Re: FA v Martin : Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:41 am  

So Martin owes me three quid????

Robbing barsteward. I want my 3 quid back.

(failing that I will just have his FA GPS locator so that I can keep tabs on you)

You took out that injuction yet bigboy?

Re: FA v Martin : Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:01 pm  

Re: FA v Martin : Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:18 am  

Bulls Boy 2011 wrote:

On another note correct me if I am wrong but if we do get docked half the money for 2 Years would we lose the same amount over the two years? For example we lose £100,000* this season but if we were to gain promotion to Super League (unlikely) would we lose £100,000* again in 2018 or possibly more due to the increase in money?

*Figure made up for the purpose of ease and to make it easier to discuss.

Sorry for the daft question!

1. The original brainfart by the RFL was to let OK come in, but on the basis that in that season, Bulls would received zero money. Zilch. No money. Nothing.

2. This was financially impossible, so after last-minute discussions, they agreed to penalise Omar over 2 season instead of just one. But, due to it being literally cobbled together at the last minute, it wasn't thought through.

But, what was agreed, was agreed by all parties, in writing.

What Omar had to either accept, take it or leave it, was that in order to be entitled to play in SL in the next 2 seasons, (2013 and 2014) Bulls would only receive 50% of the SL distributions received by other SL clubs in each of those 2 years.

I assume that this condition was an "Omar special" and never to be repeated, but if a similar agreement was to be done this time round, then it would have to be re-drawn, to include distributions to either other Championship clubs, or, if promoted, other SL clubs.

Obviously, the actual amount of future income isn't known, but it doesn't need to be, as the deal is, you get half what the others get.

martinwildbull wrote:

May I refer you to FA to increase your confusion on this point.

On the other hand, the Administrator of OK Bulls in his first report, available for free on Co Ho, confirms my position that we received the money we should have.

It confirms no such thing whatsoever. In fact, it confirms that in two successive months of admin, the administrators had to get advances from RFL on account of future distributions, in order to pay the wages, and the RFL agreed to pay the N.I. etc. The amounts paid were what the administrator asked for, saying that was what he needed to keep trading - not calculated by reference to any share of distribution.

martinwildbull wrote:

So FA is wrong.

So a total non sequitur. Well done.

martinwildbull wrote:

OK challenged the Administrators figures on the balance owed to him, but did not claim that the Administrator had also missed from his figures the outstanding central funding OK had been swindled out of by a 10 year old mathematician.

What a dumb point. The distributions are paid to the CLUB, not to individuals. OK was not in receipt of central funding! OK's (successful) challenge was as a CREDITOR.

martinwildbull wrote:

One of OK or the Administrator is a liar. Make your own minds up, fellow bloggers.

The court agreed with OK. It did not however decide the administrator was "a liar". Just that he got the figures wrong, as he should have admitted the substantial debt due to OK, that he had declined to do. This was, repeat, NOTHING to do with the RFL distributions to the club.

Re: FA v Martin : Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:25 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

1. The original brainfart by the RFL was to let OK come in, but on the basis that in that season, Bulls would received zero money. Zilch. No money. Nothing.

2. This was financially impossible, so after last-minute discussions, they agreed to penalise Omar over 2 season instead of just one. But, due to it being literally cobbled together at the last minute, it wasn't thought through.

But, what was agreed, was agreed by all parties, in writing.

What Omar had to either accept, take it or leave it, was that in order to be entitled to play in SL in the next 2 seasons, (2013 and 2014) Bulls would only receive 50% of the SL distributions received by other SL clubs in each of those 2 years.

I assume that this condition was an "Omar special" and never to be repeated, but if a similar agreement was to be done this time round, then it would have to be re-drawn, to include distributions to either other Championship clubs, or, if promoted, other SL clubs.

Obviously, the actual amount of future income isn't known, but it doesn't need to be, as the deal is, you get half what the others get.

Thanks for that FA, cleared up a few things. So this time round (2017 and 2018) are we subject to half the money again, if not then it seems the penalty in 2012 was very harsh, if we are getting half the money again then at least it's consistent? If they do take half our money, to me is a very very unfair penalty considering the potential loss of money that comes with points deduction. It's basically penalizing the club twice.

Take 2012 for example, without the deduction we would have had additional revenue from finishing in the playoffs, plus additional revenue for having more games ie. attendance, supporter spending (playoffs) so the deduction cost us this revenue. However we also were docked half our money too, so in theory it cost us massively. Missing out on two bits of money.

The part in your quote which I have tried to underline is technically right but technically wrong. For instance (for discussion purposes) if there were 10 other SL teams (11 incuding us) and we were docked that £100,000 and then £100,000 the following year (half the money each year) then other teams would receive £200,000 and we would receive £100,000 each of the two years which is half of everyone's money?

However this wasn't the actual amount they received as they each received a cut of our docked money (which I personally think was shocking, that central funding or Sky money whatever it was should have been invested in grassroots rugby or kept in an account somewhere to gather interest for future RL projects). So in theory the other 10 clubs actually received £210,000 each to our £100,000. So it actually put us at a bigger disadvantage than the original penalty was intended?

Re: FA v Martin : Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:49 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

1. The original brainfart by the RFL was to let OK come in, but on the basis that in that season, Bulls would received zero money. Zilch. No money. Nothing.

2. This was financially impossible, so after last-minute discussions, they agreed to penalise Omar over 2 season instead of just one. But, due to it being literally cobbled together at the last minute, it wasn't thought through.

But, what was agreed, was agreed by all parties, in writing.

What Omar had to either accept, take it or leave it, was that in order to be entitled to play in SL in the next 2 seasons, (2013 and 2014) Bulls would only receive 50% of the SL distributions received by other SL clubs in each of those 2 years.

I assume that this condition was an "Omar special" and never to be repeated, but if a similar agreement was to be done this time round, then it would have to be re-drawn, to include distributions to either other Championship clubs, or, if promoted, other SL clubs.

Obviously, the actual amount of future income isn't known, but it doesn't need to be, as the deal is, you get half what the others get.


It confirms no such thing whatsoever. In fact, it confirms that in two successive months of admin, the administrators had to get advances from RFL on account of future distributions, in order to pay the wages, and the RFL agreed to pay the N.I. etc. The amounts paid were what the administrator asked for, saying that was what he needed to keep trading - not calculated by reference to any share of distribution.


So a total non sequitur. Well done.

What a dumb point. The distributions are paid to the CLUB, not to individuals. OK was not in receipt of central funding! OK's (successful) challenge was as a CREDITOR.

The court agreed with OK. It did not however decide the administrator was "a liar". Just that he got the figures wrong, as he should have admitted the substantial debt due to OK, that he had declined to do. This was, repeat, NOTHING to do with the RFL distributions to the club.

Whilst the whole sorry scenario is littered with brainfarts, and the Omar one being a major one, the original one was the RFL believing Hoods plan that £700k under the table would fix everything.

I dont know the RFL/SL politics, financial agreements, voting arrangements, relationships. But I feel the original £700k was an RFL decision on its own.

Once that secret was leaked, I think the other 13 SL clubs started running the show through the RFL. We were still SL at that time, but obviously suspended, so it would just need a majority of 7:6 SL chairmen to throw in the 50% distribution demand.

Politically theRFL were on the naughty step with the SL chairmen, so weren't able to block the SL demand regarding distribution of SL money, even if they wanted to (or if the financial agreements allowed them to)

In summary, I don't think this was an "Omar special" , I think this was a "Super League special" and Omar was the poor mug in the hot seat when it landed, with the RFL unable to block it or water it down.

Re: FA v Martin : Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:15 pm  

Bulls Boy 2011 wrote:

...

The part in your quote which I have tried to underline is technically right but technically wrong. For instance (for discussion purposes) if there were 10 other SL teams (11 incuding us) and we were docked that £100,000 and then £100,000 the following year (half the money each year) then other teams would receive £200,000 and we would receive £100,000 each of the two years which is half of everyone's money?

However this wasn't the actual amount they received as they each received a cut of our docked money (which I personally think was shocking, that central funding or Sky money whatever it was should have been invested in grassroots rugby or kept in an account somewhere to gather interest for future RL projects). So in theory the other 10 clubs actually received £210,000 each to our £100,000. So it actually put us at a bigger disadvantage than the original penalty was intended?

Exactly right. Those arguing to the contrary have to use smoke and mirrors. If you just deduct half of one share, this is wrong, because then that part of the distribution is undistributed.

But, if you want to do it that way, or as was probably the case, nobody had the wit to see the mistake, you can still arrive at a position where we get half the distribution of the other clubs. You could achieve that by putting the "surplus" into junior rugby, or development; or buying pizzas for Nigel; or funding research into nematodes; or in fact anything, pretty much ANYTHING in the world - EXCEPT you cannot distribute it between the other clubs. Because as soon as you do, that means they are receiving MORE than half what we receive.

Re: FA v Martin : Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:46 pm  

Not hard to work that out to be honest. I am sure we were all in uproar on here about the other SL clubs voting to keep the money. If I remember rightly Leeds turned it down? Could be wrong though. But that money should have definatley gone into grassroots rugby or at the very least into an account and kept for a rainy day.

Either way we lost out big time. And I would go as far as saying it effectively gave us 3 penalties. Loss of Sky Money/Central Funding, Additional Funds for Rivals, Missing Out on Revenue for the Playoffs (point deduction) and the money from attendances and supporters during the playoff campaign. So all in all, a bloody shocking decision from the RFL if I may say so. However they were also the ones who passed the two owners who took us into administration :/