Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:28 pm  

saint at wire wrote:

I don't get it either.

Surely SL wants the Bulls to succeed; so why make it difficult for them by financially penalising them. I couldn't see any other SL team surviving 3 years on 50% Sky cash?

I don't know if I'm correct but the other clubs voted for the 50% deduction last time; if so shame on them.
Did the other greedy clubs share the withheld money or did it go to the RFL who have no right to it anyway?

The directors of the club will be asked to put forward a viable business plan to the RFL which is clearly impossible with a 50% sky cash penalty as has already been shown under the Khan regime.
Additionally, they need to put real share capital into the club this time, not mickey mouse directors' loans.

Anyway good to all, SL needs the Bulls.

This. In it's entirety. You can come again!

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:36 pm  

saint at wire wrote:

I don't get it either.

Surely SL wants the Bulls to succeed; so why make it difficult for them by financially penalising them. I couldn't see any other SL team surviving 3 years on 50% Sky cash?

I don't know if I'm correct but the other clubs voted for the 50% deduction last time; if so shame on them.
Did the other greedy clubs share the withheld money or did it go to the RFL who have no right to it anyway?

The directors of the club will be asked to put forward a viable business plan to the RFL which is clearly impossible with a 50% sky cash penalty as has already been shown under the Khan regime.
Additionally, they need to put real share capital into the club this time, not mickey mouse directors' loans.

Anyway good to all, SL needs the Bulls.

I would like another question answered. What are the real motives reference the RFL . I mean why have Mr Khan it just does not make sense, is that just deflection from other policies. using a fashionable word these days from computer speak "obfuscate" If I were a policeman I would be smelling a rat.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:36 am  

This paragraph from Sporting Life http://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... /9177771/- The RFL board of directors are expected to hold deliberations over the weekend and are likely to impose a second points deduction in two years. Bradford were given the maximum six-point deduction in 2012 for a breach of RFL insolvency regulations, whereas Wakefield and Crusaders were both docked four points for going into administration after agreeing to pay off most of the creditors Looks like it could be 4 points despite what FA has been saying.

This paragraph from Sporting Life http://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... /9177771/- The RFL board of directors are expected to hold deliberations over the weekend and are likely to impose a second points deduction in two years. Bradford were given the maximum six-point deduction in 2012 for a breach of RFL insolvency regulations, whereas Wakefield and Crusaders were both docked four points for going into administration after agreeing to pay off most of the creditors Looks like it could be 4 points despite what FA has been saying.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:50 am  

Blotto wrote: This paragraph from Sporting Life http://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... /9177771/- The RFL board of directors are expected to hold deliberations over the weekend and are likely to impose a second points deduction in two years. Bradford were given the maximum six-point deduction in 2012 for a breach of RFL insolvency regulations, whereas Wakefield and Crusaders were both docked four points for going into administration after agreeing to pay off most of the creditors Looks like it could be 4 points despite what FA has been saying. I believe it will be zero points if we have agreed with the RFL to pay off the old company's creditors but that we will lose points if we don't pay them. I believe an indication to that effect had been given to the club, but they shouldn't have made it public. However I don't think it was made up. It was soon pulled from the website. I can well understand if the RFL were really hacked off when they read that, but hard to judge what difference that would make. FWIW whilst I obviously don't want us to face any points deduction, if all the creditors end up being stuffed then I couldn't and wouldn't argue against a points deduction. If I were the new owners, I'd be looking to do deals to repay those creditors if that is the price of no points deduction, but I also believe that IF the new owners face the same 50% distribution penalty as well, then it will simply be impossible to both stand that, pay off old creditors, and run a viable SL business.

Blotto wrote: This paragraph from Sporting Life http://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... /9177771/- The RFL board of directors are expected to hold deliberations over the weekend and are likely to impose a second points deduction in two years. Bradford were given the maximum six-point deduction in 2012 for a breach of RFL insolvency regulations, whereas Wakefield and Crusaders were both docked four points for going into administration after agreeing to pay off most of the creditors Looks like it could be 4 points despite what FA has been saying. I believe it will be zero points if we have agreed with the RFL to pay off the old company's creditors but that we will lose points if we don't pay them. I believe an indication to that effect had been given to the club, but they shouldn't have made it public. However I don't think it was made up. It was soon pulled from the website. I can well understand if the RFL were really hacked off when they read that, but hard to judge what difference that would make. FWIW whilst I obviously don't want us to face any points deduction, if all the creditors end up being stuffed then I couldn't and wouldn't argue against a points deduction. If I were the new owners, I'd be looking to do deals to repay those creditors if that is the price of no points deduction, but I also believe that IF the new owners face the same 50% distribution penalty as well, then it will simply be impossible to both stand that, pay off old creditors, and run a viable SL business.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:31 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I believe it will be zero points if we have agreed with the RFL to pay off the old company's creditors but that we will lose points if we don't pay them. I believe an indication to that effect had been given to the club, but they shouldn't have made it public. However I don't think it was made up. It was soon pulled from the website. I can well understand if the RFL were really hacked off when they read that, but hard to judge what difference that would make.

FWIW whilst I obviously don't want us to face any points deduction, if all the creditors end up being stuffed then I couldn't and wouldn't argue against a points deduction. If I were the new owners, I'd be looking to do deals to repay those creditors if that is the price of no points deduction, but I also believe that IF the new owners face the same 50% distribution penalty as well, then it will simply be impossible to both stand that, pay off old creditors, and run a viable SL business.

Exactly so why would the RFL do it?

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:08 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Sadly, it wasn't. It was I think intended to be that, but went down as we would get half the distribution that other clubs got in each of the 2013 and 2014 seasons.

Leaving aside that we were shortchanged on the deal, (as I've previously explained) the other unforeseen was that in 2014 the distribution would change. If it had been a full season's distribution, that would not matter, as the amount would have been set in stone. But had we still been alive, we would this year have lost our share of the extra distribution too.

You have explained nothing other than your views are different from everyone elses. Solly explained it rather differently from you a couple of weeks ago, funnily enough in exactly the terms Adey has described it. One years money spread over two years. Not half the amount of other clubs. Put up some evidence - this is the second time I have asked - and I will happily say you are right. without any evidence your are in FAntasy land.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:10 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

Put up some evidence - this is the second time I have asked - and I will happily say you are right. without any evidence your are in FAntasy land.

I was thinking this thread could beat JVT. Now I am sure of it.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:47 am  

tigertot wrote:

I was thinking this thread could beat JVT. Now I am sure of it.

The one on the Virtual Terrace is better. It's currently annexing the Sudetenland.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:04 am  

Lamb attending the London game as a guest of Andrew Calvert.

Smart move.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:13 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

Lamb attending the London game as a guest of Andrew Calvert.

Smart move.

I think that is excellent news,get him on board( wonder if he can play stand off)