Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:22 am  

Northernrelic wrote:

It would appear that OK - as the owner - personally guaranteed to repay the Sky Money we did get if we went bust against - as distinct from the Bulls having to repay it. Even if he had had a few £m spare I would never have signed a deal like that - still act in haste - repent at leisure.

Indeed - whatever OK's faults, he is surely not so stupid as to enter into that agreement on the facts presented. OK is not stupid that is for sure.. There must be further details that are not public yet as only an idiot would have entered into that deal

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:56 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

RFL Operational Rules: Definitions k (Club) al (Member) ar (Person subject to the Operational Rules
A1 Membership and Membership Obligations
D1 Offences Penalties and Enquiries D1.11 onwards and in particular
D1:25 The Operational Rules Tribunal and Operational Rules Appeals Tribunal shall have the power to order any Person subject to the Operational Rules to pay compensation and/or shall have power to reprimand, fine and/or suspend or expel from participation in the Game any Person Subject to the Operational Rules or any Representative or his/her Deputy or Member if found guilty of misconduct or aiding or abetting another so to do. In addition in the case of Misconduct which impinges on the integrity of the competition the Operational Rules Tribunal shall have the right to deduct competition points. The Operational Rules Tribunal and Operational Rules Appeals Tribunal shall be free to disregard any scales of mandatory fines published by the Board as guidance. Suspensions imposed by the Operational Rules Tribunal and Operational Rules Appeals Tribunal shall take effect from midnight on the day of the hearing unless the Operational Rules Tribunal or Operational Rules Appeals Tribunal orders to the contrary.

and finally, bye-laws 4.

Anyone can quote random extracts from the rules. However your extract is as relevant to the point as any Enid Blyton book. The point isn't that they don't have powers to deduct points etc., nor that no appeals procedure exists. Nobody is arguing that.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:14 am  

Bullpower2012 wrote:

Let me get this right…

OK agreed/was forced to give up a years sky money split over 2 seasons
OK agreed/forced to sign a deal where if the Bulls were insolvent in 2013/14 season he would repay all central funding received

So Bulls actually look like losing 1.5 years funding approx.?? WTF RFL/OK?
Surely if the Bulls were insolvent (as occurred) there wasn’t enough money, not a surplus to pay the RFL back……

Am I reading this right?

Basically, yes. The agreement in relation to all this (and including the penalty to receive half the distribution of other clubs) was confidential but the RFL have clearly put it in the public domain.

If OKBL didn't complete its fixtures in 2013 and 2014, then it had to repay all distributions. Obviously, if the club couldn't complete its fixtures, that could only be because it went tits, and so any such repayment clause would be largely academic, which will be why they got OK to personally guarantee the club's obligations.

Keen observers will note the irony of Mr. Carter whingeing about how in contrast to the Bulls situation, he put his house on the line. Kudos to him for that, but it seems OK put not just a house but his bollox on the line for the cause.

As I've been in sunny Spain, does anyone have a report of what went on at the creditors' meeting?

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:22 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Basically, yes. The agreement in relation to all this (and including the penalty to receive half the distribution of other clubs) was confidential but the RFL have clearly put it in the public domain.

If OKBL didn't complete its fixtures in 2013 and 2014, then it had to repay all distributions. Obviously, if the club couldn't complete its fixtures, that could only be because it went tits, and so any such repayment clause would be largely academic, which will be why they got OK to personally guarantee the club's obligations.

Keen observers will note the irony of Mr. Carter whingeing about how in contrast to the Bulls situation, he put his house on the line. Kudos to him for that, but it seems OK put not just a house but his bollox on the line for the cause.

As I've been in sunny Spain, does anyone have a report of what went on at the creditors' meeting?

If that is the case then the appeal for points should be a hell of a lot stronger - the deal offered to OK (and accepted) was untenable and unworkable - it was a non starter, OK should have walked (glad he didn't) - the RFL if all the above info is true, have placed sanctions on the club over and above what is reasonable punishment, I get the feeling that Mr Green knows this and a certain Mr Carter is going to very upset soon.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:32 am  

No doubt even if OK did pay the whole of the distribution back, the clubs would vote to distribute that amongst themselves too.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:10 am  

to quote you specifically: There is no rule that allows (or disallows) any such appeal. But if you say the a right of "appeal" by someone (the new owners) who have never actually had a ruling made against them, then please refer me to that rule. If you can, I will of course gladly accept its existence.

Here it is:

4.7 In the event of a member ceasing to be a member upon notice from the Company by virtue of Acquisition, Change of Control or Insolvency Event, the Board, at its absolute discretion, shall have the right to readmit the member or admit a new member as a member on any terms as it sees fit, which for the avoidance of doubt, may include financial, administrative and/or sporting sanctions. In the event of membership continuing the Board may determine that membership shall be deemed to continue to subsist as if the member had not ceased to be a member at all. The Board will from time to time set out policy for the exercise of its discretion but is not bound by such policy or precedent decided under such policy or previous policy and the Board shall be entitled to amend any policy with immediate effect

you may need to refer to other sections of the membership byelaws, particularly the early ones such as

"Acquisition" means the acquisition (whether by purchase, transfer, renunciation or otherwise) of the whole or a substantial part of the assets or undertaking of any member;

"Change of Control" means that there is any change in the person who controls a member, and for this purpose "control" shall have the meaning given to it in Section 416 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

These two need to be read together with the definitions and interpretations section, where the definition of "owner" is noticeably absent.

Taking it all together, a new member is still "the member" as if they had never had membership withdrawn. It therefore follows that the member can be penalized when one person is in control of the member, and under the general rules of discipline and appeal tribunals, can appeal against that penalty even though there has been a change of control of "the member".

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:33 am  

Bullpower2012 wrote:

If that is the case then the appeal for points should be a hell of a lot stronger - the deal offered to OK (and accepted) was untenable and unworkable - it was a non starter, OK should have walked (glad he didn't) - the RFL if all the above info is true, have placed sanctions on the club over and above what is reasonable punishment, I get the feeling that Mr Green knows this and a certain Mr Carter is going to very upset soon.

I find the timing of the RFL's intervention a little ironic.

This amount was never on the administrators report and was only brought up at the creditors meeting last week.

The Bulls recently lodged an appeal against the RFL for the points deduction we received. Now, a few days before our appeals hearing, the amount we have re-paid creditors is a far less percentage.

The RFL should have lodged the owed monies whilst the administrator was dealing with the club. Why would an organisation 'forget' to lodge a claim for £900,000, at the correct time in the proceedings?

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:47 am  

daveyz999 wrote:

The RFL should have lodged the owed monies whilst the administrator was dealing with the club. Why would an organisation 'forget' to lodge a claim for £900,000, at the correct time in the proceedings?

Probably more a case of the fact that OKBulls was so far under water that it would not even be worth the price of a stamp to send in the claim as there was nothing to distribute to creditors of the company - especially when you have a guarantee you could enforce against an individual where a return on your effort is more likely?

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:49 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

No doubt even if OK did pay the whole of the distribution back, the clubs would vote to distribute that amongst themselves too.

one thing on which we definitely agree: the insincerity of the other RL clubs regarding the repayment of HMRC and other unsecured creditors.

General point re OK and the Sky clawback: I did point this out when the administrator made his report. The administrator says that OK's PG covered SL Sky advances, which invites the question as raised in another post, when does it stop being an advance? Did we literally have to get to the end of this season, or is advance a payment to a member before the normal date, ie a loan deducted from the next installment? The second is sensible, no way would I give a PG for the first, but as always it is the precise definition in the PG that counts.

BP 2012 I am not sure that this is connected with the points appeal. It was within OKs control as to whether he accepted these terms, and the PG only kicked in after admin/insolvency event.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:50 am  

Northernrelic wrote:

Probably more a case of the fact that OKBulls was so far under water that it would not even be worth the price of a stamp to send in the claim as there was nothing to distribute to creditors of the company - especially when you have a guarantee you could enforce against an individual where a return on your effort is more likely?

In that case, I hope they got written agreement from OK that he would repay, otherwise why bring it up at the creditor meeting?

Thinking about it, would they have to raise it before pursuing him personally, I just thought they could have bypassed the creditor meeting and pursued OK directly.

Adding to the above, what would have happened if a multi-millionaire bought the club and paid all its debts off? The RFL would have lost out being re-payed as they didn't lodge the amount they were 'apparently' owed.

All seems a tad odd!