Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:57 pm  

I can see their chairman threatening to walk away now they don't have to move

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:25 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

...
OKB controlled the club as members of the RFL etc that club were penalised for an insolvency event.

Wrong. When? Can you refer us to a single link where OK Bulls Ltd were sanctioned?

martinwildbull wrote:

... a new controlling person was found, (eventually as you say) who applied to the RFL for membership of the same club to the RFL etc. That was continuing membership,

I really don't mean to be rude, but if you cannot understand that I cannot be deemed to "continue" something that I had never previously started, then I can't explain it any better, but it is reasonably plain nevertheless, as long as you take the care and have the ability to understand my detailed explanation.

You are also (again) confusing the issue of owner with controlling person. The owner is the company which is sanctioned. The controlling person is nothing to do with sanctions, it is rather just a necessary mechanism so that you couldn't have Reggie Kray as the controlling person just by putting his interest in some other name. That's the sort of thing that is about, to avoid ways around the fit and proper test.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:33 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

You need to look at the definition of ‘club’ in the RFL articles of association which is the holding company holding the RFL share that entitles it to RFL membership. The member, owner and the club here are interchangeable BUT the member owner, club and the team on the field are not.

OKB held the RFL share and membership, they were the ‘club’(i.e member/owner) this was then sold to BB2014 who were granted some sort of temporary share and such they became ‘the club’ however they never completed that purchase so it seems that the share and assets went back to OKBulls and as such they became ‘the club’ again. Marc Green then purchased the assets of OKB from the administrator, and applied to the RFL for an RFL share, when he was granted this BBNL became ‘the club’ and OKB and BB2014 were liquidated.

So whilst the stadium, players, kit, name, badge, brand etc all stayed the same, a new company BBNL was granted the share and became a new member.

Yes, I did and am looking, and I cannot see where in the articles of association or the articles and memorandum of association it refers to holding an RFL share is a precondition of membership. Logic says it is the other way around, when the club is given membership they are then entitled to a share in the RFL. There is a reference to members sharing the profits of the RFL, and the share would be the means through which that could be done - amongst many other options.

The club is the Bradford Bulls, not OKB BB2104 or BBNL. It may be abstract, but not that difficult to understand: the member, controlling person and the club are not interchangeable. It is the club that is showing as having been deducted 6 points in the league table, not BBNL. All the other clubs in the league table have names like Wigan Warriors, etc, not the name of the vehicle through which the controlling person controls each club. If they were interchangeable, then in the definitions it would say Member: see club and controlling person. Club: see Member and controlling person. Controlling person: see Member and club. No, they are all separately defined. Because they are in the RFL regulations, all separate entities.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:16 pm  

Yawn.

The semantics of slaughtering the constitution will not bring the bacon home.
Sorry points back.
Bacon home now certainly not an option.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:16 pm  

Yawn.

The semantics of slaughtering the constitution will not bring the bacon home.
Sorry points back.
Bacon home now certainly not an option.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:48 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Wrong. When? Can you refer us to a single link where OK Bulls Ltd were sanctioned? the club during OKBulls period of control of the club was sanctioned by having 6 points deducted. Go look at the league table for evidence.

I really don't mean to be rude, but if you cannot understand that I cannot be deemed to "continue" something that I had never previously started, then I can't explain it any better, but it is reasonably plain nevertheless, as long as you take the care and have the ability to understand my detailed detail does not equal validity. indeed the more detailed you get the more it looks like a smoke screen for the inadequacy of your arguments explanation. I thought we wre talking about membership being deemed to continue, as it states in the RFL rules, which I can perfectly understand. The issue, as always, is about your ability to understand them

You are also (again) confusing the issue of owner with controlling person. I am simply commenting on the RFL rules which contain no reference to owner, and therefore I cannot be confusing nothing with something else. The owner is the company which is sanctioned. So why does it not say OKB in the league table with a six point deduction against it? No, it is the Clubs name, the Bradford Bulls, not BBNL or Marc Green or OKB. The club is the member, the member gets penalised, pretty simple to understand. The controlling person is nothing to do with sanctionsagreed, because it is membership that is everything to do with sanctions as it is the members that get sanctioned. , it is rather just a necessary mechanism so that you couldn't have Reggie Kray as the controlling person just by putting his interest in some other name. That's the sort of thing that is about, to avoid ways around the fit and proper test.Yes, of course, that is all implicit in my earlier reference to shadow directors. But anyway a spurious argument.

So again, where does it say owner or controlling person in this paragraph? It refers to member and membership. Until you can get your head around the rights and responsibilities attached to membership, you are going to be in the dark. And clearly you actually do understand as you deliberately avoid any reference to member or membership in your response.

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.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:57 pm  

Noble & Honest wrote:

Yawn.

The semantics of slaughtering the constitution will not bring the bacon home.
Sorry points back.
Bacon home now certainly not an option.

Nor will repeating yourself, though I guess due to FAs fault I have had to repeat the obvious rather too many times.

Anyway, enough of being nice to a tedious repetitive verbose waffler like you, get back under the bridge. At least FA is a bit more of a challenge than you, so respect please and leave us to our kite duels.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:28 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

the club during OKBulls period of control of the club was sanctioned by having 6 points deducted. Go look at the league table for evidence.

I have pointed out the errors made. It is childish to come up with “go look at the league table”. I expected better.

martinwildbull wrote:

I thought we wre talking about membership being deemed to continue, as it states in the RFL rules, which I can perfectly understand. The issue, as always, is about your ability to understand them

I have explained to you why you are wrong. It is now for you to explain where my logic is flawed. Saying simply “you don’t understand” without offering any argument let alone a cogent one is, again, childish.

martinwildbull wrote:

why does it not say OKB in the league table with a six point deduction against it?

Er, perhaps because the team is called Bradford Bulls not something else?

martinwildbull wrote:

No, it is the Clubs name, the Bradford Bulls, not BBNL or Marc Green or OKB. The club is the member, the member gets penalised, pretty simple to understand.

Your statement is a pure non sequitur. You say the club, meaning the Bradford Bulls team, is the member, but it is 100% not. The owner of the business is the member. Of this there is not the slightest doubt. I can’t believe you wouldn’t get that simple truth.

How can I explain this to you in a way simple enough for you to understand? If I am caught speeding, my driving licence will be endorsed with say 3 points. I won’t. The court will not stamp 3 points on my forehead. The points will appear in my league table on my licence and at DVLA and if I accumulate 12, I will be relegated to the pavement. But it is I, the OWNER of the driving licence, who is being sanctioned. Not my damn licence which whilst it clearly physically exists, is not a legal person, has no existence as a licence independent of me, and is not actually being penalized in any way at all.

martinwildbull wrote:

So again, where does it say owner or controlling person in this paragraph? It refers to member and membership. Until you can get your head around the rights and responsibilities attached to membership, you are going to be in the dark

If there is one thing I’m NOT doing, it is deliberately avoiding anything relevant or contrary. If I have not got my head around such things, name one example of a thing you think I have not got my head around.

I have – whenever the question has been raised – consistently explained that it is the member who is sanctioned, indeed when all this palaver started I was the first to actually post the sections from the Operational Rules that explain all this. And of course it remains the case that the RFL can only sanction its members. It is a pure nonsense to invent some sort of sanction to some separate club. If there is no owner to own it, then there is no club.

martinwildbull wrote:

And clearly you actually do understand ...

Thank you. I wish I could say the same for you. I note you’re now tending to bluster, and not dealing with any of my specific points, and you need to up your game.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:51 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

Nor will repeating yourself, though I guess due to FAs fault I have had to repeat the obvious rather too many times.

Anyway, enough of being nice to a tedious repetitive verbose waffler like you, get back under the bridge. At least FA is a bit more of a challenge than you, so respect please and leave us to our kite duels.

What a ridiculous comment to go with your other suggestion as to accusing me of lying.
You can quote all the rules in the world but I would have thought quoting from 4.1 would suffice and prevent the tedium.

It basically says the RFL can do what they want and are not tied to precedent.

I submit the shambles warrants that position.
The points lost are already under the bridge.
The pair of you just get over it and carry on slagging and slugging.
You must be a sad civil servant to troll through that garbage and believe it will offer up a lifeline of points returned.
I would not waste breath on you.
xx

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:53 am  

Sorry it was rule 4.7 not 4.1 you quote.
Time for bed zebedee