dboy wrote:
No both you and Gronk are wrong - or are the RFL lying when they stated Glover covered debts he wasn't liable for. I believe he did this, not to retain the licence, but to try and rebuild an element of good faith with the business community affected by the Richardson board.
"Glover did take on SOME of the debt. Not all. And no one knows the true figure." What a gem this is!! You say I am wrong (despite the RFL clearly stating otherwise), and then say no-one knows!! Apart from you and Gronk, of course.
No. You're saying kick Bradford out for doing exactly the same.
It wasn't the old Wakefield company that paid the debts was it? Let me make this simple for you: Wakefield went into administration under old company, Andrew Glover (under Spirit of 1873) purchases the club and transfers club into new company. Old company is wound up with debts. New company is debt free. Andrew Glover agrees to honour some of those debts.
You appear to be under the illusion that we're arguing that this wasn't the case. We're not at all. Either that or you've completely misread my post.
What we're arguing is that Bradford CAN do exactly the same.
i.e. They're currently in administration under their existing company name. A new company could be created and buy the Bulls. Debts sink with old club. What's stopping them from honouring some of the debts like Glover?
And then you're arguing they should be relegated. In which case, Wakefield should have been relegated as it would be exactly same that you're asking for.
Hope this simplifies/clarifies things easier for you.
