Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:16 am  

TrinityIHC wrote:

Why would the RFL "hang you out to dry" when they have previously bent over backwards to help you out with Iconicgate.

Do you concede that the fact the RFL had egg all over their face over firstly granting a license to a business plan with more holes in it than a piece of mozzarella, then secondly buying the lease on an iconic stadium due to a 'short term' cash flow problem might, just might, have set some people in the RFL on a course to make an example of the club! Mr. Hood and his board were the guilty party in that, subsequent people trying to clear up the mess are the one's punished. Is that not a possibility in your world?

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:27 am  

Adeybull wrote:

I want to know which it is, since I really do not know. So we can indeed put an end to the conspiracy theories (or, for the conspiracy theorists, to the sycophantic acceptance of everything the RFL says) and have closure and move on.

Answering one question tells me yes/no to the conspiracy theory, namely, What prompted Moore to comment there would be no points sanction? Mr. Moore comment please?

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:32 am  

debaser wrote:

Was it? So ALL clubs that go into administration have SIX points deducted? Is that what you are saying?

And all clubs in admin. had 50% of their Sky money withheld and redistributed didn't they. My search engine is bust, couldn't find the links to that.

Really ticks me off when other clubs & supporters talk about fairness from a moral high ground, when it's clear to me the RFL are punishing us to an extra degree because Hood pulled the wool over their eyes twice in less than 6 months.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:33 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

As ever your contorted response to a list of specific question, done in your inimicable and impenetrable " a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma" quoting style, is pure waffle, so why bother, when not a single "response" actually made any attempt to provide answers?

Things there are no evidence of? Allright then I'll start you with an easy one. (And there are lots)

Green's company appointed an administrator to come in.
We know that the minute he came in, he also "sold" the business in a pre-pack (to BB2014)
BB2014 had a temporary licence to run the club in SL.

This evidence proves that the entry into administration and immediate exit of the business to a new owner involved a significant degree of pre-planning. BB2014 couldn't have been the buyers under the pre-pack unless they had previously thrashed out the details and documents in advance with the not-yet-appointed administrator. Nor can they have bought the business unless they knew they would be accepted by the RFL to run it.

None of the above is a conspiracy theory.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Anything on the unsubstantiated £1m yet?

Why did Moore & Co set up BB2014 if they had any genuine intention of purchasing OK Bulls? Let's not forget the directors of BB2014 had allegedly agreed a purchase of OK Bulls from Omar Khan, they joined as directors of the company, and then didn't proceed with the purchase upon learning of financial issues that miraculously Ryan Whitcut knew nothing about.

BB2014 them moved to buy OK Bulls from the administrator. The offer accepted by the administrator was only going to pay off what SSG was owed through it's debenture.

Agreement to purchase from the administrator, whose sole purpose is to act on behalf of creditors, was no guarantee of acceptance by the RFL to run the business going forward.

There were no other bidders or interested parties at the time, so in order to allow them to come forward, a temporary licence was given to BB2014 who, if not outbid within one month, and subject to business plan approval would become the new owners.

The administrator was prepared to accept the existing bb2014 purchase offer. After detailed discussions, the RFL didn't accept the business plan & forecasts of BB2014. BB2014 then withdrew their offer to purchase the assets from the administrator. They did this on the 24th February. The RFL then imposed a points deduction on 25th February.

Those are the facts. Anything else is hearsay and supposition.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:35 am  

Mirfieldbull wrote:

Do you concede that the fact the RFL had egg all over their face over firstly granting a license to a business plan with more holes in it than a piece of mozzarella, then secondly buying the lease on an iconic stadium due to a 'short term' cash flow problem might, just might, have set some people in the RFL on a course to make an example of the club! Mr. Hood and his board were the guilty party in that, subsequent people trying to clear up the mess are the one's punished. Is that not a possibility in your world?

It is a possibility but I can's see the RFL setting out to doom one of the bigger clubs in the game - it doesn't make sense. I know you're on your collective backsides at the minute, but Bradford Bulls is still one of the most recognisable brands in Super League - maybe 4th after Wigan, Leeds and Saints.

On a side note - does mozzarella have holes in it?

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:39 am  

Mirfieldbull wrote:

And all clubs in admin. had 50% of their Sky money withheld and redistributed didn't they. My search engine is bust, couldn't find the links to that.

Really ticks me off when other clubs & supporters talk about fairness from a moral high ground, when it's clear to me the RFL are punishing us to an extra degree because Hood pulled the wool over their eyes twice in less than 6 months.

OK Bulls actually received the full allocation of Sky money in 2013. It got the same as every other club. The original plan was 50% over the two remaining years of the licence, with it all to be paid in the second year.

Omar Khan asked for the Sky money to be advanced so the amount of money that was scheduled for year 2, which was in effect one full years money, was handed over in year 1.

The truth is that OK Bulls had the same money as every other club, but still went under because it was so badly run by Khan & Whitcut.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:40 am  

TrinityIHC wrote:

On a side note - does mozzarella have holes in it?

When its subjected to total meltdown, yes.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:43 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I would agree 100%, and it wasn't just the compo, though I am sure that was one of the bigger nails in one of our series of coffins. We never recovered from it.

Shame we didn't do a deal with Leeds then quickly done an admin shuffle - when we still had semblance of a decent team. Six points then would of course have been irrelevant, except in terms of league position in the playoffs, which I think would have been a price worth paying.

Agree with that, the start of our demise was player recruitment in 2004, coupled with drop in crowds and revenue, then accelerated by Harrisgate. We needed a strong leader in 2007 to plot a course which kept us competitive but addressed the implications of Harris, which would have not had MacNamara as coach for as long as he was. Imagine how different it could have looked with someone like Potter at the helm from 2009, with the Harris finances settled and accounted for, full funding for budgets and a great crop of youngsters coming through. Makes me want to weep/want to tear some people limb from limb with where we are now. Hood's weakness and Caisley's sniping from the sidelines are where we lost the chance to rescue it.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:52 am  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

OK Bulls actually received the full allocation of Sky money in 2013. It got the same as every other club. The original plan was 50% over the two remaining years of the licence, with it all to be paid in the second year.

Omar Khan asked for the Sky money to be advanced so the amount of money that was scheduled for year 2, which was in effect one full years money, was handed over in year 1.

The truth is that OK Bulls had the same money as every other club, but still went under because it was so badly run by Khan & Whitcut.

Wouldn't disagree about how the club was run as OKBulls, enough clear evidence of that, BUT, the decision to grant them a license stipulated 50% Sky funding for 2013 and 2014, are you saying they persuaded the RFL to give full funding in 2013? That would mean 2014 zero funding right? If the RFL agreed to that, I'd love to see the business plan that that convinced them to do it

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:54 am  

TrinityIHC wrote:

It is a possibility but I can's see the RFL setting out to doom one of the bigger clubs in the game - it doesn't make sense. I know you're on your collective backsides at the minute, but Bradford Bulls is still one of the most recognisable brands in Super League - maybe 4th after Wigan, Leeds and Saints.

On a side note - does mozzarella have holes in it?

Think you're being. Tad kind with 4th best brand given the last 3 years.

And got my cheeses wrong, good spot