Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:37 am  

FickleFingerOfFate wrote:

Carter put his house up not to keep us going but against not being able to fulfil his obligations to the RFL.
As for living within you means, don't think you can preach.
Carter said that they spend half of the 300,000 extra money on repaying the loan to the RFL, I would say that's pretty responsible.

Wakefield weren't living within their means then you just said it. You reap what you sow.

Cut your cloth accordingly and stop looking for credit it's what you are supposed to do.

FickleFingerOfFate wrote:

The Bulls have right to appeal but they are in a no lose situation regarding the points deduction, it can't be increased only reduced.

If your supporters club are going to write ill informed letters about the rules being followed you can't then whinge about the rules being followed. Trying to attempt to sway the independent panel's decision could backfire.

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:26 am  

I just don't see how he can keep a straight face when the grounds of your appeal is force majeure!

surely the only way you can justify getting points back is by paying some of the creditors. If that was the basis of your appeal, then I don't think there could be any complaint about you getting 2 back

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:36 am  

Depends what the circumstances of the losses were. Which is why it's going to appeal. Which, as a member club/chairman, Wakey/Mr carter have already signed up to abide by their decision.

The cost of the appeal is met by the party making the appeal, so it is incorrect to say there is no downside.

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:56 am  

Tricky2309 wrote:

I just don't see how he can keep a straight face when the grounds of your appeal is force majeure!

surely the only way you can justify getting points back is by paying some of the creditors. If that was the basis of your appeal, then I don't think there could be any complaint about you getting 2 back

Sorry didn't realise you've been involved with the management of the bulls and know everything that went on.

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:58 am  

Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:

Sorry didn't realise you've been involved with the management of the bulls and know everything that went on.

So what part of the sorry mess was unforseen and unavoidable?

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:04 am  

Tricky2309 wrote:

So what part of the sorry mess was unforseen and unavoidable?

I guess it was forseen and unavoidable you Wakie lot would be on here talking crap

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:08 am  

Dunno. But Mr Green thinks it was unavoidable, and he wasn't the owner at the time, although as the debenture holder, he put them into administration. So he must have demonstrable concerns which he feels will hold up at a tribunal.

And as members of SL, all 14 clubs are contractually bound to abide by the appeal decision. So thats ok as well.

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:35 am  

Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:

Wakefield weren't living within their means then you just said it. You reap what you sow.

Cut your cloth accordingly and stop looking for credit it's what you are supposed to do.

If your supporters club are going to write ill informed letters about the rules being followed you can't then whinge about the rules being followed. Trying to attempt to sway the independent panel's decision could backfire.

We have been in admin and ended up selling some of our players.
To ensure we didn't go into admin last year, MC did cut our cloth accordingly.
As for calling Wake unprofessional, I think everyone and his dog knows we have been run badly for ages.
Bradford now have been in admin twice in about 3 years and the only player you lost first time round was Kopczak and you moaned like mad at that.
Didn't see any major cost cutting after this and this is probably why you are now where you are.
The letter that was wrote maybe ill informed but isn't this why MC asked for clarification from the RFL on what the consequences of administration are?
To get a Super League licence your finances had to be vetted by the RFL, yet 3 or 4 months into the first season you went into admin.
Marc Green can put his case forward for the Bulls and whatever the outcome of the decision is, the RFL needs to have in place in black and white, the penalties for entering admin and not play guessing games.

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:42 am  

Tricky0.2309 I asked the same (good) question when the appeal was announced, or rather that the RFL agreed that there was a basis for an appeal to go ahead. From that wording it would seem to me that the RFL check that there are grounds for an appeal and that its not frivolous. However as you point out it is not obvious what the force majeur was. the only thing I can think of is OK not fufilling his obligations under the deal struck to transfer ownership, under which the trio presumably would have taken on responsibility for payments, including to HMRC. They did make their position clear, no ownership no responsibility and had indeed already resigned once over the issue, for an agreement to then be brokered by the RFL. All conjecture, anybody else any idea of what the force majeur or uncontrollable external event was?

[Bulliac]

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:31 am  

FickleFingerOfFate wrote:

As for living within you means, don't think you can preach.

No one is preaching, maybe just pointing out that it's best if people in glass houses don't throw stones.