Jump to content


RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE (ISSUE 397 - MAY 2014): Available to download now. Get the app from Apple Newsstand or GooglePlay, or click here to read it online now at Pocketmags.com - Print edition in shops from Friday, or click here to get it delivered by post in the UK or worldwide.

Rugby League World - April 2014
League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Bradford Bulls - Change of Ownership (Merged Threads)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
36 replies to this topic

#21 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,153 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 04:07 PM

They were NOT punished financially. The reduction in TV money was at their suggestion.

No, having a half share of your money shared out between the other clubs when you are skint doesn't make a bit of difference.

#22 Les Tonks Sidestep

Les Tonks Sidestep
  • Coach
  • 1,492 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 04:29 PM

No, having a half share of your money shared out between the other clubs when you are skint doesn't make a bit of difference.

 

Obviously having less money is a handicap but THEY VOLUNTEERED TO GIVE IT UP, it wasn't imposed as a punishment. Bradford weren't hard done by they were just desperate to stay in SL - think Liberal Democrats and government.


  • The Future is League, MamaKangaroo and brooza like this

#23 BulldogBurt

BulldogBurt
  • Coach
  • 375 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 04:34 PM

I assume you missed the bit where Bradford actually got deducted more points than those teams? And got punished much more heavily financially? No?


Not a comment on the current Bulls situation, but for clarity, I'm pretty sure Widnes were docked 9 pts (3 wins so equal to Bulls) and denied entry to SL with administration as the stated reason, despite O'Connor settling the existing debts so not sure how Bulls were penalised MORE heavily than that?
  • The Future is League and MamaKangaroo like this

#24 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,153 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 05:02 PM

Obviously having less money is a handicap but THEY VOLUNTEERED TO GIVE IT UP, it wasn't imposed as a punishment. Bradford weren't hard done by they were just desperate to stay in SL - think Liberal Democrats and government.

They could have volunteered to play with 12 men but that doesn't make sense either. The RFL should not have accepted this idea to begin with.
  • l'angelo mysterioso and nadera78 like this

#25 Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior
  • Coach
  • 4,720 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 09:59 PM

Perhaps they want to make sure the ship is sold rather than sinking it.

 

 

they didn't give a toss about widnes...........


  • The Future is League likes this
"Why is Napoleon crying ?" said one sailor to the other, "poor ###### thinks he's being exiled to st helens" came the reply.



https://scontent-a-l...276002364_n.jpg

#26 Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior
  • Coach
  • 4,720 posts

Posted 22 February 2014 - 10:02 PM

Not a comment on the current Bulls situation, but for clarity, I'm pretty sure Widnes were docked 9 pts (3 wins so equal to Bulls) and denied entry to SL with administration as the stated reason, despite O'Connor settling the existing debts so not sure how Bulls were penalised MORE heavily than that?

 

 

not forgetting that SO'C offered a £500,000 personal bond which was refused by the rfl. if they save bradford the game stinks. 


  • The Future is League likes this
"Why is Napoleon crying ?" said one sailor to the other, "poor ###### thinks he's being exiled to st helens" came the reply.



https://scontent-a-l...276002364_n.jpg

#27 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,153 posts

Posted 23 February 2014 - 12:04 AM

not forgetting that SO'C offered a £500,000 personal bond which was refused by the rfl. if they save bradford the game stinks.

What do you mean 'save Bradford?'
They are hardly in a strong position and may well be relegated, so if they were saving them then I imagine they would have worked something out better than the current scenario.

If they finish in the bottom two but still don't get relegated then you and the other conspiracy theory gang might have a point. If they finish out of the bottom two it will be on merit.

#28 PC

PC
  • Coach
  • 4,216 posts

Posted 23 February 2014 - 11:16 AM

I was under the impression that the RFL were party to all discussions prior to the Bulls entering administration, and that administration was only done as a way of forcing the change in ownership due to Omar Khan being intractable on the issue.

#29 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,565 posts

Posted 23 February 2014 - 12:10 PM

I was under the impression that the RFL were party to all discussions prior to the Bulls entering administration, and that administration was only done as a way of forcing the change in ownership due to Omar Khan being intractable on the issue.

That the RFL were involved all through was the position as I understood it, though I belive the admin itself was instigated by a loan company from whom Ryan Whitcut borrowed money; that is to say it wasn't the directors [for whatever motive] who took the company into admin.


No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#30 matt newsholme

matt newsholme
  • Coach
  • 893 posts

Posted 23 February 2014 - 01:09 PM

Not a comment on the current Bulls situation, but for clarity, I'm pretty sure Widnes were docked 9 pts (3 wins so equal to Bulls) and denied entry to SL with administration as the stated reason, despite O'Connor settling the existing debts so not sure how Bulls were penalised MORE heavily than that?


That's because the maximum penalty is related to competition points. A match win is worth two points in SL hence a six point deduction is equivalent to three marches. In championship a match win is worth three points due to bonus point. Hence three matches is nine points. So the same punishment

#31 Adeybull

Adeybull
  • Coach
  • 481 posts

Posted 23 February 2014 - 04:20 PM

Obviously having less money is a handicap but THEY VOLUNTEERED TO GIVE IT UP, it wasn't imposed as a punishment. Bradford weren't hard done by they were just desperate to stay in SL - think Liberal Democrats and government.

Volunteered my 'arris.

 

It was imposed, late in the day, by other clubs as the price for allowing a Bradford club to retain the SL Licence. Khan had two choices. 

 

"Bradford" was not desperate for ANYTHING.  Since there WAS no "Bradford" any more.  Pretty well all the staff bar the players had been sacked weeks before.  All the shareholders were gone.  All the previous board were gone. What was left was in the hands of an administrator.  All there was was a prospective new owner, who had had no previous connection with anything.  All HE was "desperate" for was to save the club.  And has since totally lost his shirt for his efforts.

 

OK. maybe the grass on the park was desperate to stay in SL.  Maybe the roof of the main stand was desperate to stay in SL. But, in terms of actual people running a "Bradford" - other than that bloody administrator, there WAS no-one who could call themselves or speak for "Bradford".


Edited by Adeybull, 23 February 2014 - 04:20 PM.


#32 BulldogBurt

BulldogBurt
  • Coach
  • 375 posts

Posted 23 February 2014 - 05:18 PM

That's because the maximum penalty is related to competition points. A match win is worth two points in SL hence a six point deduction is equivalent to three marches. In championship a match win is worth three points due to bonus point. Hence three matches is nine points. So the same punishment


Err that's what I said if you read it. My point was that Johnoco stated that Bulls had been MORE heavily punished than the other teams, which wasn't the case

#33 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,565 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 01:03 PM

Err that's what I said if you read it. My point was that Johnoco stated that Bulls had been MORE heavily punished than the other teams, which wasn't the case

So how many other clubs do you know where the rescuing 'White Knight' company has been 'fined' C £1.3 million?

 

The same £1.3 million which, incidentally, has pretty much caused the current mess. Beware an RFL offering gifts..


Edited by Bulliac, 24 February 2014 - 01:05 PM.

No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#34 jpmc

jpmc
  • Coach
  • 454 posts

Posted 24 February 2014 - 01:50 PM

So how many other clubs do you know where the rescuing 'White Knight' company has been 'fined' C £1.3 million?

 

The same £1.3 million which, incidentally, has pretty much caused the current mess. Beware an RFL offering gifts..

Aren't the rfl the ones who loaned the club £750k to keep you going and then took the lease to odsal for more cash to keep you going?

Hasn't the font of all knowledge "Adaybull" stated in this thread it was the other clubs that insisted your club take a financial penalty?

 

At some point bradford fans will find who is to really blame for there clubs problems.Hopefully then they'll stop looking


  • brooza likes this

#35 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 16,359 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 06:46 AM

At some point bradford fans will find who is to really blame for there clubs problems.Hopefully then they'll stop looking

 

It was several blokes who were long gone by the time the RFL penalised a load of empty seats.

 

I'm all for even penalties though so I advocate no clubs are treated like this.



#36 indomitable

indomitable
  • Coach
  • 282 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 10:36 AM

Much has been made of the RL buying the lease, but this is what lead to the Bull's demise. The bank would not lend has they then stated the club had lost its main asset a very double edged sword.



#37 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 7,131 posts

Posted 25 February 2014 - 04:16 PM

Just so we don't end up with two threads on the go, I'll lock this one now, as todays events have overtaken it somewhat!

 

New thread open here

http://www.totalrl.c...asers-withdraw/


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users