Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:07 am  

Not necessarily. They've done it on the strength of best intentions before.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:36 am  

vbfg wrote:

Not necessarily. They've done it on the strength of best intentions before.

Yeah but if they don't know who's the owners will be how do they determine who's intentions to use. The current board have reportedly been through the figures with the RFL during the talks regarding transfer of ownership and Richard Lamb (@rplLamb) tweeted this last Saturday "Big few days. Start season tomorrow. Share plans with RFL and show funding to Administrators during next wk. Here's good week for all us!"
If he's now sent those to the RFL and administrators then they must have a decision already made regarding ownership or be very close to being made. The decision on owner will then determine who's figures to use and thus any points deduction. Of course the figures may be close enough that regardless of who takes over the deduction will be the same but they must be sure enough that the owners will be one of a limited choice.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:53 am  

Of course, IF the heirs presumptive DO intend to settle with all the creditors, thereby (according to precedent) avoiding a points deduction (or securing the minimum deduction available), and assuming they will only not inherit the throne if a BETTER offer for the creditors and the business emerges, then it follows that the RFL COULD make its ruling in advance. Since no better offer could improve on the points deduction.

make of that what you will...

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:01 am  

Adeybull wrote:

Of course, IF the heirs presumptive DO intend to settle with all the creditors, thereby (according to precedent) avoiding a points deduction (or securing the minimum deduction available), and assuming they will only not inherit the throne if a BETTER offer for the creditors and the business emerges, then it follows that the RFL COULD make its ruling in advance. Since no better offer could improve on the points deduction.

make of that what you will...

Yep, if all prospective owners had committed to settle with all creditors then they can make a judgement since there would be no difference. Should they announce their reasoning, It'll be interesting to see if they treat owner loans the same as HMRC, other loans and trade creditors.
Of course I doubt they'll release the reasons or numbers involved (Nigel doesn't like painting himself into a corner in word or deed) which will still leave the accusations flying that "bloke X down the pub says such and such and it's not fair".

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:19 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

...
No I dont believe everything i read in the papers, however there is no reference to defined shares anywhere this reference to one years funding is the only precise statement.

The agreement is specifically to receive 50% of the distributions received by other clubs. Simple as.

martinwildbull wrote:

I suppose the real test as to whether there has been a breach of tbe agreement is to advise the club, I am sure that £40k would be pretty useful right now.

I tried to, without success. I don't think it is relevant any more because:

1. the company which is a party to the agreement was of course OKB and it is in administration, so if it was shortchanged by the RFL/other clubs, that is something for the administrator not OKB. And I doubt he's interested but from my POV there is nowt in it any more for us. We have no separate surviving claim outside the administrator's authority. We got stuffed, end of story.

2. Last year's half money came and it went. I don't know whereabouts we are this year but there are no grounds whatsoever to only pay the new owners (whoever that may be) half money, under the old agreement, as they aren't a party to it. Any such agreement would have to be part of the raft of documentation that the new owners would/will have to enter into. To be clear: the new owners WILL HAVE TO SIGN UP TO A NEW HALF PAY DEAL if that's what the RFL want/clubs insist on. As obviously neither the RFL, the club or other parties can possibly be bound by any agreement entered into by the old OKB.

In my opinion, that may be a deal-breaker because whoever is the new owner, I can't see anybody whatsoever, especially with the benefit of hindsight, agreeing to compete in any of the leagues on half money, all the more so now they have seen how the Bulls got on, on half money. Would you? If it was me, I would start off by telling them to stick that.

Those with a keen eye for dates will also possibly have noticed that the agreement for half money was entered into before the RFL confirmed that the Bulls would be allowed to play in SL. The agreement is for half the distribution that other clubs receive. Not other SL clubs. Other clubs. We would have been on half distribution whether in the SL or in the Championship.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:30 am  

[quote="martinwildbull"]FA any link to where it says the deal was half the sky money of the others for two years?
Anybody else know of such a link?
Or is it one years worth spread over two years? anybody got a link to that?[/quote]

We were told it would be give up the next seasons Sky money or go to the championship to which we agreed. We then went back to the RFL and asked if this could be spread over 2 seasons.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:22 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

To be clear: the new owners WILL HAVE TO SIGN UP TO A NEW HALF PAY DEAL if that's what the RFL want/clubs insist on. As obviously neither the RFL, the club or other parties can possibly be bound by any agreement entered into by the old OKB.

This is not a statement on the rights or wrongs of the deduction, but if the RFL granted a license with certain financial restrictions, wouldn't those restrictions apply to any company that takes over the license? It would be like buying a piece of land and arguing that you are not bound a right of way.

I'm not saying that you should still have reduced income. I'm just saying that I don't think it's a matter of not being bound by an agreement. It seems to be a case of taking over a license that has pre-existing conditions.

I would agree that there is a strong argument for saying that a new owner shouldn't be bound by the mistakes of the owner before last. It is too remote.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:33 pm  

I just can't see how the new owner can be bound by the conditions of the old one. It would make no sense at all. So looking forward to getting all ouroney back next week. Bonus.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:39 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

This is not a statement on the rights or wrongs of the deduction, but if the RFL granted a license with certain financial restrictions, wouldn't those restrictions apply to any company that takes over the license? It would be like buying a piece of land and arguing that you are not bound a right of way.

I'm not saying that you should still have reduced income. I'm just saying that I don't think it's a matter of not being bound by an agreement. It seems to be a case of taking over a license that has pre-existing conditions.

I would agree that there is a strong argument for saying that a new owner shouldn't be bound by the mistakes of the owner before last. It is too remote.

You don't "take over" a SL licence. You are either given one, or you're not.

The licence doesn't have any conditions. There was a separate agreement, which had to be agreed to before the club would be considered for a SL licence. OK bought the club - and signed the agreement - not knowing whether the club would be in SL or not. That decision was taken later.

The only relevant point is, it is up to "buyer" and "seller" what they agree or don't agree. The "taking over" is irrelevant. You either agree all or some or none of the terms. It is a new piece of paper.

The other point is, if things were as simple as that - then the new club would only be on half money for, what, another 7 months? If the admin/takeover happened to be in the 23rd month of the 2 year half-pay - they would have what - zero distribution deduction?

What you are proposing is that the new owners just agree to stand the rest of the half-price distribution that the old club agreed to pay, and pay no further "distribution penalty" of their own at all. But if it was right that OKB had to agree to a 2 year half-pay in order to be considered for SL -which had not been done to any club previously - then was that just a one-off, or did it set any precedent for future admins? If it set a precedent then how come the RFL wouldn't stick to it, or try to?

No, I am sure any "half pay" deal would have to be a brand new deal, agreed to by the brand new owners. And i fear the RFL will struggle toi find another one that will sign such an onerous deal. Perhaps more likely RFL will fudge it and find reasons for doing it differently. Or maybe just not do it and say nothing at all. Or maybe say it wasn't necessary as sufficient provision has been made for payment of old club's creditors. Whatever - they now surely realise what a huge and unworkable mistake it was.

[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:00 pm  

Rather assumes there is a working brain in Red Hall, FA?

Personally, I think the committee go into panic mode and go to the default position of drawing a 'solution' out of a hat.