Bradford staying in Super League : Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:26 pm  

Well what a surprise,not. Did anyone really think they would be put into the championship. Never in a million years. Another embarrassment for our game.

Re: Bradford staying in Super League : Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:42 am  

Why?

Do teams get automatically relegated in other sports for going into administration? No: they get a points deduction.

If they folded and reformed then yes.

I will still not be going to Bradford next season - but only because of the aid they have been given. It's been grossly unfair to other clubs and I think it is abysmal that they've not been forced to release players to reduce their wage bill.

Re: Bradford staying in Super League : Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:29 pm  

Fully wrote:

Do teams get automatically relegated in other sports for going into administration? No: they get a points deduction.

Rangers?

Re: Bradford staying in Super League : Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:38 pm  

Disco wrote:

Rangers?

Rangers ceased as a company. They then created a new company, hence their relegation.

Bradford haven't.

Re: Bradford staying in Super League : Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:27 pm  

Fully wrote:

Rangers ceased as a company. They then created a new company, hence their relegation.

Bradford haven't.

But they will when leaving administration. Or are you suggesting the new owners will take on all the historic debt?

Re: Bradford staying in Super League : Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:26 pm  

dboy wrote:

But they will when leaving administration. Or are you suggesting the new owners will take on all the historic debt?

In that case shouldn't Wakefield have been relegated for the same reason?

Re: Bradford staying in Super League : Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:12 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

In that case shouldn't Wakefield have been relegated for the same reason?

You are, as always Gronk, too easy.

It's well known that Glover took on, and paid, the debts that he didn't have to.

The RFL have already stated that Bulls future in SL is dependent on the historic debt being covered.

Re: Bradford staying in Super League : Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:15 pm  

dboy wrote:

You are, as always Gronk, too easy.

It's well known that Glover took on, and paid, the debts that he didn't have to.

The RFL have already stated that Bulls future in SL is dependent on the historic debt being covered.

Gronk is right.

Wakefield created a new company (Spirit of 1873). The debts sank with the old company.

You're saying Bradford could create a new company. You're right - Glover did take on SOME of the debt. Not all. And no one knows the true figure.

What is stopping Bradford's new owners doing the same? By token, Wakefield should have been relegated if you're going down that route. In which case, you cannot moan about Bradford being kept in SL.

Re: Bradford staying in Super League : Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:47 pm  

Fully wrote:

Gronk is right.

Wakefield created a new company (Spirit of 1873). The debts sank with the old company.

You're saying Bradford could create a new company. You're right - Glover did take on SOME of the debt. Not all. And no one knows the true figure.

What is stopping Bradford's new owners doing the same? By token, Wakefield should have been relegated if you're going down that route. In which case, you cannot moan about Bradford being kept in SL.

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.

Re: Bradford staying in Super League : Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:57 pm  

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.

Wakefield DID create a new company, this is a fact.
Bradford are creating a new company which you want them kicked out for, despite the fact Bradford might take forward some debt, that is not known yet.
What's the difference? You're being the blinkered troll you always are, it's the exact same situation.

It's also a fact we don't know exactly how much debt Glover did take on, if any at all because we were never told, convenient.