Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:32 pm  

We could see this all again in 2015 if Bulls are relegated and docked another six points and fined in 2015.

How might that happen? ...... Nobody on here (not even the know alls) seems to know if players' contracts are null and void on relegation. If they aren't and that means Bulls go over the Championship salary cap next year, there'll be more sanctions... Happy Days...

[Bulliac]

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:41 pm  

Wooden Stand wrote:

We could see this all again in 2015 if Bulls are relegated and docked another six points and fined in 2015.

How might that happen? ...... Nobody on here (not even the know alls) seems to know if players' contracts are null and void on relegation. If they aren't and that means Bulls go over the Championship salary cap next year, there'll be more sanctions... Happy Days...

OMG!! I never realised it was that bad.....what on earth can we do?? We're doomed, I tell you, we're doomed!

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:48 pm  

Dannyboywt wrote: What I don't get is why Adeybull seems to have the view everyone on here is answerable to him? You are all just fans and the likelyhood of ever getting the full picture is virtually zero. The only people that will have anywhere near the full facts and the current owners and the independant board. Adey have you contacted the current owner for discussions as I am sure together you could clear up some grey areas to your satisfaction. Repeatedly asking the same question to fans on a forum will not give you answers and the view that if they can't be answered byt fans means something is fishy doesn't add up. Saying if it should be 4 or 6 isn't relivant the case was for all or nothing, if they has said they had paid of some of the creditors or appealed it should have been 4 not 6 I would have understood this being discussed. Still points to be had this year and if that isn't acheivable get your youngsters signed up an start looking at Leighs business model. Stop wasting energy on chasing shadows. 1 - What you say in the first paragraph is not my view, is not a view I have ever put forward, and (other than in the minds of any whom it suits to think or suggest that) is not a view supported by any evidence. 2 - The questions are quite clearly not aimed directly at the current owner (although his answers would be enlightening), or fans on here. They are quite clearly aimed at the key protaganists t in this debacle - the RFL, Moore & Co and to an extent Green, as well as the likes of Khan and Whitcu*t. I posted the same questions in several other places. Have a read of this thread for a rather wider discussion of the questions. I seem to have accumulated 30 likes so far to my original post, which is quite a lot for that place, so I must be doing something right? 3 - The questions, as you will see from the extra paragraph in that and other places, are a clear invitation to journalists and others who are far better placed to get to the bottom of things, to see if THEY can get some answers. And the T&A journalist rang me up earlier precisely in response to that post. In a brief discussion, we each ascertained that we did not have many of the definitive answers. I had nothing new I could tell him, and vice versa. 4 - I already know some of the answers some of the protaganists would (or did) give, since they have told me. But, given there are always two sides to any argument, I would want to hear the other side. And compare the answers, and any disagreements, and THEN try and form a view. It seems to me that many people have already formed a view, without having heard the responses from both sides. I say again, the only people who are likely to be able to get to the bottom of what really happened - if anyone is - will be the likes of journalists. And there must be wider stories in all this, not least the roles of the various politicians, and of one in particular. 5 - the reason for posing the questions is simple: I do not believe we have anything like the whole explanation for what has happened. Any more than we did over Iconicgate (that was quite good, the guy who coined that! I might steal it...), the first administration, the sale to OKB, and what happened under OK's tenure. Some folk may be content to let it lie, and just accept the present disaster for what it is. Some other folk would prefer to know how the hell we got to this disaster, and what lessons might be learned. And who really are the guilty men. I am one of those, and I can see I am not totally alone, even if doubtless in a minority. THAT is why I posted what I did. To provoke some thought; maybe some consideration that things may not be quite as clear-cut as some folk - many folk outside of the Bulls fanbase - might believe or want to believe; and, just maybe, some more probing questions to get some better explanations. If anyone has a problem with any of that, just put me on ignore and don't read what I say. Simple.

Dannyboywt wrote: What I don't get is why Adeybull seems to have the view everyone on here is answerable to him? You are all just fans and the likelyhood of ever getting the full picture is virtually zero. The only people that will have anywhere near the full facts and the current owners and the independant board. Adey have you contacted the current owner for discussions as I am sure together you could clear up some grey areas to your satisfaction. Repeatedly asking the same question to fans on a forum will not give you answers and the view that if they can't be answered byt fans means something is fishy doesn't add up. Saying if it should be 4 or 6 isn't relivant the case was for all or nothing, if they has said they had paid of some of the creditors or appealed it should have been 4 not 6 I would have understood this being discussed. Still points to be had this year and if that isn't acheivable get your youngsters signed up an start looking at Leighs business model. Stop wasting energy on chasing shadows. 1 - What you say in the first paragraph is not my view, is not a view I have ever put forward, and (other than in the minds of any whom it suits to think or suggest that) is not a view supported by any evidence. 2 - The questions are quite clearly not aimed directly at the current owner (although his answers would be enlightening), or fans on here. They are quite clearly aimed at the key protaganists t in this debacle - the RFL, Moore & Co and to an extent Green, as well as the likes of Khan and Whitcu*t. I posted the same questions in several other places. Have a read of this thread for a rather wider discussion of the questions. I seem to have accumulated 30 likes so far to my original post, which is quite a lot for that place, so I must be doing something right? 3 - The questions, as you will see from the extra paragraph in that and other places, are a clear invitation to journalists and others who are far better placed to get to the bottom of things, to see if THEY can get some answers. And the T&A journalist rang me up earlier precisely in response to that post. In a brief discussion, we each ascertained that we did not have many of the definitive answers. I had nothing new I could tell him, and vice versa. 4 - I already know some of the answers some of the protaganists would (or did) give, since they have told me. But, given there are always two sides to any argument, I would want to hear the other side. And compare the answers, and any disagreements, and THEN try and form a view. It seems to me that many people have already formed a view, without having heard the responses from both sides. I say again, the only people who are likely to be able to get to the bottom of what really happened - if anyone is - will be the likes of journalists. And there must be wider stories in all this, not least the roles of the various politicians, and of one in particular. 5 - the reason for posing the questions is simple: I do not believe we have anything like the whole explanation for what has happened. Any more than we did over Iconicgate (that was quite good, the guy who coined that! I might steal it...), the first administration, the sale to OKB, and what happened under OK's tenure. Some folk may be content to let it lie, and just accept the present disaster for what it is. Some other folk would prefer to know how the hell we got to this disaster, and what lessons might be learned. And who really are the guilty men. I am one of those, and I can see I am not totally alone, even if doubtless in a minority. THAT is why I posted what I did. To provoke some thought; maybe some consideration that things may not be quite as clear-cut as some folk - many folk outside of the Bulls fanbase - might believe or want to believe; and, just maybe, some more probing questions to get some better explanations. If anyone has a problem with any of that, just put me on ignore and don't read what I say. Simple.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:00 pm  

Collus Ligneus wrote:

We could see this all again in 2015 if Bulls are relegated and docked another six points and fined in 2015.

How might that happen? ...... Nobody on here (not even the know alls) seems to know if players' contracts are null and void on relegation. If they aren't and that means Bulls go over the Championship salary cap next year, there'll be more sanctions... Happy Days...

At a secret meeting with the RFL it has already been agreed that if the Bulls were relegated then they would have special dispensation to pay whatever salaries they liked. The RFL were dead set against it, but when it was pointed out to them how much this would annoy, they loved the idea.

PS as we are majoring in Latin today, can I just point out that your post contains a non sequitur since obviously, if certain people didn't know about the contracts then, by definition, they wouldn't be "know alls".

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:11 pm  

Dannyboywt wrote:

What I don't get is why Adeybull seems to have the view everyone on here is answerable to him? You are all just fans and the likelyhood of ever getting the full picture is virtually zero. The only people that will have anywhere near the full facts and the current owners and the independant board.

Nonsense. The current owner will have very limited information on previous management and effectively none at all for most of it. Why would he? Where would he get it from and why would he be remotely interested in (say) what happened under the Caisley, or Hood, regimes?

The independent panel would know practically nothing at all, since none of the issues raised by Adey were anything to do with them, and they never even got to considering such extremely narrow single-subject remit as was given to them as the Bulls apparently didn't even qualify to get their appeal heard. So what on earth would they know about any of that historical stuff?

Dannyboywt wrote:

Repeatedly asking the same question to fans on a forum will not give you answers and the view that if they can't be answered byt fans means something is fishy doesn't add up.

What are you trying to say? That because maybe no answers can be gained, no questions should be asked? If I want to come on here, or anywhere, and ask or answer questions, then it is up to me. And as it happens I have found out a great deal over the years either directly via these forums, or indirectly in private communications with members of these forums.

To use your "fishy" turn of phrase, anyone who has even read anything in passing of the debacles of events in recent years, if they have learned anything at all, it must surely be that the stench of fish would overpower a thousand Grimsby docks in a summer heatwave. How naive are you?

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:14 pm  

I'm just waiting to see what deal we get when we tell the RFL we aren't paying full rent for the ground when we are in the Championship.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:21 pm  

rugbyreddog wrote:

I'm just waiting to see what deal we get when we tell the RFL we aren't paying full rent for the ground when we are in the Championship.

Let's play at VP next year, might save a few quid?

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:30 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Is that wording what you meant to say? Anyway, whatever the question means, at the first fans forum after OK quit, someone asked why BB2014 had been set up and was told it was nothing sinister, the club would be continuing as before, and Robbie Paul went to great pains to repeat "we are NOT going into administration".

They didn't pay the agreed price for the shares and are being sued. What "financial issues" do you suggest they could have "known nothing about"?

Not so, BB2014 were accepted by the RFL. It was however on terms including 6 points deduction and special measures. BB2014 stated they withdrew because they had (a) been seriously misled (b) were not prepared to accept remaining in special measures.
Only an idiot would believe that BB2014 withdrew BEFORE the decision on sanctions was made. Why on earth would they do that? Whatever dates any announcements were made it must be beyond any sensible dispute (thus not excluding you, of course) that the chicken of the decision prompted the egg of the withdrawal. Your implication that BB2014 withdrew the day before they would have known of the decision is frankly nuts.

BB2014 was set up because Moore & Co had no intention of buying OK Bulls. In just the same way as OK Bulls was set up with Khan having no intention of buying BB Holdings.

Easiest way to start debt free.

There is and never was a legal case being pursued by Omar Khan for his shares not being purchased. Why do you keep perpetuating this outright lie? You'd have to ask Moore what Whitcut didn't tell him. The administrators statement of proposals clearly references this.

BB2014 was not accepted by the RFL because no agreement was reached on a sale. BB2014 business plans were negotiated with and rejected by the RFL.

Once these plans were rejected and BB2014 informed, a points deduction was handed down. BB2014 didn't walk away because of the points deduction. They walked away because they didn't have any money to invest.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:40 pm  

Even just as a set of words thats nonsense. Not even judging it in relation to reality but on its merits as prose its just fsking nonsense.

Re: Points deduction upheld : Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:58 pm  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

BB2014 was not accepted by the RFL because no agreement was reached on a sale. BB2014 business plans were negotiated with and rejected by the RFL.

Once these plans were rejected and BB2014 informed, a points deduction was handed down. BB2014 didn't walk away because of the points deduction. They walked away because they didn't have any money to invest.

Of all the lies you have put forward over the past few weeks (seems like years), this is the funniest.

So lets get this right, BB2014 (Moore, Calvert, RHP and Watt) were told by the RFL that they would not accept their bid, yet this is the first that anyone has EVER heard of this.

So the statements from the Board (at the time) about not accepting to be placed into 'special measures' (due to them being respectful business men apparently) was just a smokescreen as the RFL had actually told them that they could not own the club, so they all lied so that the truth could be kept from everyone for no apparent reason?

Wow - I think you have just outdone yourself! I'm impressed (and not is a good way!)

Also, I must have imagined of the meeting between the RFL, OK and the members of BB2014 in December, in which they agreed the sale price of the club (to only find that OK changed the details at a later date). I must have some imagination!