[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu May 01, 2014 12:39 pm  

tigertot wrote:

Oh yes. You should read some of the stuff he says about you.

Oh, I'm sure,....if I cared a jot for anything splinterhead et al said, or even thought, I might be upset, but as it is

I just wish people wouldn't quote posters who are only on the wind up....

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu May 01, 2014 12:43 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

Without wishing to light any blue colured touch paper, isnt taking the moral high ground with the RFL over financial common sense a bit rich, taking into account at any time in the past the clubs owners (which ever ones) could have said "hang on aminute! this could all go badly wrong, lets rein in our spending, after all we might not be able to afford all this and then where will we be?"
Having a wild uncontrolable horse (of for this metaphor) bull foaming at the mouth intent on getting out of its stable (i know bulls don't live in them, but we're back to the horse bit again, sorry!!) is one thing, but blaming the stable lad (horse again i know) for being trampled under the stable door once its bolted is a tad unfair...i think!

Have you thought it through?

The company formed by Mr A and Mr B take normal Sky money and run AB into the ground. It goes into admin and can't be saved so ends up liquidated. The business and such assets as there are are sold by the administrator. They are bought by Mr. X and Mr Z and they had no connection with the business of A&B and no part in the insolvent behaviour.

Why would A&B ever think such a thought, then? To underline how unfeasible the notion is, we only have to flesh out what that thought would be:

"Hang on a minute! this could all go badly wrong, lets rein in our spending, after all we might not be able to afford all this and the club may go tits. Then the somebody else altogether may buy the remains from an administrator and start trying to sort out the mess but the RFL will fine them a year's Sky distribution, and then where will we be?"

I suggest it is ridiculous that they would think any such thing. Why should the threat that some future owner of A&B's business, if they bankrupt and lose it, would get fined a year's distribution, be the thing that incentivised A&B to reining in their spending? Why would A&B care what penalties were imposed on X&Z or any potential future owners? How would that be in any way a deterrent to A&B's behaviour?

It's like if when you took out a mortgage, you were told, if you fail to meet your payments, your house will be repossessed. Oh, and the next person who buys it will have to pay double the mortgage payments." You might very much worry about the former, but would you give the smallest shiit about the latter? Would concern for any future owner influence how you ran the account?

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu May 01, 2014 12:44 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

Oh, I'm sure,....if I cared a jot for anything splinterhead et al said, or even thought, I might be upset, but as it is

I just wish people wouldn't quote posters who are only on the wind up....

I remember the days before batteries where you had to wind everything up to get it to work

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu May 01, 2014 12:46 pm  

Northernrelic wrote:

I remember the days before batteries where you had to wind everything up to get it to work

Now that sounds painful

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu May 01, 2014 12:53 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Have you thought it through?

The company formed by Mr A and Mr B take normal Sky money and run AB into the ground. It goes into admin and can't be saved so ends up liquidated. The business and such assets as there are are sold by the administrator. They are bought by Mr. X and Mr Z and they had no connection with the business of A&B and no part in the insolvent behaviour.

Why would A&B ever think such a thought, then? To underline how unfeasible the notion is, we only have to flesh out what that thought would be:

Agree with you here FA. People seem to think that the only reason a club goes into administration is to clear down the debts.

The last 2 administrations of Bradford Bulls have seen us taken over by 2 separate owners (i'm choosing to forget the bit in the middle).

Why would the new owner have any impact of the spending of the previous regime?

Placing a club into administration, for the sole purpose of clearing debts, sounds like a club I know that has a WF postcode

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu May 01, 2014 1:03 pm  

daveyz999 wrote:

Agree with you here FA. People seem to think that the only reason a club goes into administration is to clear down the debts.

The last 2 administrations of Bradford Bulls have seen us taken over by 2 separate owners (i'm choosing to forget the bit in the middle).

Why would the new owner have any impact of the spending of the previous regime?

I am sure some people are confused, but sadly others choose to pretend all insolvency events are the same.

A distribution penalty would perhaps act as a deterrent to those sort of "administrations" that involve a pre-pack or a CVA and basically same people as before end up back in charge, but having swerved a load of debt. I can entirely see the logic in sanctions in such a case, as you are sanctioning the same people as caused the mess, and if they knew in advance that they risked that sanction then it would be a factor they would have to take into account.

But in a case where factually new owners come in, there just is no logic in doing the same to them.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu May 01, 2014 1:09 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Have you thought it through?

The company formed by Mr A and Mr B take normal Sky money and run AB into the ground. It goes into admin and can't be saved so ends up liquidated. The business and such assets as there are are sold by the administrator. They are bought by Mr. X and Mr Z and they had no connection with the business of A&B and no part in the insolvent behaviour.

Why would A&B ever think such a thought, then? To underline how unfeasible the notion is, we only have to flesh out what that thought would be:

"Hang on a minute! this could all go badly wrong, lets rein in our spending, after all we might not be able to afford all this and the club may go tits. Then the somebody else altogether may buy the remains from an administrator and start trying to sort out the mess but the RFL will fine them a year's Sky distribution, and then where will we be?"

I suggest it is ridiculous that they would think any such thing. Why should the threat that some future owner of A&B's business, if they bankrupt and lose it, would get fined a year's distribution, be the thing that incentivised A&B to reining in their spending? Why would A&B care what penalties were imposed on X&Z or any potential future owners? How would that be in any way a deterrent to A&B's behaviour?

It's like if when you took out a mortgage, you were told, if you fail to meet your payments, your house will be repossessed. Oh, and the next person who buys it will have to pay double the mortgage payments." You might very much worry about the former, but would you give the smallest shiit about the latter? Would concern for any future owner influence how you ran the account?

If you had bothered to read what i posted, which was that it was rich calling the rfl into account over stupid financial ideals, you might see that i didn't write that i was in any agreement with it.
Just because what the rfl has done makes little sense (was it the rfl's decision or that of the SL chairmen??) it doesnt take anything away from the fact that the club could have (if they had wanted) avoided all this in the first place. At some point someone must have seen a tipping point and thought "**** it! It'll be reyt!!) and here you are (not a d ig, we've been there also) so pointing the finger is a little dis-honest...IMO of course.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu May 01, 2014 1:26 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

If you had bothered to read what i posted, which was that it was rich calling the rfl into account over stupid financial ideals, you might see that i didn't write that i was in any agreement with it.

I didn't suggest you were. I just pointed out why your hypothetical club owners' thought (""hang on aminute! this could all go badly wrong, lets rein in our spending") would not be influenced by the prospect of sanctions on some unknown future third party.

kinleycat wrote:

Just because what the rfl has done makes little sense (was it the rfl's decision or that of the SL chairmen??) it doesnt take anything away from the fact that the club could have (if they had wanted) avoided all this in the first place. At some point someone must have seen a tipping point and thought "**** it! It'll be reyt!!) and here you are (not a d ig, we've been there also) so pointing the finger is a little dis-honest...IMO of course.

"If they had wanted"? You mean you think OKB did not want to remain solvent? Well, that's a new one! Delberate bankruptcy! I can accept entirely they were shiit at running it, but can't accept they wouldn't have wanted to avoid the ensuing mire!

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu May 01, 2014 1:49 pm  

When you are Bulls fan you can draw on the clubs direct experience of administrations - so it strikes me that in case of the Hood administration they took some dumb decisions with pricing - but had the records to show them they where heading up s**t creek and desperately tried to avoid hitting the rocks as they were aware of the consequences administration would bring - and hoped to keep control. In the case of the OK administration he was blissfully unaware that he had already sailed several miles up s**t creek at the time he was busy putting off potential investors. That's the problem with regulations even if you threatened some people with execution in Oklahoma they still wouldn't take any notice.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu May 01, 2014 3:43 pm  

That execution - I note how well it went - and it is OKlahoma ...
.. you don't think ... surely not?

Maybe they should have put it in the executioner's contract that, if he got sacked for bodging executions, his successor would be fines a year's pay. That would have sorted it.