Re: Offical -4 Points Deduction : Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:40 pm  

So why DID the Wcrusaders get less than the maximum deduction?

I take it you mean because the debts were run up by the previous administration?

Well it is ALSO a matter of public record that although the majority of debts WERE run up by the incompetent Samuel / Turner administration, several of them were run up by the Moss / Turner administration.

This is unpalatable truth to some on here, (Head and Spongebob for example) but is nonetheless cold, hard, in the public domain FACT.

So yes, I put it to you that there IS a double standard, no matter WHAT narrow time period Head dishonestly tries to impose on any comparison.

[tb]

Re: Offical -4 Points Deduction : Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:25 am  

Grendel wrote:

So why DID the Wcrusaders get less than the maximum deduction?

Because the new (post administration) company committed to repaying some of the debt, not least the rugby related debt (eg money owed to the RFL).

Widnes got the maximum points deduction in 2008 because they didn't repay any of the pre-existing debt.

The scale of Wakey's points deduction will no doubt depend on the financial details of how they come out of administration and whether they commit to repaying any of the pre-existing debt.


Not double standards, but treating each case on its merits, taking into account any mitigating circumstances.