Bradford Telegraph and ArgusDay of reckoning for Bradford Bulls as points appeal heard (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting TANEWS to 80360, or email

Day of reckoning for Bradford Bulls as points appeal heard

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: "We are hopeful we will get some sort of ruling in our favour," said Robbie Hunter-Paul "We are hopeful we will get some sort of ruling in our favour," said Robbie Hunter-Paul

The Bulls will today go into battle with the RFL as they bid to win back the six points they had docked on February 25.

The club have launched an unprecedented appeal against their punishment for entering administration and an independent sporting sanctions panel will hear their and the governing body’s case.

The panel includes Bill Broughton and Chris Booth, who are partners at Leeds-based legal firm Pinsent Mason, and James Sleight, an insolvency practitioner.

Bulls owner Marc Green has launched the appeal on the basis that the administration was “unforeseeable” and “unavoidable” and the panel will consider all the evidence from both sides before passing judgement.

The decision is not necessarily expected today and could drag on until the end of the week.

Bulls chief executive Robbie Hunter-Paul said: “It would be great to get all the points back but we can’t fret about it.

“Obviously there is a confidence that we are coming from a certain position, otherwise we wouldn’t have taken it to the appeal panel in the first place.

“We are hopeful we will get some sort of ruling in our favour. What that looks like we will see but if it doesn’t happen we will just keep carrying on with what we’re doing.”

Green has vowed not to walk away from the club if they fail to avoid the drop.

He said: “If relegation happens, and everybody at the club is focusing on it not happening, we will deal with it and we will be back.

“We will make a commitment within the parameters of the game to be back as quickly as possible.

“My target would be to come back within one year and we will ensure that we have a squad capable of doing that. But everything right now is geared towards staying in Super League.”

Head coach Francis Cummins said: “There is no doubt that getting points back would help us but we will deal with the decision when we get it.”

Prop Adam Sidlow added: “If we get the points back we will have earned them from our previous wins this season.”

Comments (64)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:55am Wed 4 Jun 14

axelf1963 says...

My prediction is no points back but will be no more than 2 if they do.
My prediction is no points back but will be no more than 2 if they do. axelf1963
  • Score: -13

8:05am Wed 4 Jun 14

bullyboysrbestCOYB says...

2-4 points coyb
2-4 points coyb bullyboysrbestCOYB
  • Score: 7

8:15am Wed 4 Jun 14

The Fat Lady Sings says...

Highly unlikely the result will be published by the end of the week if previous RFL rulings are anything to go by. Yet more agony for the faithful and the players.
Highly unlikely the result will be published by the end of the week if previous RFL rulings are anything to go by. Yet more agony for the faithful and the players. The Fat Lady Sings
  • Score: 15

8:20am Wed 4 Jun 14

Shipley Paul says...

I bet there will be a compromise to save face for the RFL. May be 2 points may be 4 but I reckon some will stand. After all, we did go into administration and the RFL have docked points from every club who has previously.
I bet there will be a compromise to save face for the RFL. May be 2 points may be 4 but I reckon some will stand. After all, we did go into administration and the RFL have docked points from every club who has previously. Shipley Paul
  • Score: 11

8:26am Wed 4 Jun 14

The Fat Lady Sings says...

Prop Adam Sidlow added: “If we get the points back we will have earned them from our previous wins this season.”
???
Could someone explain this rationale?
Prop Adam Sidlow added: “If we get the points back we will have earned them from our previous wins this season.” ??? Could someone explain this rationale? The Fat Lady Sings
  • Score: -15

8:33am Wed 4 Jun 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts.
Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off.
We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.
If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts. Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off. We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: -4

9:11am Wed 4 Jun 14

Sheffieldbull says...

The Fat Lady Sings wrote:
Prop Adam Sidlow added: “If we get the points back we will have earned them from our previous wins this season.”
???
Could someone explain this rationale?
I'll have a go.. wins against London Wakefield and Wire =6pts
[quote][p][bold]The Fat Lady Sings[/bold] wrote: Prop Adam Sidlow added: “If we get the points back we will have earned them from our previous wins this season.” ??? Could someone explain this rationale?[/p][/quote]I'll have a go.. wins against London Wakefield and Wire =6pts Sheffieldbull
  • Score: 25

9:12am Wed 4 Jun 14

WayneRouke says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts.
Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off.
We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.
WHERE IS KHAN??

Sitting on his bed protecting his pot of gold?

In my view, he borrowed money against the club for personal ventures or to prop up his existing businesses.

He should be chased for the debt, to pay it back.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts. Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off. We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.[/p][/quote]WHERE IS KHAN?? Sitting on his bed protecting his pot of gold? In my view, he borrowed money against the club for personal ventures or to prop up his existing businesses. He should be chased for the debt, to pay it back. WayneRouke
  • Score: 10

9:13am Wed 4 Jun 14

Van Bellen's Baby says...

The Fat Lady Sings wrote:
Prop Adam Sidlow added: “If we get the points back we will have earned them from our previous wins this season.”
???
Could someone explain this rationale?
He means that the players have earned the points on the field - which they have.
[quote][p][bold]The Fat Lady Sings[/bold] wrote: Prop Adam Sidlow added: “If we get the points back we will have earned them from our previous wins this season.” ??? Could someone explain this rationale?[/p][/quote]He means that the players have earned the points on the field - which they have. Van Bellen's Baby
  • Score: 10

9:22am Wed 4 Jun 14

Solomon Grundy says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts.
Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off.
We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.
The still inexplicable decision to dock them half the sky money may account for this but that doesn't suit your agenda.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts. Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off. We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.[/p][/quote]The still inexplicable decision to dock them half the sky money may account for this but that doesn't suit your agenda. Solomon Grundy
  • Score: 11

9:28am Wed 4 Jun 14

fedupwiththeBS says...

This is not an RFL appeal it is an independent review board so the result of which is nothing to do with the RFL; so all the conspiracy anti- RFL gang on here please try to understand that before we get the usual mindless rants.

TVOR has a valid point and although as unpalatable as the points deduction was, it was a disaster of our own making. The awarding of points back to us will be a dangerous precedent to set that could spell the end of the game. Who would invest or deal with a business that cannot be held to account for its debts?

We still have creditors that have not been paid by the Club despite that being part of the bid/sale agreement.

I hope but doubt it very much that someone from the Board will do a decent interview outline the plans for the Club rather than the throw away one liners that we have been fed recently.
This is not an RFL appeal it is an independent review board so the result of which is nothing to do with the RFL; so all the conspiracy anti- RFL gang on here please try to understand that before we get the usual mindless rants. TVOR has a valid point and although as unpalatable as the points deduction was, it was a disaster of our own making. The awarding of points back to us will be a dangerous precedent to set that could spell the end of the game. Who would invest or deal with a business that cannot be held to account for its debts? We still have creditors that have not been paid by the Club despite that being part of the bid/sale agreement. I hope but doubt it very much that someone from the Board will do a decent interview outline the plans for the Club rather than the throw away one liners that we have been fed recently. fedupwiththeBS
  • Score: 6

9:28am Wed 4 Jun 14

Forever-Bfd says...

I can see why it happens but seems unfair that new owners get punished Loss of points, put into special measures so they can't get any players, loss of sky money,paying back HMRC. While the real culprits seem to get away sot free. Ps forgot to mention dragging it in for half of the season.
I can see why it happens but seems unfair that new owners get punished Loss of points, put into special measures so they can't get any players, loss of sky money,paying back HMRC. While the real culprits seem to get away sot free. Ps forgot to mention dragging it in for half of the season. Forever-Bfd
  • Score: 12

9:29am Wed 4 Jun 14

gordon ramsay says...

Fingers crossed but can't see anything more than 2 points back at the most.

Not sure what the actual grounds for the appeal are!!

Ultimately and disgustingly our once great club has been systematically murdered from within. We have nobody to blame but a succession of internal mismanagement going all the was back to the Harris fiasco. It's been one joke set up after another.

Take off our bulls tinted glasses and the intelligent reality is that governing bodies of sport simply cannot allow clubs to run up huge debts and keep writing it off on technicalities. Then do it again!!!! It's our win mismanagement that caused all this over a number of years.

Fingers crossed but not hopeful I'm afraid.
Fingers crossed but can't see anything more than 2 points back at the most. Not sure what the actual grounds for the appeal are!! Ultimately and disgustingly our once great club has been systematically murdered from within. We have nobody to blame but a succession of internal mismanagement going all the was back to the Harris fiasco. It's been one joke set up after another. Take off our bulls tinted glasses and the intelligent reality is that governing bodies of sport simply cannot allow clubs to run up huge debts and keep writing it off on technicalities. Then do it again!!!! It's our win mismanagement that caused all this over a number of years. Fingers crossed but not hopeful I'm afraid. gordon ramsay
  • Score: 14

9:32am Wed 4 Jun 14

Van Bellen's Baby says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts.
Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off.
We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.
I agree with the sentiment TVOR, particularly the sense of doing things right as the Wildcats directors (apparently) did when they used Sky TV monies to pay off creditors and re-mortgaged their houses to keep that club afloat in similar circumstances. We have to also consider that the RFL is, to a large degree, the mouthpiece for the other Superleague clubs and therefore the will of the group will be reflected in the RFL's position (as defendants) and that consensus may have a bearing on proceedings when Superleague is considered as a self-contained business group. What I would also say though is that we never know the full story at Odsal and the directors must feel that there is a moral case as well as a financial one otherwise I doubt they would throw good money after bad on this one.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts. Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off. We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.[/p][/quote]I agree with the sentiment TVOR, particularly the sense of doing things right as the Wildcats directors (apparently) did when they used Sky TV monies to pay off creditors and re-mortgaged their houses to keep that club afloat in similar circumstances. We have to also consider that the RFL is, to a large degree, the mouthpiece for the other Superleague clubs and therefore the will of the group will be reflected in the RFL's position (as defendants) and that consensus may have a bearing on proceedings when Superleague is considered as a self-contained business group. What I would also say though is that we never know the full story at Odsal and the directors must feel that there is a moral case as well as a financial one otherwise I doubt they would throw good money after bad on this one. Van Bellen's Baby
  • Score: 10

9:37am Wed 4 Jun 14

Van Bellen's Baby says...

fedupwiththeBS wrote:
This is not an RFL appeal it is an independent review board so the result of which is nothing to do with the RFL; so all the conspiracy anti- RFL gang on here please try to understand that before we get the usual mindless rants.

TVOR has a valid point and although as unpalatable as the points deduction was, it was a disaster of our own making. The awarding of points back to us will be a dangerous precedent to set that could spell the end of the game. Who would invest or deal with a business that cannot be held to account for its debts?

We still have creditors that have not been paid by the Club despite that being part of the bid/sale agreement.

I hope but doubt it very much that someone from the Board will do a decent interview outline the plans for the Club rather than the throw away one liners that we have been fed recently.
It does have something to do with the RFL as they are defendants in the hearing and will be represented at it.
[quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: This is not an RFL appeal it is an independent review board so the result of which is nothing to do with the RFL; so all the conspiracy anti- RFL gang on here please try to understand that before we get the usual mindless rants. TVOR has a valid point and although as unpalatable as the points deduction was, it was a disaster of our own making. The awarding of points back to us will be a dangerous precedent to set that could spell the end of the game. Who would invest or deal with a business that cannot be held to account for its debts? We still have creditors that have not been paid by the Club despite that being part of the bid/sale agreement. I hope but doubt it very much that someone from the Board will do a decent interview outline the plans for the Club rather than the throw away one liners that we have been fed recently.[/p][/quote]It does have something to do with the RFL as they are defendants in the hearing and will be represented at it. Van Bellen's Baby
  • Score: 6

10:03am Wed 4 Jun 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Easy to vote down comments wihtout giving an opinion. Where are the replies from those who have voted my comment down. There should be at least 6 posts telling me why I'm wrong but there isn't any.
Easy to vote down comments wihtout giving an opinion. Where are the replies from those who have voted my comment down. There should be at least 6 posts telling me why I'm wrong but there isn't any. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: -14

10:07am Wed 4 Jun 14

Ship rock says...

I don't understand why the bulls should have to pay back the creditors if they have already been docked the points and put into special measures, possibly the outcome of the hearing is that they have the money to pay back creditors if points are given back and special measures lifted? Just a thought
I don't understand why the bulls should have to pay back the creditors if they have already been docked the points and put into special measures, possibly the outcome of the hearing is that they have the money to pay back creditors if points are given back and special measures lifted? Just a thought Ship rock
  • Score: -1

10:39am Wed 4 Jun 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Ship rock wrote:
I don't understand why the bulls should have to pay back the creditors if they have already been docked the points and put into special measures, possibly the outcome of the hearing is that they have the money to pay back creditors if points are given back and special measures lifted? Just a thought
No, this is a case of wanting ones cake and to eat it.

The creditors won't be paid whatever the outcome is today.
[quote][p][bold]Ship rock[/bold] wrote: I don't understand why the bulls should have to pay back the creditors if they have already been docked the points and put into special measures, possibly the outcome of the hearing is that they have the money to pay back creditors if points are given back and special measures lifted? Just a thought[/p][/quote]No, this is a case of wanting ones cake and to eat it. The creditors won't be paid whatever the outcome is today. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 2

10:45am Wed 4 Jun 14

Ship rock says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Ship rock wrote:
I don't understand why the bulls should have to pay back the creditors if they have already been docked the points and put into special measures, possibly the outcome of the hearing is that they have the money to pay back creditors if points are given back and special measures lifted? Just a thought
No, this is a case of wanting ones cake and to eat it.

The creditors won't be paid whatever the outcome is today.
I'm just going off the comments on here that it was part of the bid to pay off creditors to get control of the bulls, why would they if there are already sanctions in place?
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ship rock[/bold] wrote: I don't understand why the bulls should have to pay back the creditors if they have already been docked the points and put into special measures, possibly the outcome of the hearing is that they have the money to pay back creditors if points are given back and special measures lifted? Just a thought[/p][/quote]No, this is a case of wanting ones cake and to eat it. The creditors won't be paid whatever the outcome is today.[/p][/quote]I'm just going off the comments on here that it was part of the bid to pay off creditors to get control of the bulls, why would they if there are already sanctions in place? Ship rock
  • Score: 3

11:18am Wed 4 Jun 14

northern pig says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Easy to vote down comments wihtout giving an opinion. Where are the replies from those who have voted my comment down. There should be at least 6 posts telling me why I'm wrong but there isn't any.
Absolutely right,the trouble is,most of the posters on the points deduction issue,are looking through red amber and black glasses.In the real world!! if you default on a financial obligation,you just cannot ignore,or walk away from it.The only way is to declare yourself bankrupt, As a lifelong Northern/Bulls supporter,from a real world perspective,the Bulls have not been hard done by
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Easy to vote down comments wihtout giving an opinion. Where are the replies from those who have voted my comment down. There should be at least 6 posts telling me why I'm wrong but there isn't any.[/p][/quote]Absolutely right,the trouble is,most of the posters on the points deduction issue,are looking through red amber and black glasses.In the real world!! if you default on a financial obligation,you just cannot ignore,or walk away from it.The only way is to declare yourself bankrupt, As a lifelong Northern/Bulls supporter,from a real world perspective,the Bulls have not been hard done by northern pig
  • Score: 1

11:19am Wed 4 Jun 14

fedupwiththeBS says...

Ship rock wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Ship rock wrote:
I don't understand why the bulls should have to pay back the creditors if they have already been docked the points and put into special measures, possibly the outcome of the hearing is that they have the money to pay back creditors if points are given back and special measures lifted? Just a thought
No, this is a case of wanting ones cake and to eat it.

The creditors won't be paid whatever the outcome is today.
I'm just going off the comments on here that it was part of the bid to pay off creditors to get control of the bulls, why would they if there are already sanctions in place?
The points deduction was the punishment for going into administration.

The creditors still need paying or one of them could issue a further winding order against the Club because Green by taking over the Club has taken over the Debt as well.
[quote][p][bold]Ship rock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ship rock[/bold] wrote: I don't understand why the bulls should have to pay back the creditors if they have already been docked the points and put into special measures, possibly the outcome of the hearing is that they have the money to pay back creditors if points are given back and special measures lifted? Just a thought[/p][/quote]No, this is a case of wanting ones cake and to eat it. The creditors won't be paid whatever the outcome is today.[/p][/quote]I'm just going off the comments on here that it was part of the bid to pay off creditors to get control of the bulls, why would they if there are already sanctions in place?[/p][/quote]The points deduction was the punishment for going into administration. The creditors still need paying or one of them could issue a further winding order against the Club because Green by taking over the Club has taken over the Debt as well. fedupwiththeBS
  • Score: 0

11:22am Wed 4 Jun 14

fedupwiththeBS says...

Van Bellen's Baby wrote:
fedupwiththeBS wrote:
This is not an RFL appeal it is an independent review board so the result of which is nothing to do with the RFL; so all the conspiracy anti- RFL gang on here please try to understand that before we get the usual mindless rants.

TVOR has a valid point and although as unpalatable as the points deduction was, it was a disaster of our own making. The awarding of points back to us will be a dangerous precedent to set that could spell the end of the game. Who would invest or deal with a business that cannot be held to account for its debts?

We still have creditors that have not been paid by the Club despite that being part of the bid/sale agreement.

I hope but doubt it very much that someone from the Board will do a decent interview outline the plans for the Club rather than the throw away one liners that we have been fed recently.
It does have something to do with the RFL as they are defendants in the hearing and will be represented at it.
I know the RFL are the defendants but the appeal's panel are all independent and therefore the RFL have or should have no control over their decision apart from defending the case the Club is making.

I am sure that whatever the result some will just blame the RFL for our dire state.
[quote][p][bold]Van Bellen's Baby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: This is not an RFL appeal it is an independent review board so the result of which is nothing to do with the RFL; so all the conspiracy anti- RFL gang on here please try to understand that before we get the usual mindless rants. TVOR has a valid point and although as unpalatable as the points deduction was, it was a disaster of our own making. The awarding of points back to us will be a dangerous precedent to set that could spell the end of the game. Who would invest or deal with a business that cannot be held to account for its debts? We still have creditors that have not been paid by the Club despite that being part of the bid/sale agreement. I hope but doubt it very much that someone from the Board will do a decent interview outline the plans for the Club rather than the throw away one liners that we have been fed recently.[/p][/quote]It does have something to do with the RFL as they are defendants in the hearing and will be represented at it.[/p][/quote]I know the RFL are the defendants but the appeal's panel are all independent and therefore the RFL have or should have no control over their decision apart from defending the case the Club is making. I am sure that whatever the result some will just blame the RFL for our dire state. fedupwiththeBS
  • Score: 4

11:27am Wed 4 Jun 14

A650 says...

Punishing the son for the sins of the father seems an odd way to operate.

Imposing points deductions and cutting central funding on the people who come in and pick up the pieces is only likely to turn potential new investors away or make those that do the job more likely to go to the wall – thus perpetuating the whole shambles.

The real culprits get away with it scot free.

Perhaps it’s time for all current investors to pay a bond which is non-returnable if their club goes into admin? If they move on or sell to another investor the bond is returned. If the club goes into admin while they’re in charge they lose the bond. This might at least ensure that those that can’t run a business actually have some punishment.

As for the Bulls predicament Marc Green obviously believes there is a case to have some of the points returned and the RFL agree that this argument must be looked at by an independent group. Whatever judgement they come to I’ll accept it as they’ve (hopefully) had access to all the information – unlike any of us on here.
Punishing the son for the sins of the father seems an odd way to operate. Imposing points deductions and cutting central funding on the people who come in and pick up the pieces is only likely to turn potential new investors away or make those that do the job more likely to go to the wall – thus perpetuating the whole shambles. The real culprits get away with it scot free. Perhaps it’s time for all current investors to pay a bond which is non-returnable if their club goes into admin? If they move on or sell to another investor the bond is returned. If the club goes into admin while they’re in charge they lose the bond. This might at least ensure that those that can’t run a business actually have some punishment. As for the Bulls predicament Marc Green obviously believes there is a case to have some of the points returned and the RFL agree that this argument must be looked at by an independent group. Whatever judgement they come to I’ll accept it as they’ve (hopefully) had access to all the information – unlike any of us on here. A650
  • Score: 13

11:35am Wed 4 Jun 14

spanglishbull.uk says...

We all know it is an independent appeals panel but as I have stated previously the R.F.L. have stated that the final decision rests with them whether they agree with the panel or not.That statement may have been rescinded now but I have not read it.I notice now that T.V.O.R has now moved up in the world from being a lawyer to a Barrister.He must be a really clever guy when he seems to know everything and can even read peoples minds.I know one thing for a so called Bulls supporter he will be absolutely devastated if the Bulls do get any points back.As I have also said before,the real culprits should be brought to task not the ones trying to save or support the club.Will they? Will they h***
We all know it is an independent appeals panel but as I have stated previously the R.F.L. have stated that the final decision rests with them whether they agree with the panel or not.That statement may have been rescinded now but I have not read it.I notice now that T.V.O.R has now moved up in the world from being a lawyer to a Barrister.He must be a really clever guy when he seems to know everything and can even read peoples minds.I know one thing for a so called Bulls supporter he will be absolutely devastated if the Bulls do get any points back.As I have also said before,the real culprits should be brought to task not the ones trying to save or support the club.Will they? Will they h*** spanglishbull.uk
  • Score: 9

11:37am Wed 4 Jun 14

Van Bellen's Baby says...

A650 wrote:
Punishing the son for the sins of the father seems an odd way to operate.

Imposing points deductions and cutting central funding on the people who come in and pick up the pieces is only likely to turn potential new investors away or make those that do the job more likely to go to the wall – thus perpetuating the whole shambles.

The real culprits get away with it scot free.

Perhaps it’s time for all current investors to pay a bond which is non-returnable if their club goes into admin? If they move on or sell to another investor the bond is returned. If the club goes into admin while they’re in charge they lose the bond. This might at least ensure that those that can’t run a business actually have some punishment.

As for the Bulls predicament Marc Green obviously believes there is a case to have some of the points returned and the RFL agree that this argument must be looked at by an independent group. Whatever judgement they come to I’ll accept it as they’ve (hopefully) had access to all the information – unlike any of us on here.
Good point about the bond A650, but did I imagine it or was there a stipulation based on a bond mentioned by the RFL (or media?) last time around? If so what happened to that? It makes sense though and might discourage the local, two-bob businessmen of this parish biting off more than they can chew in the future.
[quote][p][bold]A650[/bold] wrote: Punishing the son for the sins of the father seems an odd way to operate. Imposing points deductions and cutting central funding on the people who come in and pick up the pieces is only likely to turn potential new investors away or make those that do the job more likely to go to the wall – thus perpetuating the whole shambles. The real culprits get away with it scot free. Perhaps it’s time for all current investors to pay a bond which is non-returnable if their club goes into admin? If they move on or sell to another investor the bond is returned. If the club goes into admin while they’re in charge they lose the bond. This might at least ensure that those that can’t run a business actually have some punishment. As for the Bulls predicament Marc Green obviously believes there is a case to have some of the points returned and the RFL agree that this argument must be looked at by an independent group. Whatever judgement they come to I’ll accept it as they’ve (hopefully) had access to all the information – unlike any of us on here.[/p][/quote]Good point about the bond A650, but did I imagine it or was there a stipulation based on a bond mentioned by the RFL (or media?) last time around? If so what happened to that? It makes sense though and might discourage the local, two-bob businessmen of this parish biting off more than they can chew in the future. Van Bellen's Baby
  • Score: 2

11:41am Wed 4 Jun 14

blue marlin says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts. Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off. We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.
Got to agree with TVOR and others 100%.
As somebody who was involved in the process i think its wrong that any club or any body can run up debts of that amount and just on the face of it walk away.
Marc Green did what was best for him,
As i understand the appeal is not about going into admin but the way it was done.dont understand the difference.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts. Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off. We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.[/p][/quote]Got to agree with TVOR and others 100%. As somebody who was involved in the process i think its wrong that any club or any body can run up debts of that amount and just on the face of it walk away. Marc Green did what was best for him, As i understand the appeal is not about going into admin but the way it was done.dont understand the difference. [but that's what happens when you dont try at school.] blue marlin
  • Score: 3

11:42am Wed 4 Jun 14

The Fat Lady Sings says...

Sheffieldbull wrote:
The Fat Lady Sings wrote:
Prop Adam Sidlow added: “If we get the points back we will have earned them from our previous wins this season.”
???
Could someone explain this rationale?
I'll have a go.. wins against London Wakefield and Wire =6pts
But it's wins against London, Warrington and Wakefield (twice) = 8 points?!
[quote][p][bold]Sheffieldbull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Fat Lady Sings[/bold] wrote: Prop Adam Sidlow added: “If we get the points back we will have earned them from our previous wins this season.” ??? Could someone explain this rationale?[/p][/quote]I'll have a go.. wins against London Wakefield and Wire =6pts[/p][/quote]But it's wins against London, Warrington and Wakefield (twice) = 8 points?! The Fat Lady Sings
  • Score: 0

11:47am Wed 4 Jun 14

tinytoonster says...

The Fat Lady Sings wrote:
Prop Adam Sidlow added: “If we get the points back we will have earned them from our previous wins this season.”
???
Could someone explain this rationale?
they tried in 3 games so deserve them back! lol.
[quote][p][bold]The Fat Lady Sings[/bold] wrote: Prop Adam Sidlow added: “If we get the points back we will have earned them from our previous wins this season.” ??? Could someone explain this rationale?[/p][/quote]they tried in 3 games so deserve them back! lol. tinytoonster
  • Score: -3

11:54am Wed 4 Jun 14

A650 says...

We're on 2pts from one of those wins against Wakey already.

TVR I agree it’s wrong for the OWNERS of a club to run up debts and get off scot free. Punishing the club and therefore the people that pick up the pieces is just punishing the wrong people surely? They didn’t run up the debts after all. So why punish the club when it’s the former owners to blame. What good does that do? Nobody gets any money and none of the creditors get paid out.

Does the points deduction etc serve as a warning to others? I’d say not because what difference does it make? If they go out of business a punishment imposed on the club they no longer run isn’t going to make any difference to them is it?

The fact that the club only got half its Sky money and the other half was shared between the other clubs rather than used to pay off creditors or keep HMRC happy shows that the RFL and SL clubs are as self-interested as the owners that went into admin.

As I understand it the appeal will look at whether the club was forced into Admin due to circumstances beyond their control. That is vague enough to mean anything depending on who you listen to. On the one hand if you know what your incomings and outgoings are you should be able to budget accordingly. However it might be that you were advised wrongly of certain things regarding income by e.g. the RFL with disastrous results or even advised to go into admin in order to resolve a disagreement. Who knows?

I doubt we’ll ever get all the facts.
We're on 2pts from one of those wins against Wakey already. TVR I agree it’s wrong for the OWNERS of a club to run up debts and get off scot free. Punishing the club and therefore the people that pick up the pieces is just punishing the wrong people surely? They didn’t run up the debts after all. So why punish the club when it’s the former owners to blame. What good does that do? Nobody gets any money and none of the creditors get paid out. Does the points deduction etc serve as a warning to others? I’d say not because what difference does it make? If they go out of business a punishment imposed on the club they no longer run isn’t going to make any difference to them is it? The fact that the club only got half its Sky money and the other half was shared between the other clubs rather than used to pay off creditors or keep HMRC happy shows that the RFL and SL clubs are as self-interested as the owners that went into admin. As I understand it the appeal will look at whether the club was forced into Admin due to circumstances beyond their control. That is vague enough to mean anything depending on who you listen to. On the one hand if you know what your incomings and outgoings are you should be able to budget accordingly. However it might be that you were advised wrongly of certain things regarding income by e.g. the RFL with disastrous results or even advised to go into admin in order to resolve a disagreement. Who knows? I doubt we’ll ever get all the facts. A650
  • Score: 8

11:57am Wed 4 Jun 14

Sad bull says...

fedupwiththeBS wrote:
Ship rock wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Ship rock wrote:
I don't understand why the bulls should have to pay back the creditors if they have already been docked the points and put into special measures, possibly the outcome of the hearing is that they have the money to pay back creditors if points are given back and special measures lifted? Just a thought
No, this is a case of wanting ones cake and to eat it.

The creditors won't be paid whatever the outcome is today.
I'm just going off the comments on here that it was part of the bid to pay off creditors to get control of the bulls, why would they if there are already sanctions in place?
The points deduction was the punishment for going into administration.

The creditors still need paying or one of them could issue a further winding order against the Club because Green by taking over the Club has taken over the Debt as well.
That is not correct.

You buy the assets of a company from an administrator, not the company itself. Marc Green did not buy OK Bulls and certainly is not obliged to take on OK Bulls debts.

Technically and legally Marc Green does not need to pay the creditors, that is just something the RFL dreamt up to justify a reduction in the points deduction in previous cases. Nobody can issue a winding up order on Marc Green for an OK Bulls debt.

That is the whole point of administration just to be clear.

Any payments made to OK Bulls creditors by the current regime would be entirely at their discretion but they are under no obligation to pay anyone.
[quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ship rock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ship rock[/bold] wrote: I don't understand why the bulls should have to pay back the creditors if they have already been docked the points and put into special measures, possibly the outcome of the hearing is that they have the money to pay back creditors if points are given back and special measures lifted? Just a thought[/p][/quote]No, this is a case of wanting ones cake and to eat it. The creditors won't be paid whatever the outcome is today.[/p][/quote]I'm just going off the comments on here that it was part of the bid to pay off creditors to get control of the bulls, why would they if there are already sanctions in place?[/p][/quote]The points deduction was the punishment for going into administration. The creditors still need paying or one of them could issue a further winding order against the Club because Green by taking over the Club has taken over the Debt as well.[/p][/quote]That is not correct. You buy the assets of a company from an administrator, not the company itself. Marc Green did not buy OK Bulls and certainly is not obliged to take on OK Bulls debts. Technically and legally Marc Green does not need to pay the creditors, that is just something the RFL dreamt up to justify a reduction in the points deduction in previous cases. Nobody can issue a winding up order on Marc Green for an OK Bulls debt. That is the whole point of administration just to be clear. Any payments made to OK Bulls creditors by the current regime would be entirely at their discretion but they are under no obligation to pay anyone. Sad bull
  • Score: 5

12:19pm Wed 4 Jun 14

JunctionBull says...

fedupwiththeBS wrote:
Ship rock wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Ship rock wrote: I don't understand why the bulls should have to pay back the creditors if they have already been docked the points and put into special measures, possibly the outcome of the hearing is that they have the money to pay back creditors if points are given back and special measures lifted? Just a thought
No, this is a case of wanting ones cake and to eat it. The creditors won't be paid whatever the outcome is today.
I'm just going off the comments on here that it was part of the bid to pay off creditors to get control of the bulls, why would they if there are already sanctions in place?
The points deduction was the punishment for going into administration. The creditors still need paying or one of them could issue a further winding order against the Club because Green by taking over the Club has taken over the Debt as well.
not necessarily. Has Green taken over anything? OK Bulls Ltd is not the same as the trading entity Bradford Bulls Northern Ltd. They are completely different and if set up correctly, should have no debt. This is how all companies work.

No one should dispute that the act of administration should have sanction and I agree entirely with the RFL on this. However, I am not sure how the sanction and the Sky monies fit together and it seems, purely on the basis of press reports as we do not know the reality of the opration of the process, it seems a punishment far removed from anything else that has been metred out. I think that the delay of the RFL has seriously prejudiced theoperation of the company and hence the club and could be arguably an aggrivating factor in the mess that we are now in though definately NOT the cause.
[quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ship rock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ship rock[/bold] wrote: I don't understand why the bulls should have to pay back the creditors if they have already been docked the points and put into special measures, possibly the outcome of the hearing is that they have the money to pay back creditors if points are given back and special measures lifted? Just a thought[/p][/quote]No, this is a case of wanting ones cake and to eat it. The creditors won't be paid whatever the outcome is today.[/p][/quote]I'm just going off the comments on here that it was part of the bid to pay off creditors to get control of the bulls, why would they if there are already sanctions in place?[/p][/quote]The points deduction was the punishment for going into administration. The creditors still need paying or one of them could issue a further winding order against the Club because Green by taking over the Club has taken over the Debt as well.[/p][/quote]not necessarily. Has Green taken over anything? OK Bulls Ltd is not the same as the trading entity Bradford Bulls Northern Ltd. They are completely different and if set up correctly, should have no debt. This is how all companies work. No one should dispute that the act of administration should have sanction and I agree entirely with the RFL on this. However, I am not sure how the sanction and the Sky monies fit together and it seems, purely on the basis of press reports as we do not know the reality of the opration of the process, it seems a punishment far removed from anything else that has been metred out. I think that the delay of the RFL has seriously prejudiced theoperation of the company and hence the club and could be arguably an aggrivating factor in the mess that we are now in though definately NOT the cause. JunctionBull
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Wed 4 Jun 14

nochanceagain says...

So when a business goes into administration say a logistics company and is brought out of it can it be stipulated by the other logistics companies and their business leaders that they can only reclaim 10% of their fuel input VAT and the other 10% must be shared out amongst all other logistics companies so immediately disadvantaging them for say 2 years and unable to compete? It's utter nonsense and would lead to another administration of the company very quickly.
All other points deductions have been made when there was no relegation so all it did was reduce your chances of getting in the playoffs this year is different there is relegation and being relegated puts you financially at a huge disadvantage for ever getting promoted again you will be competing against four teams on a massively higher budget coming from the top and full time league. Points deduction in football just drops you from one full time professional league to another full time professional league, you don't lose your entire team.
Include the fact we have to play the league leaders from last season 3 times makes it a completely uneven playing field. Nobody else has had to endure 6 points and half the TV money so to get a few points back is not out of the question is it.
So when a business goes into administration say a logistics company and is brought out of it can it be stipulated by the other logistics companies and their business leaders that they can only reclaim 10% of their fuel input VAT and the other 10% must be shared out amongst all other logistics companies so immediately disadvantaging them for say 2 years and unable to compete? It's utter nonsense and would lead to another administration of the company very quickly. All other points deductions have been made when there was no relegation so all it did was reduce your chances of getting in the playoffs this year is different there is relegation and being relegated puts you financially at a huge disadvantage for ever getting promoted again you will be competing against four teams on a massively higher budget coming from the top and full time league. Points deduction in football just drops you from one full time professional league to another full time professional league, you don't lose your entire team. Include the fact we have to play the league leaders from last season 3 times makes it a completely uneven playing field. Nobody else has had to endure 6 points and half the TV money so to get a few points back is not out of the question is it. nochanceagain
  • Score: 14

12:28pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Sheffieldbull says...

Sad bull wrote:
fedupwiththeBS wrote:
Ship rock wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Ship rock wrote:
I don't understand why the bulls should have to pay back the creditors if they have already been docked the points and put into special measures, possibly the outcome of the hearing is that they have the money to pay back creditors if points are given back and special measures lifted? Just a thought
No, this is a case of wanting ones cake and to eat it.

The creditors won't be paid whatever the outcome is today.
I'm just going off the comments on here that it was part of the bid to pay off creditors to get control of the bulls, why would they if there are already sanctions in place?
The points deduction was the punishment for going into administration.

The creditors still need paying or one of them could issue a further winding order against the Club because Green by taking over the Club has taken over the Debt as well.
That is not correct.

You buy the assets of a company from an administrator, not the company itself. Marc Green did not buy OK Bulls and certainly is not obliged to take on OK Bulls debts.

Technically and legally Marc Green does not need to pay the creditors, that is just something the RFL dreamt up to justify a reduction in the points deduction in previous cases. Nobody can issue a winding up order on Marc Green for an OK Bulls debt.

That is the whole point of administration just to be clear.

Any payments made to OK Bulls creditors by the current regime would be entirely at their discretion but they are under no obligation to pay anyone.
Absolutely correct Sad Bull!

"Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts. Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off. We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforeseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforeseen"

Maybe your lack of comprehension on the REASON for today’s Hearing may be one explanation that your posts are voted down – couldn’t imagine any other reason – no, really!

Fat Singing Lady - " But it's wins against London, Warrington and Wakefield (twice) = 8 points?! Still having problems with this little chestnut eh?
[quote][p][bold]Sad bull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ship rock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ship rock[/bold] wrote: I don't understand why the bulls should have to pay back the creditors if they have already been docked the points and put into special measures, possibly the outcome of the hearing is that they have the money to pay back creditors if points are given back and special measures lifted? Just a thought[/p][/quote]No, this is a case of wanting ones cake and to eat it. The creditors won't be paid whatever the outcome is today.[/p][/quote]I'm just going off the comments on here that it was part of the bid to pay off creditors to get control of the bulls, why would they if there are already sanctions in place?[/p][/quote]The points deduction was the punishment for going into administration. The creditors still need paying or one of them could issue a further winding order against the Club because Green by taking over the Club has taken over the Debt as well.[/p][/quote]That is not correct. You buy the assets of a company from an administrator, not the company itself. Marc Green did not buy OK Bulls and certainly is not obliged to take on OK Bulls debts. Technically and legally Marc Green does not need to pay the creditors, that is just something the RFL dreamt up to justify a reduction in the points deduction in previous cases. Nobody can issue a winding up order on Marc Green for an OK Bulls debt. That is the whole point of administration just to be clear. Any payments made to OK Bulls creditors by the current regime would be entirely at their discretion but they are under no obligation to pay anyone.[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct Sad Bull! "Thee Voice of Reason wrote: If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts. Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off. We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforeseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforeseen" Maybe your lack of comprehension on the REASON for today’s Hearing may be one explanation that your posts are voted down – couldn’t imagine any other reason – no, really! Fat Singing Lady - " But it's wins against London, Warrington and Wakefield (twice) = 8 points?! Still having problems with this little chestnut eh? Sheffieldbull
  • Score: 2

12:39pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Loyalbull1981 says...

I would like to get some points back just to see if the Wakey chairman does as he says and walks away from the game. I dont like false promises had enough of them. I reckon we will get 2 points back as other clubs have been deducted 4 points for admin before and 2 poins would be fair.
I would like to get some points back just to see if the Wakey chairman does as he says and walks away from the game. I dont like false promises had enough of them. I reckon we will get 2 points back as other clubs have been deducted 4 points for admin before and 2 poins would be fair. Loyalbull1981
  • Score: -1

12:48pm Wed 4 Jun 14

spanglishbull.uk says...

T.V.O.R.
The reckless spending and mismanagement was not carried out by the present board.It was carried out by others,they are the ones who should be punished not the players,supporters etc. If any company goes bust do the employees get punished for their mismanagement.Do the new owners get punished for the previous incumbents.No. I would assume that could be one of the arguments put forward by Marc Green.You are only assuming that the R.F.L stipulated that for him to take over the Bulls he had to agree to take on the debt..You are like the rest of us,you do not know.You are guessing,if you are right you will say "I told you so" if you are wrong there will no comment admitting you was wrong.It is time you realised you do not know anything,it is just your opinion,which you are entitled to,but do not try to imagine you know what was said behind closed doors.You do not,accept it.
T.V.O.R. The reckless spending and mismanagement was not carried out by the present board.It was carried out by others,they are the ones who should be punished not the players,supporters etc. If any company goes bust do the employees get punished for their mismanagement.Do the new owners get punished for the previous incumbents.No. I would assume that could be one of the arguments put forward by Marc Green.You are only assuming that the R.F.L stipulated that for him to take over the Bulls he had to agree to take on the debt..You are like the rest of us,you do not know.You are guessing,if you are right you will say "I told you so" if you are wrong there will no comment admitting you was wrong.It is time you realised you do not know anything,it is just your opinion,which you are entitled to,but do not try to imagine you know what was said behind closed doors.You do not,accept it. spanglishbull.uk
  • Score: 4

12:49pm Wed 4 Jun 14

blue marlin says...

As we all sit at our laptops or what ever putting our points across weather we are fans, creditors, both or just plain S**t stirrer's the big problem hear is nobody has the full facts and i often wonder how we would feel if we were told them,
over to you ? ? ?
Correct, clubs should be run in a fit and proper manor, but has been pointed out you can't blame the present owners for the mess of the last couple or so.
From purely a football point of view super league need the bulls in the top flight if only from a crowd point of view i also think that the city of bradford need it as well as the city needs as much publicty as possble, which at the moment is in very short supply.
As we all sit at our laptops or what ever putting our points across weather we are fans, creditors, both or just plain S**t stirrer's the big problem hear is nobody has the full facts and i often wonder how we would feel if we were told them, over to you ? ? ? Correct, clubs should be run in a fit and proper manor, but has been pointed out you can't blame the present owners for the mess of the last couple or so. From purely a football point of view super league need the bulls in the top flight if only from a crowd point of view i also think that the city of bradford need it as well as the city needs as much publicty as possble, which at the moment is in very short supply. blue marlin
  • Score: 1

12:56pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

The best way in my opinion would be for the RFL to pursue OK for the personal guarantee he made to repay sky monies if the club hit financial difficulties again. More has been done by Green and co to cut costs than at any time during the Khan era. He simply carried on regardless in the same vein that nearly killed the club the first time.

Then when this money is fully recovered by the RFL personally from OK, it is used to pay off all the creditors except OK.

Then on that basis a fair outcome would be to reduce the points deduction to 2 as a slap on the wrist.

Sutcliffe's silence in all this is deafening, and as he is not longer standing for Bradford South, we can only presume there is more to come and the labour party are scared it will damage their chances of keeping that seat.

The way this seems to be being contested on the basis it was unforseen is just rubbish. Don't pay HMRC and you know what the concequences will be to suggest it as unforseen doesn't seem to wash.
The best way in my opinion would be for the RFL to pursue OK for the personal guarantee he made to repay sky monies if the club hit financial difficulties again. More has been done by Green and co to cut costs than at any time during the Khan era. He simply carried on regardless in the same vein that nearly killed the club the first time. Then when this money is fully recovered by the RFL personally from OK, it is used to pay off all the creditors except OK. Then on that basis a fair outcome would be to reduce the points deduction to 2 as a slap on the wrist. Sutcliffe's silence in all this is deafening, and as he is not longer standing for Bradford South, we can only presume there is more to come and the labour party are scared it will damage their chances of keeping that seat. The way this seems to be being contested on the basis it was unforseen is just rubbish. Don't pay HMRC and you know what the concequences will be to suggest it as unforseen doesn't seem to wash. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: -4

1:12pm Wed 4 Jun 14

blue marlin says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
The best way in my opinion would be for the RFL to pursue OK for the personal guarantee he made to repay sky monies if the club hit financial difficulties again. More has been done by Green and co to cut costs than at any time during the Khan era. He simply carried on regardless in the same vein that nearly killed the club the first time. Then when this money is fully recovered by the RFL personally from OK, it is used to pay off all the creditors except OK. Then on that basis a fair outcome would be to reduce the points deduction to 2 as a slap on the wrist. Sutcliffe's silence in all this is deafening, and as he is not longer standing for Bradford South, we can only presume there is more to come and the labour party are scared it will damage their chances of keeping that seat. The way this seems to be being contested on the basis it was unforseen is just rubbish. Don't pay HMRC and you know what the concequences will be to suggest it as unforseen doesn't seem to wash.
that sounds like a sensible idea but the big flaw is that there is nowt common about sence.
Re Sutcliffe wha do you except?
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: The best way in my opinion would be for the RFL to pursue OK for the personal guarantee he made to repay sky monies if the club hit financial difficulties again. More has been done by Green and co to cut costs than at any time during the Khan era. He simply carried on regardless in the same vein that nearly killed the club the first time. Then when this money is fully recovered by the RFL personally from OK, it is used to pay off all the creditors except OK. Then on that basis a fair outcome would be to reduce the points deduction to 2 as a slap on the wrist. Sutcliffe's silence in all this is deafening, and as he is not longer standing for Bradford South, we can only presume there is more to come and the labour party are scared it will damage their chances of keeping that seat. The way this seems to be being contested on the basis it was unforseen is just rubbish. Don't pay HMRC and you know what the concequences will be to suggest it as unforseen doesn't seem to wash.[/p][/quote]that sounds like a sensible idea but the big flaw is that there is nowt common about sence. Re Sutcliffe wha do you except? blue marlin
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Ship rock says...

blue marlin wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
The best way in my opinion would be for the RFL to pursue OK for the personal guarantee he made to repay sky monies if the club hit financial difficulties again. More has been done by Green and co to cut costs than at any time during the Khan era. He simply carried on regardless in the same vein that nearly killed the club the first time. Then when this money is fully recovered by the RFL personally from OK, it is used to pay off all the creditors except OK. Then on that basis a fair outcome would be to reduce the points deduction to 2 as a slap on the wrist. Sutcliffe's silence in all this is deafening, and as he is not longer standing for Bradford South, we can only presume there is more to come and the labour party are scared it will damage their chances of keeping that seat. The way this seems to be being contested on the basis it was unforseen is just rubbish. Don't pay HMRC and you know what the concequences will be to suggest it as unforseen doesn't seem to wash.
that sounds like a sensible idea but the big flaw is that there is nowt common about sence.
Re Sutcliffe wha do you except?
I thought there was a story on this site a few weeks ago which said that the rfl were pursuing OK for £990,000 or a number along those lines? So if the rfl gain money back will they pay creditors?

Maybe Marc Green sees the unforeseen circumstances as he was only a creditor at the time rather than the owner, if the rfl are chasing OK for the money then it was unforeseen by the creditors as he was essentially not using money for other ventures?? Pure speculation and opinion
[quote][p][bold]blue marlin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: The best way in my opinion would be for the RFL to pursue OK for the personal guarantee he made to repay sky monies if the club hit financial difficulties again. More has been done by Green and co to cut costs than at any time during the Khan era. He simply carried on regardless in the same vein that nearly killed the club the first time. Then when this money is fully recovered by the RFL personally from OK, it is used to pay off all the creditors except OK. Then on that basis a fair outcome would be to reduce the points deduction to 2 as a slap on the wrist. Sutcliffe's silence in all this is deafening, and as he is not longer standing for Bradford South, we can only presume there is more to come and the labour party are scared it will damage their chances of keeping that seat. The way this seems to be being contested on the basis it was unforseen is just rubbish. Don't pay HMRC and you know what the concequences will be to suggest it as unforseen doesn't seem to wash.[/p][/quote]that sounds like a sensible idea but the big flaw is that there is nowt common about sence. Re Sutcliffe wha do you except?[/p][/quote]I thought there was a story on this site a few weeks ago which said that the rfl were pursuing OK for £990,000 or a number along those lines? So if the rfl gain money back will they pay creditors? Maybe Marc Green sees the unforeseen circumstances as he was only a creditor at the time rather than the owner, if the rfl are chasing OK for the money then it was unforeseen by the creditors as he was essentially not using money for other ventures?? Pure speculation and opinion Ship rock
  • Score: 1

1:35pm Wed 4 Jun 14

spanglishbull.uk says...

T.V.O.R.
For once I fully agree with your last comments.That way at least one of the culprits will be made to pay.Whether that would be legal,I would not know.But if it was not a stipulation that if Marc Green did not pay the debtors he would not be allowed to buy the club is a different matter.I would have thought that was illegal.As one poster has stated they cannot force Marc Green to pay off the debts so I do not see how they can therefore legally penalise the club.The club is no longer owned by O.K. Bulls.That could quite possibly be the legal argument put forward by Marc.Green.Looking at the panel members they should certainly know what is or is not a legal penalty able to be carried out by the R.F.L.We shall see.
T.V.O.R. For once I fully agree with your last comments.That way at least one of the culprits will be made to pay.Whether that would be legal,I would not know.But if it was not a stipulation that if Marc Green did not pay the debtors he would not be allowed to buy the club is a different matter.I would have thought that was illegal.As one poster has stated they cannot force Marc Green to pay off the debts so I do not see how they can therefore legally penalise the club.The club is no longer owned by O.K. Bulls.That could quite possibly be the legal argument put forward by Marc.Green.Looking at the panel members they should certainly know what is or is not a legal penalty able to be carried out by the R.F.L.We shall see. spanglishbull.uk
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Spirit of '64 says...

Just a thought but I imagine the debt HMRC were trying to recover was incurred by OK Bulls and not the new regime. So again depending on the purchase agreement it is highly likely Marc Green would not consider that debt to be his responsibility. Given that scenario I think Green does have a legitimate case. It may not be morally correct but there are no morals in business any way and I don't feel the RFL has acted in a morally correct way.

I really fear for the future of RL in this country given the apparent lack of (quality) leadership coming from the RFL
Just a thought but I imagine the debt HMRC were trying to recover was incurred by OK Bulls and not the new regime. So again depending on the purchase agreement it is highly likely Marc Green would not consider that debt to be his responsibility. Given that scenario I think Green does have a legitimate case. It may not be morally correct but there are no morals in business any way and I don't feel the RFL has acted in a morally correct way. I really fear for the future of RL in this country given the apparent lack of (quality) leadership coming from the RFL Spirit of '64
  • Score: 3

1:41pm Wed 4 Jun 14

flashdonut says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts.
Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off.
We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.
TVOR. You are thinking (like most people to be honest) that we are appealing the penalty for going into administration. We are in fact appealing the process of entering. We believe that it was flawed and with bad judgement and guidance. In other words we shouldn't have entered administration. The case to was not strong enough. Yes, we had debts (but so do other clubs). If (big if) the process was flawed, then in theory all points could be re-instated. The process cannot be 'nearly correct'. It is or isn't. We are going for broke as the saying goes.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts. Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off. We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.[/p][/quote]TVOR. You are thinking (like most people to be honest) that we are appealing the penalty for going into administration. We are in fact appealing the process of entering. We believe that it was flawed and with bad judgement and guidance. In other words we shouldn't have entered administration. The case to was not strong enough. Yes, we had debts (but so do other clubs). If (big if) the process was flawed, then in theory all points could be re-instated. The process cannot be 'nearly correct'. It is or isn't. We are going for broke as the saying goes. flashdonut
  • Score: 1

1:42pm Wed 4 Jun 14

flashdonut says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Easy to vote down comments wihtout giving an opinion. Where are the replies from those who have voted my comment down. There should be at least 6 posts telling me why I'm wrong but there isn't any.
I voted this up.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Easy to vote down comments wihtout giving an opinion. Where are the replies from those who have voted my comment down. There should be at least 6 posts telling me why I'm wrong but there isn't any.[/p][/quote]I voted this up. flashdonut
  • Score: -4

1:51pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Sheffieldbull says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
The best way in my opinion would be for the RFL to pursue OK for the personal guarantee he made to repay sky monies if the club hit financial difficulties again. More has been done by Green and co to cut costs than at any time during the Khan era. He simply carried on regardless in the same vein that nearly killed the club the first time.

Then when this money is fully recovered by the RFL personally from OK, it is used to pay off all the creditors except OK.

Then on that basis a fair outcome would be to reduce the points deduction to 2 as a slap on the wrist.

Sutcliffe's silence in all this is deafening, and as he is not longer standing for Bradford South, we can only presume there is more to come and the labour party are scared it will damage their chances of keeping that seat.

The way this seems to be being contested on the basis it was unforseen is just rubbish. Don't pay HMRC and you know what the concequences will be to suggest it as unforseen doesn't seem to wash.
For once I agree with you TVoR! Any PG’s should be pursued by the RFL and Bradford Council – Those, after all, have nothing to do with the present Owners and PG’s are not protected by Limited Company Liability.

I also find the unpaid debts to the creditors unpalatable; I’ve been on the receiving end of such situations. We do however need to remember that this is the way Business operates in this Country, whether we like it or not.
My understanding of the Hearing today revolves around the reason Administration (2) was entered. Did the RFL promote this route to resolve the ownership/share issue with OK? Was that the reason for M Moore’s ill advised statement following that meeting re, no point deduction / level playing field for 2014 season? It was well documented that the RFL both chaired meeting and advised the Bulls leading up to the ‘3 amigos’ walking away – did they walk because they believed they’d been ‘stitched up’ by Rimmer and Co (RFL)?
I like many Bulls fans will accept the rulings made following today’s Hearing and hopefully we’ll be able to draw a line under the whole sorry mess. If any or all the points raised in the previous paragraph point to culpability by the RFL, then a whole bigger problem remains for our game in general.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: The best way in my opinion would be for the RFL to pursue OK for the personal guarantee he made to repay sky monies if the club hit financial difficulties again. More has been done by Green and co to cut costs than at any time during the Khan era. He simply carried on regardless in the same vein that nearly killed the club the first time. Then when this money is fully recovered by the RFL personally from OK, it is used to pay off all the creditors except OK. Then on that basis a fair outcome would be to reduce the points deduction to 2 as a slap on the wrist. Sutcliffe's silence in all this is deafening, and as he is not longer standing for Bradford South, we can only presume there is more to come and the labour party are scared it will damage their chances of keeping that seat. The way this seems to be being contested on the basis it was unforseen is just rubbish. Don't pay HMRC and you know what the concequences will be to suggest it as unforseen doesn't seem to wash.[/p][/quote]For once I agree with you TVoR! Any PG’s should be pursued by the RFL and Bradford Council – Those, after all, have nothing to do with the present Owners and PG’s are not protected by Limited Company Liability. I also find the unpaid debts to the creditors unpalatable; I’ve been on the receiving end of such situations. We do however need to remember that this is the way Business operates in this Country, whether we like it or not. My understanding of the Hearing today revolves around the reason Administration (2) was entered. Did the RFL promote this route to resolve the ownership/share issue with OK? Was that the reason for M Moore’s ill advised statement following that meeting re, no point deduction / level playing field for 2014 season? It was well documented that the RFL both chaired meeting and advised the Bulls leading up to the ‘3 amigos’ walking away – did they walk because they believed they’d been ‘stitched up’ by Rimmer and Co (RFL)? I like many Bulls fans will accept the rulings made following today’s Hearing and hopefully we’ll be able to draw a line under the whole sorry mess. If any or all the points raised in the previous paragraph point to culpability by the RFL, then a whole bigger problem remains for our game in general. Sheffieldbull
  • Score: 4

2:13pm Wed 4 Jun 14

blue marlin says...

I have got to say that the debate today with regards this story has been quite refreshing, sensible points and counter points.

As i have asked before all people want to know is what went on etc etc,
one thing that does make me wonder,
A part from making a wedge why woud marc green lend OK the money in the 1st place and he must have know the risk?
if not why?
I have got to say that the debate today with regards this story has been quite refreshing, sensible points and counter points. As i have asked before all people want to know is what went on etc etc, one thing that does make me wonder, A part from making a wedge why woud marc green lend OK the money in the 1st place and he must have know the risk? if not why? blue marlin
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Wed 4 Jun 14

portugalbull says...

A lot of speculation on here today and we'll just have to wait and see.

RFL took Sky monies from OK and the amount was about the same as the creditors from Hood era. Did they pay off those creditors or give the other SL clubs further advantage by spreading the money among them. Double standards.
Did not Moore etc offer to pay back OK creditors, except OK, from future Sky monies,and as a result Rimmer for the RFL is supposed to have said no deductions or special measures if put into administration. The RFL then docked 6points plus measures due to administration. Double standards so Moore walked away.
If result from the panel does not go RFL way they have said the final decision is with them so there's still twists and turns to come.
As I've said before under trade description RFL not fit for purpose.
A lot of speculation on here today and we'll just have to wait and see. RFL took Sky monies from OK and the amount was about the same as the creditors from Hood era. Did they pay off those creditors or give the other SL clubs further advantage by spreading the money among them. Double standards. Did not Moore etc offer to pay back OK creditors, except OK, from future Sky monies,and as a result Rimmer for the RFL is supposed to have said no deductions or special measures if put into administration. The RFL then docked 6points plus measures due to administration. Double standards so Moore walked away. If result from the panel does not go RFL way they have said the final decision is with them so there's still twists and turns to come. As I've said before under trade description RFL not fit for purpose. portugalbull
  • Score: 5

2:53pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Bull4Life says...

I'd like to start off by saying right off the bat that I, like everyone else it would seem, am not in possession of the full facts surrounding the Bulls going into administration, so the following is my suggestion of what *may* be part of the basis for the Bulls appeal today.

Here is an excerpt from a statement released by Mark Moore on behalf of the trio that walked away after the 6 points deduction and licence restrictions were meted out...

*** Begin ***

“I am also extremely surprised by the current position of the RFL, given the fact that they have guided us and advised us on the majority of decisions made over the past five to six months. We were more than grateful of their assistance, as they have been integral in getting us to this stage.

“More frustratingly, this process has been amplified by the fact that administration could have been avoided.

“Should the meeting held at the Provident Stadium, on January 9, which was designed to draw a line under the club’s ownership and was chaired by the RFL, had followed its course properly and professionally then none of this would have occurred.

“The meeting included a quartet of important stakeholders, including Omar Khan and his associates, the club’s debenture holder, representatives of the current board and, of the RFL, Ralph Rimmer and Blake Solly.

“Without following proper protocol, the RFL closed the meeting while discussions were still taking place and stakeholders were allowed to leave.

“No documents were signed and, as such, this led to a disagreement in the weeks which followed between one stakeholder and the other three.

“This poor leadership by the RFL was, I believe, detrimental to the ownership of the club being agreed amicably, which then ultimately led to it then being forced into administration.

“Due to the error made by the governing body, the players, staff and supporters have now been asked to suffer a six-point deduction along with heavy financial restrictions.

*** End ***

Now, I don't know what "proper portocol" is for meetings chaired by the RFL, but could it be that the Bulls appeal is based on the claim that this crucial meeting, which could have led to a resolution to the ownership saga, was curtailed unprofessionaly and possibly even against established procedures, whilst negotiations were still ongoing and that as a direct result of this, the Bulls were prevented from finding a resolution that would have enabled them to avoid going into administration?

Is this why they are banding about the term 'force majeure' claiming that they were 'forced' into administration?

Just putting it out there. If there is any truth at all and the RFL have indeed acted against established procedures, would that be sufficient to award us our points back?

For anyone interested, the full report including a response by the RFL to the accusations can be found here:

http://www.yorkshire
post.co.uk/sport/rug
by-league/bradford-b
ulls/bulls-and-rfl-c
lash-over-troubled-b
radford-1-6461780
I'd like to start off by saying right off the bat that I, like everyone else it would seem, am not in possession of the full facts surrounding the Bulls going into administration, so the following is my suggestion of what *may* be part of the basis for the Bulls appeal today. Here is an excerpt from a statement released by Mark Moore on behalf of the trio that walked away after the 6 points deduction and licence restrictions were meted out... *** Begin *** “I am also extremely surprised by the current position of the RFL, given the fact that they have guided us and advised us on the majority of decisions made over the past five to six months. We were more than grateful of their assistance, as they have been integral in getting us to this stage. “More frustratingly, this process has been amplified by the fact that administration could have been avoided. “Should the meeting held at the Provident Stadium, on January 9, which was designed to draw a line under the club’s ownership and was chaired by the RFL, had followed its course properly and professionally then none of this would have occurred. “The meeting included a quartet of important stakeholders, including Omar Khan and his associates, the club’s debenture holder, representatives of the current board and, of the RFL, Ralph Rimmer and Blake Solly. “Without following proper protocol, the RFL closed the meeting while discussions were still taking place and stakeholders were allowed to leave. “No documents were signed and, as such, this led to a disagreement in the weeks which followed between one stakeholder and the other three. “This poor leadership by the RFL was, I believe, detrimental to the ownership of the club being agreed amicably, which then ultimately led to it then being forced into administration. “Due to the error made by the governing body, the players, staff and supporters have now been asked to suffer a six-point deduction along with heavy financial restrictions. *** End *** Now, I don't know what "proper portocol" is for meetings chaired by the RFL, but could it be that the Bulls appeal is based on the claim that this crucial meeting, which could have led to a resolution to the ownership saga, was curtailed unprofessionaly and possibly even against established procedures, whilst negotiations were still ongoing and that as a direct result of this, the Bulls were prevented from finding a resolution that would have enabled them to avoid going into administration? Is this why they are banding about the term 'force majeure' claiming that they were 'forced' into administration? Just putting it out there. If there is any truth at all and the RFL have indeed acted against established procedures, would that be sufficient to award us our points back? For anyone interested, the full report including a response by the RFL to the accusations can be found here: http://www.yorkshire post.co.uk/sport/rug by-league/bradford-b ulls/bulls-and-rfl-c lash-over-troubled-b radford-1-6461780 Bull4Life
  • Score: 7

2:59pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Pablo says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts.
Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off.
We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.
Quite right, TVOR.

Rules are rules. We don't deserve any points back. It's immaterial who's running the club now. As you say, we have to pay the penalty as a deterrent to others who pay no regard to running a club properly.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts. Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off. We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.[/p][/quote]Quite right, TVOR. Rules are rules. We don't deserve any points back. It's immaterial who's running the club now. As you say, we have to pay the penalty as a deterrent to others who pay no regard to running a club properly. Pablo
  • Score: 4

3:41pm Wed 4 Jun 14

BD16 says...

spanglishbull.uk wrote:
T.V.O.R.
The reckless spending and mismanagement was not carried out by the present board.It was carried out by others,they are the ones who should be punished not the players,supporters etc. If any company goes bust do the employees get punished for their mismanagement.Do the new owners get punished for the previous incumbents.No. I would assume that could be one of the arguments put forward by Marc Green.You are only assuming that the R.F.L stipulated that for him to take over the Bulls he had to agree to take on the debt..You are like the rest of us,you do not know.You are guessing,if you are right you will say "I told you so" if you are wrong there will no comment admitting you was wrong.It is time you realised you do not know anything,it is just your opinion,which you are entitled to,but do not try to imagine you know what was said behind closed doors.You do not,accept it.
Are you suggesting that the Bull's shouldn't have had a points deduction? If you are, how does that look to the rest of the sport? Oh look, the Bulls ran up enormous debts, went into admin shafting all creditors, apart from the new owner, and emerged with a shiny new debt free company.

The points deductions are supposed to be a way of encouraging proper financial management and ensuring that the supporters and players of all other clubs don't see clubs pulling a fast one and gaining an unfair advantage.
[quote][p][bold]spanglishbull.uk[/bold] wrote: T.V.O.R. The reckless spending and mismanagement was not carried out by the present board.It was carried out by others,they are the ones who should be punished not the players,supporters etc. If any company goes bust do the employees get punished for their mismanagement.Do the new owners get punished for the previous incumbents.No. I would assume that could be one of the arguments put forward by Marc Green.You are only assuming that the R.F.L stipulated that for him to take over the Bulls he had to agree to take on the debt..You are like the rest of us,you do not know.You are guessing,if you are right you will say "I told you so" if you are wrong there will no comment admitting you was wrong.It is time you realised you do not know anything,it is just your opinion,which you are entitled to,but do not try to imagine you know what was said behind closed doors.You do not,accept it.[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that the Bull's shouldn't have had a points deduction? If you are, how does that look to the rest of the sport? Oh look, the Bulls ran up enormous debts, went into admin shafting all creditors, apart from the new owner, and emerged with a shiny new debt free company. The points deductions are supposed to be a way of encouraging proper financial management and ensuring that the supporters and players of all other clubs don't see clubs pulling a fast one and gaining an unfair advantage. BD16
  • Score: 3

4:04pm Wed 4 Jun 14

spanglishbull.uk says...

Bd16,
I am not suggesting the Bulls do not have points deducted.I have no idea what went on behind closed,nor do you or any other person on this forum.I am merely quoting that the culprits walk away scot free whilst the innocent parties,coaches,play
ers etc. stand to lose their livelihoods.I merely question if what the R.F.L. did was legal.I personally do not think that they can legally try to force a new owner of a company to pay off the outstanding debts of the previous company which in this case was O.K.Bulls.It also seems to me that they are probably not legally entitled to penalise that new Company.I to have been on the receiving end on companies going bust so realise it is not a pleasant thing to happen.My own feeling is that Marc Green probably feels that they are been punished for somebody else,s misdemeanours.Howeve
r,we shall see shortly,or maybe not knowing the R.F.L.
Bd16, I am not suggesting the Bulls do not have points deducted.I have no idea what went on behind closed,nor do you or any other person on this forum.I am merely quoting that the culprits walk away scot free whilst the innocent parties,coaches,play ers etc. stand to lose their livelihoods.I merely question if what the R.F.L. did was legal.I personally do not think that they can legally try to force a new owner of a company to pay off the outstanding debts of the previous company which in this case was O.K.Bulls.It also seems to me that they are probably not legally entitled to penalise that new Company.I to have been on the receiving end on companies going bust so realise it is not a pleasant thing to happen.My own feeling is that Marc Green probably feels that they are been punished for somebody else,s misdemeanours.Howeve r,we shall see shortly,or maybe not knowing the R.F.L. spanglishbull.uk
  • Score: -1

4:17pm Wed 4 Jun 14

blue marlin says...

spanglishbull.uk wrote:
Bd16, I am not suggesting the Bulls do not have points deducted.I have no idea what went on behind closed,nor do you or any other person on this forum.I am merely quoting that the culprits walk away scot free whilst the innocent parties,coaches,play ers etc. stand to lose their livelihoods.I merely question if what the R.F.L. did was legal.I personally do not think that they can legally try to force a new owner of a company to pay off the outstanding debts of the previous company which in this case was O.K.Bulls.It also seems to me that they are probably not legally entitled to penalise that new Company.I to have been on the receiving end on companies going bust so realise it is not a pleasant thing to happen.My own feeling is that Marc Green probably feels that they are been punished for somebody else,s misdemeanours.Howeve r,we shall see shortly,or maybe not knowing the R.F.L.
I would suggest that most people who have posted today would agree that the culprits appear to be getting away scott free.
on an earlier post somebody mentioned HMCR lost out, dont they get first shout on any monies?
[quote][p][bold]spanglishbull.uk[/bold] wrote: Bd16, I am not suggesting the Bulls do not have points deducted.I have no idea what went on behind closed,nor do you or any other person on this forum.I am merely quoting that the culprits walk away scot free whilst the innocent parties,coaches,play ers etc. stand to lose their livelihoods.I merely question if what the R.F.L. did was legal.I personally do not think that they can legally try to force a new owner of a company to pay off the outstanding debts of the previous company which in this case was O.K.Bulls.It also seems to me that they are probably not legally entitled to penalise that new Company.I to have been on the receiving end on companies going bust so realise it is not a pleasant thing to happen.My own feeling is that Marc Green probably feels that they are been punished for somebody else,s misdemeanours.Howeve r,we shall see shortly,or maybe not knowing the R.F.L.[/p][/quote]I would suggest that most people who have posted today would agree that the culprits appear to be getting away scott free. on an earlier post somebody mentioned HMCR lost out, dont they get first shout on any monies? blue marlin
  • Score: 2

4:35pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Sad bull says...

flashdonut wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts.
Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off.
We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.
TVOR. You are thinking (like most people to be honest) that we are appealing the penalty for going into administration. We are in fact appealing the process of entering. We believe that it was flawed and with bad judgement and guidance. In other words we shouldn't have entered administration. The case to was not strong enough. Yes, we had debts (but so do other clubs). If (big if) the process was flawed, then in theory all points could be re-instated. The process cannot be 'nearly correct'. It is or isn't. We are going for broke as the saying goes.
Very good point and another thought :

If the RFL were " involved " in the decision to go into admin. and at the time it was well documented that they chaired a number of meetings etc. then the argument could be that the RFL advised entering administration or at the very least approved of it, for reasons known only to them, so how can it be right to deduct points when the Bulls simply followed RFL advice ?

Interesting thought.
[quote][p][bold]flashdonut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts. Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off. We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.[/p][/quote]TVOR. You are thinking (like most people to be honest) that we are appealing the penalty for going into administration. We are in fact appealing the process of entering. We believe that it was flawed and with bad judgement and guidance. In other words we shouldn't have entered administration. The case to was not strong enough. Yes, we had debts (but so do other clubs). If (big if) the process was flawed, then in theory all points could be re-instated. The process cannot be 'nearly correct'. It is or isn't. We are going for broke as the saying goes.[/p][/quote]Very good point and another thought : If the RFL were " involved " in the decision to go into admin. and at the time it was well documented that they chaired a number of meetings etc. then the argument could be that the RFL advised entering administration or at the very least approved of it, for reasons known only to them, so how can it be right to deduct points when the Bulls simply followed RFL advice ? Interesting thought. Sad bull
  • Score: 2

4:40pm Wed 4 Jun 14

flashdonut says...

Pablo wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts.
Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off.
We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.
Quite right, TVOR.

Rules are rules. We don't deserve any points back. It's immaterial who's running the club now. As you say, we have to pay the penalty as a deterrent to others who pay no regard to running a club properly.
Again, you are assuming we are appealing the two point penalty. Suppose we should not have entered administration. Suppose the people that guided us into that situation were incorrect in their guidance and reasoning. Suppose the sports governing body acted unprofessionally and forced upon a situation that was unfounded. Just as Bull4Life is pointing out above.
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts. Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off. We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.[/p][/quote]Quite right, TVOR. Rules are rules. We don't deserve any points back. It's immaterial who's running the club now. As you say, we have to pay the penalty as a deterrent to others who pay no regard to running a club properly.[/p][/quote]Again, you are assuming we are appealing the two point penalty. Suppose we should not have entered administration. Suppose the people that guided us into that situation were incorrect in their guidance and reasoning. Suppose the sports governing body acted unprofessionally and forced upon a situation that was unfounded. Just as Bull4Life is pointing out above. flashdonut
  • Score: -2

5:08pm Wed 4 Jun 14

raisemeup says...

northern pig wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Easy to vote down comments wihtout giving an opinion. Where are the replies from those who have voted my comment down. There should be at least 6 posts telling me why I'm wrong but there isn't any.
Absolutely right,the trouble is,most of the posters on the points deduction issue,are looking through red amber and black glasses.In the real world!! if you default on a financial obligation,you just cannot ignore,or walk away from it.The only way is to declare yourself bankrupt, As a lifelong Northern/Bulls supporter,from a real world perspective,the Bulls have not been hard done by
.Speaking from the RAB spectacle wearers position ,we would wish for some or all points back, and it would be ideal if all the information from the tribunal was made public, only then can we know what actually transpired?
As I have said to TVOR and now to you, To say anything else at this moment is mischievous. The fact that MG has called and paid for this legal Tribunal is indicative that he/they feel some injustice has taken place. He has stated that whatever happens at the tribunal it will be accepted. Why do you and the likes of TVOR make vindictive comments, when it seems to me the current owners of the club are taking a legal step to air their case in the public domain.
[quote][p][bold]northern pig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Easy to vote down comments wihtout giving an opinion. Where are the replies from those who have voted my comment down. There should be at least 6 posts telling me why I'm wrong but there isn't any.[/p][/quote]Absolutely right,the trouble is,most of the posters on the points deduction issue,are looking through red amber and black glasses.In the real world!! if you default on a financial obligation,you just cannot ignore,or walk away from it.The only way is to declare yourself bankrupt, As a lifelong Northern/Bulls supporter,from a real world perspective,the Bulls have not been hard done by[/p][/quote].Speaking from the RAB spectacle wearers position ,we would wish for some or all points back, and it would be ideal if all the information from the tribunal was made public, only then can we know what actually transpired? As I have said to TVOR and now to you, To say anything else at this moment is mischievous. The fact that MG has called and paid for this legal Tribunal is indicative that he/they feel some injustice has taken place. He has stated that whatever happens at the tribunal it will be accepted. Why do you and the likes of TVOR make vindictive comments, when it seems to me the current owners of the club are taking a legal step to air their case in the public domain. raisemeup
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Wed 4 Jun 14

losing hope says...

Why does the T&A nearly always get the headline wrong. They are not doing battle with the RFL but an independent neutral committee of 3 men.
Why does the T&A nearly always get the headline wrong. They are not doing battle with the RFL but an independent neutral committee of 3 men. losing hope
  • Score: 0

5:51pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Bull4Life says...

losing hope wrote:
Why does the T&A nearly always get the headline wrong. They are not doing battle with the RFL but an independent neutral committee of 3 men.
I think you have misunderstood. They are doing battle with the RFL - The Bulls are presenting a case that the RFL should not have imposed sanctions against them, whilst representatives of the RFL are also at the appeal presenting a case defending their actions. The 'independent neutral committee' are simply judge and jury who must decide if any wrong doing has occurred, and if so, whether the imposed sanctions should be lifted, reduced etc.
[quote][p][bold]losing hope[/bold] wrote: Why does the T&A nearly always get the headline wrong. They are not doing battle with the RFL but an independent neutral committee of 3 men.[/p][/quote]I think you have misunderstood. They are doing battle with the RFL - The Bulls are presenting a case that the RFL should not have imposed sanctions against them, whilst representatives of the RFL are also at the appeal presenting a case defending their actions. The 'independent neutral committee' are simply judge and jury who must decide if any wrong doing has occurred, and if so, whether the imposed sanctions should be lifted, reduced etc. Bull4Life
  • Score: 3

6:09pm Wed 4 Jun 14

bradfordbronco says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Easy to vote down comments wihtout giving an opinion. Where are the replies from those who have voted my comment down. There should be at least 6 posts telling me why I'm wrong but there isn't any.
I'm too bored with arguing the same point with you over and over again. You won't listen to any argument. You just want the Bulls punished 'cos you don't like them.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Easy to vote down comments wihtout giving an opinion. Where are the replies from those who have voted my comment down. There should be at least 6 posts telling me why I'm wrong but there isn't any.[/p][/quote]I'm too bored with arguing the same point with you over and over again. You won't listen to any argument. You just want the Bulls punished 'cos you don't like them. bradfordbronco
  • Score: 4

6:15pm Wed 4 Jun 14

bradfordbronco says...

BTW I didn't vote your comment up or down. I NEVER vote on any comment but some people even vote on their comment!! What is the point? Wonder if anybody's ever voted down their own comment
BTW I didn't vote your comment up or down. I NEVER vote on any comment but some people even vote on their comment!! What is the point? Wonder if anybody's ever voted down their own comment bradfordbronco
  • Score: 2

6:15pm Wed 4 Jun 14

melon head says...

Bull4Life wrote:
losing hope wrote:
Why does the T&A nearly always get the headline wrong. They are not doing battle with the RFL but an independent neutral committee of 3 men.
I think you have misunderstood. They are doing battle with the RFL - The Bulls are presenting a case that the RFL should not have imposed sanctions against them, whilst representatives of the RFL are also at the appeal presenting a case defending their actions. The 'independent neutral committee' are simply judge and jury who must decide if any wrong doing has occurred, and if so, whether the imposed sanctions should be lifted, reduced etc.
spot on ,the independent neutral commttee didnt dock us points the rfl did , after they chaired meetings "THEY" so called trying to help,then slapped us with 6 points and special measures.they've been trying to have our pants down for too long.
hope we get all points back,stay up and give them the good old british two fingered salute
[quote][p][bold]Bull4Life[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]losing hope[/bold] wrote: Why does the T&A nearly always get the headline wrong. They are not doing battle with the RFL but an independent neutral committee of 3 men.[/p][/quote]I think you have misunderstood. They are doing battle with the RFL - The Bulls are presenting a case that the RFL should not have imposed sanctions against them, whilst representatives of the RFL are also at the appeal presenting a case defending their actions. The 'independent neutral committee' are simply judge and jury who must decide if any wrong doing has occurred, and if so, whether the imposed sanctions should be lifted, reduced etc.[/p][/quote]spot on ,the independent neutral commttee didnt dock us points the rfl did , after they chaired meetings "THEY" so called trying to help,then slapped us with 6 points and special measures.they've been trying to have our pants down for too long. hope we get all points back,stay up and give them the good old british two fingered salute melon head
  • Score: 2

6:26pm Wed 4 Jun 14

raisemeup says...

portugalbull wrote:
A lot of speculation on here today and we'll just have to wait and see.

RFL took Sky monies from OK and the amount was about the same as the creditors from Hood era. Did they pay off those creditors or give the other SL clubs further advantage by spreading the money among them. Double standards.
Did not Moore etc offer to pay back OK creditors, except OK, from future Sky monies,and as a result Rimmer for the RFL is supposed to have said no deductions or special measures if put into administration. The RFL then docked 6points plus measures due to administration. Double standards so Moore walked away.
If result from the panel does not go RFL way they have said the final decision is with them so there's still twists and turns to come.
As I've said before under trade description RFL not fit for purpose.
Absolutely correct portugalbul.
[quote][p][bold]portugalbull[/bold] wrote: A lot of speculation on here today and we'll just have to wait and see. RFL took Sky monies from OK and the amount was about the same as the creditors from Hood era. Did they pay off those creditors or give the other SL clubs further advantage by spreading the money among them. Double standards. Did not Moore etc offer to pay back OK creditors, except OK, from future Sky monies,and as a result Rimmer for the RFL is supposed to have said no deductions or special measures if put into administration. The RFL then docked 6points plus measures due to administration. Double standards so Moore walked away. If result from the panel does not go RFL way they have said the final decision is with them so there's still twists and turns to come. As I've said before under trade description RFL not fit for purpose.[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct portugalbul. raisemeup
  • Score: 4

6:26pm Wed 4 Jun 14

OdsalOptimist says...

Just on twitter... Need further supportive information and will announce in due course...
Just on twitter... Need further supportive information and will announce in due course... OdsalOptimist
  • Score: 2

8:02pm Wed 4 Jun 14

northern pig says...

raisemeup wrote:
northern pig wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Easy to vote down comments wihtout giving an opinion. Where are the replies from those who have voted my comment down. There should be at least 6 posts telling me why I'm wrong but there isn't any.
Absolutely right,the trouble is,most of the posters on the points deduction issue,are looking through red amber and black glasses.In the real world!! if you default on a financial obligation,you just cannot ignore,or walk away from it.The only way is to declare yourself bankrupt, As a lifelong Northern/Bulls supporter,from a real world perspective,the Bulls have not been hard done by
.Speaking from the RAB spectacle wearers position ,we would wish for some or all points back, and it would be ideal if all the information from the tribunal was made public, only then can we know what actually transpired?
As I have said to TVOR and now to you, To say anything else at this moment is mischievous. The fact that MG has called and paid for this legal Tribunal is indicative that he/they feel some injustice has taken place. He has stated that whatever happens at the tribunal it will be accepted. Why do you and the likes of TVOR make vindictive comments, when it seems to me the current owners of the club are taking a legal step to air their case in the public domain.
MG took over the club with all it's baggage and dirty laundry.It is now his club.He just cannot say 'Nowt to do with me! 'Last year,HMRC were on my case for £50.What makes the Bulls any different, if they owe them money. I do not call that being vindictive.
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]northern pig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Easy to vote down comments wihtout giving an opinion. Where are the replies from those who have voted my comment down. There should be at least 6 posts telling me why I'm wrong but there isn't any.[/p][/quote]Absolutely right,the trouble is,most of the posters on the points deduction issue,are looking through red amber and black glasses.In the real world!! if you default on a financial obligation,you just cannot ignore,or walk away from it.The only way is to declare yourself bankrupt, As a lifelong Northern/Bulls supporter,from a real world perspective,the Bulls have not been hard done by[/p][/quote].Speaking from the RAB spectacle wearers position ,we would wish for some or all points back, and it would be ideal if all the information from the tribunal was made public, only then can we know what actually transpired? As I have said to TVOR and now to you, To say anything else at this moment is mischievous. The fact that MG has called and paid for this legal Tribunal is indicative that he/they feel some injustice has taken place. He has stated that whatever happens at the tribunal it will be accepted. Why do you and the likes of TVOR make vindictive comments, when it seems to me the current owners of the club are taking a legal step to air their case in the public domain.[/p][/quote]MG took over the club with all it's baggage and dirty laundry.It is now his club.He just cannot say 'Nowt to do with me! 'Last year,HMRC were on my case for £50.What makes the Bulls any different, if they owe them money. I do not call that being vindictive. northern pig
  • Score: 3

10:28pm Wed 4 Jun 14

bullofbradford says...

WayneRouke wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts.
Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off.
We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.
WHERE IS KHAN??

Sitting on his bed protecting his pot of gold?

In my view, he borrowed money against the club for personal ventures or to prop up his existing businesses.

He should be chased for the debt, to pay it back.
There should be a petition to investigate Khan's activities. Very suspect.
Why have all the creditors, including council gone quiet?
[quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: If points are given back, it suggess that wreckless spending and mismanagement go unpunished and gives a green light for all to spend what they want then fall into admin to clear debts. Twice in 2 years the Bulls have run up massive debts and twice the creditors have been stung. Meanwhile other clubs have had to service debt that they have when they would no doubt love to see it wiped off. We shall see what the verdict is first but not paying HMRC, then being issued with a winding up order and having the current owner put the club into admin to protect his debt is not unforeseen in my opinion. Just like not paying your mortgage then having the bank come and repossess your house in no unforseen. The consequences for not paying HMRC who were still owed £250k is not unforseen.[/p][/quote]WHERE IS KHAN?? Sitting on his bed protecting his pot of gold? In my view, he borrowed money against the club for personal ventures or to prop up his existing businesses. He should be chased for the debt, to pay it back.[/p][/quote]There should be a petition to investigate Khan's activities. Very suspect. Why have all the creditors, including council gone quiet? bullofbradford
  • Score: 0

11:49pm Wed 4 Jun 14

The Fat Lady Sings says...

losing hope wrote:
Why does the T&A nearly always get the headline wrong. They are not doing battle with the RFL but an independent neutral committee of 3 men.
Because the RFL appear to be mired in something unseemly. Whatever happened to the apology demanded by Mr Moore? Didn't Mr Rimmer put it in the hands of his solicitor? There was certainly a lot of ill feeling between Mr Moore and co and Mr Rimmer when the deal fell through. Someone reneged on something but you have a choice of believing the interpretation of Mr Moore or Mr Rimmer. Oh what a tangled web!
[quote][p][bold]losing hope[/bold] wrote: Why does the T&A nearly always get the headline wrong. They are not doing battle with the RFL but an independent neutral committee of 3 men.[/p][/quote]Because the RFL appear to be mired in something unseemly. Whatever happened to the apology demanded by Mr Moore? Didn't Mr Rimmer put it in the hands of his solicitor? There was certainly a lot of ill feeling between Mr Moore and co and Mr Rimmer when the deal fell through. Someone reneged on something but you have a choice of believing the interpretation of Mr Moore or Mr Rimmer. Oh what a tangled web! The Fat Lady Sings
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree