Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:04 am  

FickleFingerOfFate wrote:

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.

I think you'll find that between our 2 admins we lost Kopczak, Whitehead, Bateman, Winterstein, L'estrange, Langley, Platt and Mick Potter, all of whom were probably on decent wages. Plus there's all the backroom staff that got made redundant. Then since the 2nd admin we've lost Sammut, Scrutton and Carvel. Whether we wanted those people to leave or not, I would hardly say that costs have not been cut. The main reason that we ended up where we are now is because we had £1.2m taken off us and shared between the other SL clubs.

If Carter wants a level playing field for going into administration, and I believe he mentioned deducting 10 points, then Wakefield need to be retrospectively deducted a further 6 points and fined £1.2m for their last admin. That might make it fair.

Although Wakefield and now more financialy stable I don't think they are particularly rich so if I was Carter I would keep my mouth shut. You never know, they may just find themselves in financial dificulties again sometime.

[Bulliac]

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:05 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

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?

I think people do get into a bit of a lather about 'admin' and 'winding up', etc, as though this was some awful cardinal sin. This procedure is neither illegal nor uncommon and, in fact, the capitalist system couldn't function without this re-assigning of assets and 'recycling' of failed companies.

As I understood the situation, the big thing everyone was totally against was the scenario where a failing company is taken into admin by the owners, who arrange a pre-pack, and return -emboldened and debt free, to continue the ownership and running of the company under a different name.

I assume the 'force majeure', may well a fair way of looking a the Bulls situation, in that it wasn't the directors of the company who instigated the procedure in a naked move to gain profit, but it was 'forced' by a creditor. The fact that it was the same creditor who took over the club muddies the waters slightly but the principle remains intact, imo.

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:28 am  

Cows wrote:

I think you'll find that between our 2 admins we lost Kopczak, Whitehead, Bateman, Winterstein, L'estrange, Langley, Platt and Mick Potter, all of whom were probably on decent wages. Plus there's all the backroom staff that got made redundant. Then since the 2nd admin we've lost Sammut, Scrutton and Carvel. Whether we wanted those people to leave or not, I would hardly say that costs have not been cut. The main reason that we ended up where we are now is because we had £1.2m taken off us and shared between the other SL clubs.

If Carter wants a level playing field for going into administration, and I believe he mentioned deducting 10 points, then Wakefield need to be retrospectively deducted a further 6 points and fined £1.2m for their last admin. That might make it fair.

Although Wakefield and now more financialy stable I don't think they are particularly rich so if I was Carter I would keep my mouth shut. You never know, they may just find themselves in financial dificulties again sometime.

Kopczak used the get out clause like Carvell.
Whitehead was sold after extending his contract.
A transfer fee was turned down for Bateman.
As for the rest, they were shed at the start of the second admin.
So in theory, the first time you went into admin you lost two players and carried on regardless.
I don't know the in's and out's of the £1.2m but it has been mentioned that OK agreed to this so the Bulls could retain their SL place.
What MC is saying, is that the rules need to be in black and white, not a massive grey area, left open to individual interpretation, a bit like what refs do.

[Bulliac]

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:37 am  

FickleFingerOfFate wrote:

Kopczak used the get out clause like Carvell.
Whitehead was sold after extending his contract.
A transfer fee was turned down for Bateman.
As for the rest, they were shed at the start of the second admin.
So in theory, the first time you went into admin you lost two players and carried on regardless.
I don't know the in's and out's of the £1.2m but it has been mentioned that OK agreed to this so the Bulls could retain their SL place.
What MC is saying, is that the rules need to be in black and white, not a massive grey area, left open to individual interpretation, a bit like what refs do.

Which bit of, "all these players left our wages bill", are you having trouble with?

So you don't know the ins and outs of the £1.2m, well, when you go into admin the next time, I can tell you there will be letters being written about 'level playing fields' if you aren't made very much more aware of the problem.

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:47 am  

Bulliac wrote:

Which bit of, "all these players left our wages bill", are you having trouble with?

So you don't know the ins and outs of the £1.2m, well, when you go into admin the next time, I can tell you there will be letters being written about 'level playing fields' if you aren't made very much more aware of the problem.

The bit where they have been made out to be off the wage bill first time around.
If we do go into admin again hopefully there will be a blueprint for all clubs to refer to and understand the consequences that go with it..

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:51 am  

Bulliac there was no prepack and Ok is clearly not in control, its Marc Green. and yet 6 points have been deducted. The RFL seem keen to draw as hard a line as possible, otherwise any excuse could be used for going into admin with no penalty. As FA would say, the way to sort out HMRC was to pay them, that was within the clubs control. Imo it needs a genuine outside of the clubs control reason for the appeal.

[Bulliac]

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:57 am  

FickleFingerOfFate wrote:

The bit where they have been made out to be off the wage bill first time around.
If we do go into admin again hopefully there will be a blueprint for all clubs to refer to and understand the consequences that go with it..

The fact remains that they have gone, flown the coop, no longer here, are no longer on the books. When is irrelevant.

I doubt there will be any 'blueprints', the RFL seem to like adding 'nice little surprises'..I guess our 'little surprise', the £1.2m, is now part of the scheduled bit..

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:05 am  

Bulliac wrote:

The fact remains that they have gone, flown the coop, no longer here, are no longer on the books. When is irrelevant.

I doubt there will be any 'blueprints', the RFL seem to like adding 'nice little surprises'..I guess our 'little surprise', the £1.2m, is now part of the scheduled bit..

The 'when' is very relevant, as the Bulls line up for the first fixture of 2013 against us doesn't look to have been ravaged by player sales and cost cutting.
A least we can agree that there will be no concrete guidelines from the RFL.
Just more rumour and speculation to keep the forums going!

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:10 am  

FickleFingerOfFate wrote:

Kopczak used the get out clause like Carvell.
Whitehead was sold after extending his contract.
A transfer fee was turned down for Bateman.
As for the rest, they were shed at the start of the second admin.
So in theory, the first time you went into admin you lost two players and carried on regardless.
I don't know the in's and out's of the £1.2m but it has been mentioned that OK agreed to this so the Bulls could retain their SL place.
What MC is saying, is that the rules need to be in black and white, not a massive grey area, left open to individual interpretation, a bit like what refs do.

MC is also saying that if Bradford get their points back he'll think about leaving RL. Obv trying to sway the decision of the appeal panel against Bradford to benefit his own team. To me that makes him a complete and utter tool. I totaly agree with him on the fact that there needs to be clear rules and penalties for entering admin, but at the time of ours there wasn't. So he should stop trying to bring Bradford down just so that Wakefield can survive.

Re: marc green : Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:14 am  

F'ingFofF, explain this: if a player doesnt want to be tuped then off they go, but all the rest are tuped across at exactly the same terms and conditions, ie other clubs can cherry pick but the new owners cannot, they have to take every player and on the same terms. do you seriously think that any bulls fan would have taken on Platt if there was a choice? not forgetting the trio saying any player could go when they were looking for £400k savings, having asked the players to take a wage cut, and reducing non playing staff? also look at the article in the TnA as to what the problems are for us squad wise, from an independent expert.