Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:34 am  

Does Carter actually understand what has happened at Bradford? I am baffled by the story.

"If there is no penalty for going into administration, then what's to stop us going into administration? We wouldn't do it now because our debts aren't particularly great."

The implication is that if the debts were particularly great, then they would or could do it, to escape the debts. But surely the key point he is missing is that here we have a completely different and genuinely unconnected new owner. It is NOT a case of the existing owners, or some flavour or variant or associated company or entity, effecting some legal swerve.

It isn't whether or not there is anything to stop them going into administration, it's whether he would lose the club and everything, as Khan did, and it be bought from an administrator by some new owner, as Green did, with Carter no longer any part of the new business, and no involvement save counting his losses. Is that "getting away with" something? If so, what?

"We tried to do things the right way and, if Bradford do end up getting the whole six points back, for want of a better phrase, they've got away with it, haven't they?"

Omar Khan has not "got away with" anything. He's done his financial bollox in. The new owners would only get points back on the basis of the current rules and procedures to which you, and all owners, are subject.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:12 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Does Carter actually understand what has happened at Bradford? I am baffled by the story.

The implication is that if the debts were particularly great, then they would or could do it, to escape the debts. But surely the key point he is missing is that here we have a completely different and genuinely unconnected new owner. It is NOT a case of the existing owners, or some flavour or variant or associated company or entity, effecting some legal swerve.

It isn't whether or not there is anything to stop them going into administration, it's whether he would lose the club and everything, as Khan did, and it be bought from an administrator by some new owner, as Green did, with Carter no longer any part of the new business, and no involvement save counting his losses. Is that "getting away with" something? If so, what?

Omar Khan has not "got away with" anything. He's done his financial bollox in. The new owners would only get points back on the basis of the current rules and procedures to which you, and all owners, are subject.

Right. I know that legally, both administrations are completely separate events.

But when Mr Wilson wrote that a reduction in central funding (last minute take it or leave it demand to get us out of first administration) was one of 4 main reasons that the second administration happened, he was saying that the consequences of the first administration had a direct bearing on the second.

I would also think that the meeting which OK agreed to sell his shares but whoever was at the meeting forgot to get a binding agreement down would have an impact on the second administration.

Then the "accounting irregularities" would have a bearing.

These are not standard events in an administration. OKbulls managed to have all 3. And probably more we're unaware of.

Are these the kind of strands that we'll be trying to pull together for our appeal?

[Bullseye]

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 17, 2014 12:22 pm  

I expect so.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:52 pm  

Well, the whole thing is a bit of a mystery to me. I can't find any procedure laid down anywhere for such an "appeal" so can't comment on the basis.

If the basis is some sort of "there was no alternative to administration" argument - why would that help? I mean, as it happens, our new owner ended up being the same guy as appointed the administrator but that, surely, is a one-off extraordinary situation, and whilst the history is I'm sure fascinating, I'm not sure what alternatives he felt he had whilst wearing his original hat as a creditor is relevant to the current owner.

My take on it is that the arguments may have been misreported. If not, then I don't immediately see how the circumstance that a debenture holder had to appoint an administrator to protect his debenture else HMRC would liquidate is relevant to league points. If someone wants to explain how it is, I am eager to learn. The statement on the RFL's own site says:

"The appeal has been lodged on the grounds that the insolvency event arose solely as a result of force majeure, in that the club's administration occurred in circumstances that were unforeseeable and unavoidable."

The circumstances (that HMRC would issue a winding up petition if payments due were not made) seem far from unforeseeable to me. They were also entirely avoidable, had the club simply paid what it owed to HMRC.

I can see how a business that was put into admin to protect it temporarily from creditors, but then emerged from admin having achieved that, and made arrangements to pay the creditors in full or to a significant degree, eg by way of a CVA, I can see how that would be relevant. But that's not what happened here.

All I can see is that all the noises ever coming out of Red Hall in relation to deduction of league points seem to major on the extent to which creditors are paid off. And that at least makes sense to me. Somewhere there is a Policy on how the RFL will look to apply sanctions following an insolvency event. Anyone got a link to that? It may shed further light.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:47 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The circumstances (that HMRC would issue a winding up petition if payments due were not made) seem far from unforeseeable to me. They were also entirely avoidable, had the club simply paid what it owed to HMRC.

I agree with that. But glad you said it. Expect all sorts of abuse may have followed if I had said it.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:57 pm  

Wooden Stand wrote:

I agree with that. But glad you said it. Expect all sorts of abuse may have followed if I had said it.

Why? Who on here has ever been against clubs paying their dues to HMRC?

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:19 pm  

Plenty of supporters on here over the years clamouring for signings to be made. Currently wanting a prop(s) to be signed. Never seen it caveated with "so long as we are up to date with the PAYE, National Insurance and VAT".

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:31 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Well, the whole thing is a bit of a mystery to me. I can't find any procedure laid down anywhere for such an "appeal" so can't comment on the basis.

If the basis is some sort of "there was no alternative to administration" argument - why would that help? I mean, as it happens, our new owner ended up being the same guy as appointed the administrator but that, surely, is a one-off extraordinary situation, and whilst the history is I'm sure fascinating, I'm not sure what alternatives he felt he had whilst wearing his original hat as a creditor is relevant to the current owner.

My take on it is that the arguments may have been misreported. If not, then I don't immediately see how the circumstance that a debenture holder had to appoint an administrator to protect his debenture else HMRC would liquidate is relevant to league points. If someone wants to explain how it is, I am eager to learn. The statement on the RFL's own site says:

The circumstances (that HMRC would issue a winding up petition if payments due were not made) seem far from unforeseeable to me. They were also entirely avoidable, had the club simply paid what it owed to HMRC.

I can see how a business that was put into admin to protect it temporarily from creditors, but then emerged from admin having achieved that, and made arrangements to pay the creditors in full or to a significant degree, eg by way of a CVA, I can see how that would be relevant. But that's not what happened here.

All I can see is that all the noises ever coming out of Red Hall in relation to deduction of league points seem to major on the extent to which creditors are paid off. And that at least makes sense to me. Somewhere there is a Policy on how the RFL will look to apply sanctions following an insolvency event. Anyone got a link to that? It may shed further light.

I actually think that Bradford will get some points back, not because of any moral or legal imperative but because of the clusterfsk which was made of the whole process by pretty much everyone involved.

Originally Bradford went in to admin and were put in to admin to protect them from a winding up order from HMRC which apparently wasn’t paid because of the transfer of ownership from Mr Kahn to BB2014. The RFL were pretty clear that the punishment is for going INTO admin. All the nonsense that happened after that becomes a little irrelevant. The argument Marc Green can make is that HE put Bradford in to admin not to avoid debts but to settle the ownership dispute as we were originally told.

The fact that the BB2014 guys then pulled out and Green then went on to takeover the bulls is a little irrelevant, if not only because the punishment had already been applied at that point and nothing Marc Green could have done would altered what had happened. The RFL may have decided to give some points back has he paid off all debts (as was speculated) but that would have been points being returned, not points having not been taken.

Personally I think it just highlights the complete idiocy of the situation and the idea that you should punish a club for going in to admin when everyone involved in that has at that point been removed from the club.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:01 pm  

Wooden Stand wrote:

Plenty of supporters on here over the years clamouring for signings to be made. Currently wanting a prop(s) to be signed. Never seen it caveated with "so long as we are up to date with the PAYE, National Insurance and VAT".

... and therefore we must conclude that anyone who omits your caveat clearly supports not paying HMRC?

And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:32 pm  

Duckman wrote:

Rival relegation threatened club chairman doesnt want us to get points back as it would potentially hurt his club so he goes public to put some pr pressure on the rfl panel with a threat to throw his teddy out of the pram.....what a shocker.

only thing that lets him down really, if you agree with his sentiments or not (and I have some sympathy with him tbf), is this line;

" I would probably do the same thing " - M Carter.


Really? so what are you bleating to the press about then? stfu.

Think you're reading too much into it. Reading it, he sounds like a man who is worn out after spending the winter working his socks off to get the club back on its feet and needs a holiday. It reads also like a reporter calling someone asking for an opinion and got a weary one rather than a chairman going public with some kind of protest.

It has to be said that the post below, where the contribution to the competition is a factor, is an epitome of a playing field that isn't level.

The penalty should be judged on its merits, and not, "you're okay because you had Bullpower".