Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:03 pm  

The thing is, though, if the previous owners exit, then under no circumstances do they remain under any jurisdiction of the RFL in any shape or form as they are no longer in the sport. If they go into and out of admin to reduce debts, and the same people essentially are in charge, then there can be a "punishment" of those people but there is absolutely nothing the RFL could do to "punish" a FORMER owner, assuming they even wanted to, as they have no general power to do so.

They could, of course , enter into some specific "what if" agreement with a new owner - which agreement would set out the possible consequence of a breach. But that would be more a matter of contract, not what is being talked about.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:06 pm  

You punish the previous owners by calling in the financial bond that you have required them to lodge, as a condition of each club without adequate shareholders' funds being admitted to SL.

Oh hang on...for some reason the RFL have never made that a requirement?

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:26 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

It doesn't.

But it makes the RFL look to the Whitehall mandarins like it is actually taking action to stop clubs doing it. When you and I know it is doing no such thing, and is only making things worse.

And it sates the appetite of those from other clubs baying for blood. Those who don't really care about justice being done, as long as someone is made to pay.

It has two effects:
1. Provides some deterrent against clubs spending what they can't afford.
2. Provides some penalty for a new owner who has effectively waited until the business can be bought on the cheap, rather than buying it when the books are balancing.

For instance, everyone knew we were going bust in 2011. Glover didn't ride in on his white charger to buy up the business, which included the debts. No, the purchase came when we were in admin, and everyone was predicting that people were waiting for us to go into admin before the business was acquired. So of course the new owner should be punished; waiting for the knock-down price comes with it the knowledge that it comes with a sanction that potentially harms the brand, which can then be mitigated by some repayment of the previous debts.

Seems like a perfectly workable system to me. And I would be grateful if you would stop acquiring a chip on your shoulder. We have had sole ownership of the largest ones in West Yorkshire for quite some time and we should keep them.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:25 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

It has two effects:
1. Provides some deterrent against clubs spending what they can't afford.
2. Provides some penalty for a new owner who has effectively waited until the business can be bought on the cheap, rather than buying it when the books are balancing.

For instance, everyone knew we were going bust in 2011. Glover didn't ride in on his white charger to buy up the business, which included the debts. No, the purchase came when we were in admin, and everyone was predicting that people were waiting for us to go into admin before the business was acquired. So of course the new owner should be punished; waiting for the knock-down price comes with it the knowledge that it comes with a sanction that potentially harms the brand, which can then be mitigated by some repayment of the previous debts.

Seems like a perfectly workable system to me. And I would be grateful if you would stop acquiring a chip on your shoulder. We have had sole ownership of the largest ones in West Yorkshire for quite some time and we should keep them.

So you agree that if the new owner pays off the debts, then there should be no points deduction?
Or what is the incentive to pay anyone?

I know if someone said that they would break my legs if I didn't pay up, but still break them if I did, then I might as well keep my money to buy some better crutches...

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:03 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

It has two effects:
1. Provides some deterrent against clubs spending what they can't afford.
2. Provides some penalty for a new owner who has effectively waited until the business can be bought on the cheap, rather than buying it when the books are balancing.

For instance, everyone knew we were going bust in 2011. Glover didn't ride in on his white charger to buy up the business, which included the debts. No, the purchase came when we were in admin, and everyone was predicting that people were waiting for us to go into admin before the business was acquired. So of course the new owner should be punished; waiting for the knock-down price comes with it the knowledge that it comes with a sanction that potentially harms the brand, which can then be mitigated by some repayment of the previous debts.

Seems like a perfectly workable system to me. And I would be grateful if you would stop acquiring a chip on your shoulder. We have had sole ownership of the largest ones in West Yorkshire for quite some time and we should keep them.

Sorry mate, but it does nothing whatsoever to deal with your point 1. Nothing at all. Since you will always know it is the next owners who will be punished, if anything it encourages a "might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb" attitude, in encouraging reckless behaviour.

If you disagree, please tell me just how it can act as a deterrent to an existing owner? Not a single person has managed to yet, but there is still time.

The only thing that will do ANY good IMO is to make the EXISTING owner either ensure the club is properly capitalised, with share capital or subordinated loans, at all times, or to put up a big financial bond that can be called upon should the company fall over. Of course, maybe things like this happen behind the scenes anyway, but we never get to hear about it. But there should be a clear and transparent set of rules. Something like "shareholders' funds, measured and audited on a quarterly basis, shall not fall below £x. If they do, then the owners shall either inject more capital (NOT loans, unless fully-subordinated), or provide a bond or other guarantee. If none of these, the RFL shall be empowered to saside the management and appoint an independent "administrator" to take what steps are necessary to resolve the situation. Which may or may not involve sale to another party".

Top of my head, but it bloody well needs something as draconian as that to stop incompetant buffoons or cowboys or just plain naive guys out of their depth from ruining clubs.

Your point 2 is more interesting, since you make a good point that I had not considered before. To an extent, I see your reasoning and agree with it. Where I have to limit my agreementy is that it treats vultures and angels in exactly the same way. Many people assumed, when Bulls were in the poo last time, Caisley was waiting in the wings to get the business cheap off an administrator, following an administration that he and his cabal initiated. Rightly or wrongly, that was an assumption, and only the parties involved know the truth or otherwise of it. In the same way, people saw in the actions of the RFL and other clubs an attempt to stymie any such action, should it be contemplated. Again, who knows? But the result was that when an unconnected, innocent guy came in to buy the club, he was totally knackered and hamstrung by draconian penalties that treated him as a vulture and not the (sort of) angel he really was.

If you could fins some way of distinguishing between vultures and angels, then I could agree your point. But I can't think how you might? Any ideas?

As for that chip...if you can have one we bloody well can!

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:07 pm  

debaser wrote:

So you agree that if the new owner pays off the debts, then there should be no points deduction?
Or what is the incentive to pay anyone?

I know if someone said that they would break my legs if I didn't pay up, but still break them if I did, then I might as well keep my money to buy some better crutches...

If they could pay off all the debts, then arguably there was no need for the administration. The whole point of administration is that helps you clear debts at an agreed reduced rates. If the debts were cleared in full and at full price, then there is an argument that it was an issue of timing for the new owner. One of the problems you have, I guess, is that one of the significant debts is to the old owner.

I presume the normal way would be for all creditors to agree a reduced rate in the pound for repayment. That would then result in 6 points (anything else is, I presume, bankruptcy). If additional debt payments are made, particularly to smaller businesses, then 4. If much greater payments, 2. If all debts paid then I would agree that the administration is largely technical, as the new owner has bought the whole business as it stood, lock, stock and barrel, debts and all. So yes, there would be a case for a no point reduction.

The problem you will have, I suppose, as we did, is that which business person in their right mind would buy such a loss-leading business? The savvy way is to buy it from the administrators with the reduced liabilities. Even the current owners tried to get it, as I understand, without the debts owed to Omar Khan, which led to the impasse, as far as I can glean. They weren't interested in buying all the liabilities, and I presume the mooted new buyers weren't trying to buy the Bulls last Autumn.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:13 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Sorry mate, but it does nothing whatsoever to deal with your point 1. Nothing at all. Since you will always know it is the next owners who will be punished, if anything it encourages a "might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb" attitude, in encouraging reckless behaviour.

If you disagree, please tell me just how it can act as a deterrent to an existing owner? Not a single person has managed to yet, but there is still time.

I understand the general point, but it doesn't always have to be the case that administration results in new owners. An owner could put a business into administration, agree the reduced repayment, and when creditors are satisfied, bring it out of administration.

Further, there is the emotional fallout from the fans they have to deal with, with the points reduction.

Also, depending on how the investment is done, I presume, the points deduction devalues the sale of the business, which might include payment to them.

As a general point, there has to be a sanction, otherwise clubs would use administration as clearing the decks to carry on running teams they couldn't afford. It does arguably impact the new business more, but there has to be something that is a deterrent, and the ill-will from the fans might be enough. For example, how many Wakefield fans would be beating a path to West Yorkshire Windows for a new conservatory if Glover had run us into administration and heightened the chance of relegation?

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:16 pm  

Where has this notion of punishing owners come from?

Bradford Bulls broke the rules by going into admin and it's Bradford Bulls who should take the sanction.

Whose name is over the door is irrelevant.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:27 pm  

Reading Bullette is on the T and A smearing Richard Lamb. Considering everyone knows who RB speaks for this is incredibly depressing.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:27 pm  

There is another way of looking at it too.

Let's say it costs 1.2m to clear all liabilities and get a 2 point deduction, or even nil. What if the new owner gets the club at a rate of paying creditors 50p in the pound? If the owner is still willing to pay 1.2m, there is arguably 600K to invest in players, albeit with a more likely 4 point reduction.

I presume that's part of the balancing exercise. Your problem is, I guess, timing. If that simplistic formula had been applied in October, say, you could have recruited well.