have put it better myself, hope it shut's the idiot up now

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Apr 14, 2014 6:04 pm  

I thought the same also, the deduction was against bb2014 as they didn't really have any money and werent going to pay the creditors off, but since the RFL never granted them ownership of the club how could they stick them with the pts deduction?

Pretty sure the indepentant board is made up of a couple of barristers and another, not sure who but sure i read it in the t&A online.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Apr 14, 2014 6:26 pm  

I'm wondering after reading the earlier press release,could it be argued that the taking of the sky money was a key factor in us going into administration. Therefore if the independent body is trying to ascertain if the admin could have been avoided, that one decision may yet become crucial in the appeal process. Perhaps this may explain why the administrator set the wheels in motion for the appeal.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Apr 14, 2014 6:29 pm  

I hope you get all 6 back.......the entertainment on here will make up for the dire season London are enduring!

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:18 pm  

bradfordlegend wrote:

I'm wondering after reading the earlier press release,could it be argued that the taking of the sky money was a key factor in us going into administration. Therefore if the independent body is trying to ascertain if the admin could have been avoided, that one decision may yet become crucial in the appeal process. Perhaps this may explain why the administrator set the wheels in motion for the appeal.

Would be a contributing factor I would think, also I reckon they could also argue that the RFL kept wanting them to bb2014 to produce more money to prove they where solvent then they agreed to previously, in doing so kept the bulls in admin longer than they needed to be, just a thought.