Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:50 am  

EHW wrote:

What is involved in the test?

Does Mrs Koukash have a track record of running successful businesses, or does that not matter?

No idea im afraid, you'd have to ask the RFL. All I know is it is the same test applied to all prospective owners, which two our recent wide boys failed, and one other bidder has already passed, Mr Lamb - so it must be more than just checking for a pulse, I can only trust the people who have more access to the facts at hand than I do.

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:50 am  

EHW wrote:

What is involved in the test?

It's just weva ya luk well fit, innit

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:52 am  

Or it could be

REGULATIONS FOR THE FIT AND PROPER PERSON TEST

These Regulations are binding on all Persons Subject to the Operational Rules.

The RFL has adopted these Regulations with the purpose of:

(a) ensuring that individuals who have engaged in conduct which has adversely impacted the Game (or any Club) or whose past behaviour means that in the Board’s opinion they are likely to do so, are prohibited from controlling or influencing any Club; and

(b) protecting the long term health and viability of Clubs.

(the “Fit and Proper Purpose”)

Any breach of these Regulations resulting in a charge of Misconduct shall be dealt with in accordance with the Operational Rules. All other decisions by the RFL shall be made by or under the authority of the Board and shall be made at their absolute discretion.



INTRODUCTION

In these Regulations the following words shall have the following meanings:

“Authorised Signatory” means a person duly authorised by a resolution of a Club’s directors to sign the Declaration on behalf of the Club.

“Bankruptcy Order” means an order adjudging an individual bankrupt.

“Bankruptcy Restriction Order” and “Interim Bankruptcy Restriction Order” means the orders of the same name made under the provisions of Schedule 2A of the Insolvency Act 1986.

“Declaration” means the form as prescribed by the RFL and shown at Schedule 1 to these Regulations to be signed by both the Influential Person and an Authorised Signatory (who may not be the same person).

“Disqualifying Conditions” means the criteria set out in the Declaration.

“Individual Voluntary Arrangement” means an arrangement made under the provisions of Part VIII of the Insolvency Act 1986.

“Influential Person” means in respect of any Club, any individual person operating the powers that are usually associated with the powers of a director of a company incorporated under the Companies Act including but not limited to:



(a) a person registered as a director or secretary of the Club with the Registrar of Companies;

(b) a person exercising direct or indirect control over a corporate director of the Club;

(c) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the board of directors of the Club or of the members of the Club;

(d) a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons constituting the management of the Club are accustomed to act; or

(e) a person who exercises or is able to exercise direct or indirect control over the affairs of the Club. For these purposes of this definition a person shall be regarded as being able to exercise direct or indirect control over the affairs of the Club in particular but without limiting the generality of the preceding words if that person owns or is entitled to acquire 25% or more of the share capital of the Club or the voting power in the Club.

There shall be excluded from the definition of Influential Person any legal or professional advisors acting in their legal or professional capacity without any interest (In excess of a 5% shareholding) in the Club.

“Insolvency Event” has the meaning given in the Articles of Association of the RFL. For the purposes of paragraph (g) of the Declaration, the definition of Insolvency Event in the Articles of Association of the RFL shall be read to apply to all companies and not just companies who are members of the RFL.

“Relevant Offence” means any unspent conviction (or where the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1975 does not apply for any reason, having a conviction within the period that would have rendered that conviction unspent had the provisions of that Act applied) for any offence (including any attempt to commit the same) that can reasonably be considered to fall within the following categories of offence: (i) an offence involving an act which would reasonably be considered to be dishonest; (ii) corruption; (iii) perverting the course of justice; (iv) any breach of the Companies Act 1985, 1989 or 2006 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof; (v) conspiracy to commit any of the offences set out in (i) to (iv); or (v) a like offence to any of the above offences determined by a competent court having jurisdiction outside of England and Wales. The RFL has the power to alter, add or delete such offences as it determines.

“Serving Influential Person” means any person qualifying as an Influential Person before 1 January 2010 and continuing to qualify as such at that date.

GENERAL

C2:1 These Regulations come into force on 1 January 2010.

C2:2 No Serving Influential Person who becomes subject to a Disqualifying Condition on or after the 1 January 2010 may continue to act as an Influential Person of a Club save where such Serving Influential Person intends to or is seeking an exemption under Clause C2:10 and the RFL agrees in writing that the individual may continue to be an Influential Person pending the outcome of such exemption hearing.

C2:3 No Serving Influential Person who is subject to a Disqualifying Condition as at 1 January 2010 for which he would be disqualified, save for the fact that he is a Serving Influential Person, may become an Influential Person of another Club until such time as he is no longer subject to the Disqualifying Condition.

C2:4 No person who is subject to a Disqualifying Condition (and who, subject to Clause C2:3, is not a Serving Influential Person) may become an Influential Person of a Club.

C2:5 Any club that:

fails to inform the RFL of the identity of any individual who qualified as an Influential Person of that Club; or
has, as an Influential Person, any individual who pursuant to Clause C2:2 to C2:4 is not entitled to be an Influential Person,
shall be guilty of Misconduct (unless the RFL has granted an exemption in accordance with Clause C2:10).

C2:6 Any Club or Influential Person that negligently, recklessly or with intent provides to the RFL a Declaration or other information that proves to be false shall be guilty of Misconduct.

Reporting Requirements

C2:7 Not later than 21 days after any individual qualifies as an Influential Person of a Club, that Club shall provide a completed Declaration in respect of that Influential Person to the RFL. Any failure to do so shall be Misconduct.

C2:8 Upon the happening of an event that results in an Influential Person becoming subject to a Disqualifying Condition or that results in a change to any other information contained in the Declaration the Club shall immediately advise the RFL in writing.

C2:9 Subject to Clause C2:2, upon the RFL becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or in the circumstances set out in Clause C2:8 or by any other means that an individual is subject to a Disqualifying Condition, the RFL shall notify the Club in writing that that individual is not permitted to hold the position of Influential Person (the “Notice”) unless an exemption has been requested and granted in accordance with clause C2:10.

Appeal Mechanism

C2:10 Any person who is subject to a Disqualifying Condition has the right to ask for an exemption from the prohibition on becoming/remaining an Influential Person at a Club. Any application for an exemption shall set out the grounds for such application and shall be determined by the Board. In determining whether to grant such an exemption the Board shall consider the Fit and Proper Purpose. As part of their decision, the Board shall also set the terms of any disqualification (including, but not limited to, the date the disqualification takes effect).

DIRECTORS & OTHER OFFICIALS

C2:11 Each Club shall submit to the RFL prior to the start of each Season a list of Club Officials including its Directors, Company Secretary and any other executive officers. For the avoidance of doubt each Club must have and must name a Chairman who must be one of its Directors. Any Club failing to do so or any Club submitting a false or misleading list shall be guilty of Misconduct. Each Club shall be obliged to ensure that each Club Official bound by the Operational Rules by virtue of their position is aware of and the extent of their obligations under the Operational Rules.

C2:12 Each Club and each Club Official shall ensure that it and he/she complies with the Fit and Proper Purpose Regulations issued by the RFL from time to time as shown above.C2:13. Within 14 days of the appointment or removal of any director of Club, such Club shall provide written notice to the RFL together with such details as are required to be filed with the Registrar of Companies

C2:13 Each Club shall ensure that its directors and officials are entitled to become or to remain directors or officials under the terms of the Memorandum & Articles of Association and any Club that fails to ensure this or who includes a director or official who is not entitled to become or remain a director or official on its annual list of Club Officials shall be guilty of Misconduct.

CLUB EMPLOYEES

C2:14 All Clubs must ensure that any contracts of employment entered into with their employees include an obligation not to knowingly breach the Operational Rules.

LIST OF COACHING, MEDICAL & SUPPORT STAFF

C2:15 Each Club shall register with the RFL prior to the start of each Season, a list and details of its entire coaching, medical and support staff including its timekeeper in whatever format the RFL shall request from time to time and shall list the posts that member of staff will carry out for that season.
Within 7 days of the appointment or removal of any member of coaching, medical and support staff or timekeeper, the Club shall provide written notice to the RFL.
Notwithstanding the above no person who is not registered with the RFL as a player, member of coaching, medical or support staff may appear on a team sheet or take a seat on the bench or take part in any Club training or conditioning programme or enter the dressing rooms at a Ground during or immediately before or after a Match. Coaching and support staff shall not be upgraded to a new job role without prior registration with the RFL and must have the appropriate qualifications for the role that they are carrying out at any particular time. It shall be considered Misconduct to allow a person to carry out the role of coaching, medical or support staff without being registered with the RFL and it shall be considered Misconduct to allow a person to carry out a role other than the one(s) for which they are registered.

QUALIFICATIONS

C2:16 Clubs shall only register coaching, medical and support staff who have the appropriate qualifications as notified by the RFL from time to time. The most recent qualifications are listed in Section E17 of these Operational Rules and this list shall be current until replaced by the RFL. It is the responsibility of the Club to ensure that staff have the appropriate qualifications and that those qualifications are up to date. However the RFL shall not register any person who does not have the appropriate qualifications or shall deregister any person whose qualifications expire or whom it becomes apparent is carrying out duties for which he is not qualified.

OFFICIAL REGISTER

C2:17
The RFL shall maintain a Register of Club Officials, which shall include all Directors, Company Secretary, other Executive Officers and all coaching, medical and support staff. Anyone included on the Register of Club Officials or who would be included on the Register of Club Officials but for a Club or individual’s failure to notify the RFL in accordance with Section C2 shall be bound by the Operational Rules. To be removed from the Register of Club Officials, or to be deemed to be removed from the Register of Club Officials in the event of a Club or individual’s failure to notify the RFL in accordance with Section C2, and to be no longer bound by the Operational Rules a person or Club must provide written notice of the person’s desire to be removed or deemed removed from the Register of Club Officials. Such de-registration will take effect 12 months from the date the Notice is received by the RFL and the Club Official agrees to be bound by the Operational Rules until that date.
The purpose of this rule is to ensure that appropriate, qualified, competent staff are employed by professional clubs so as to protect the health and safety of players, the integrity of the competitions and prevent the Game being brought into disrepute.
C2:18 The Board shall be entitled to refuse or terminate the registration of any member of coaching, medical or support staff if it reasonably believes that to accept the registration or allow the registration to continue would:

bring the Game into disrepute or adversely affect the integrity of any competition; or
allow a person to be registered who is under a relevant suspension or ban imposed by the RFL or another governing body of sport in any part of the world; or
allow a person to work in a role without the appropriate qualifications or other requirements for that role as set out by the RFL from time to time; or
allow a person to work in a role without the appropriate immigration clearance; or
allow a person to work in a role where they may pose a danger to children.
Prior to reaching its decision the Board will allow the person concerned to make written representations as to why their registration should be accepted and such representations will be considered in reaching the decision.
The person concerned shall have the right to appeal the decision of the Board to the Operational Rules Tribunal as set out in Operational Rule Section D1:33.

DBS CHECKS

C2:19 Each Club shall ensure that an enhanced DBS check is undertaken through the RFL DBS Umbrella Organisation for all relevant persons at its Club. Relevant persons shall mean all those who undertake “Regulated Activity” or those posts for which the RFL requires a DBS check from time to time.

GROUND SAFETY OFFICER

C2:20 The safety of spectators at sports grounds lies with the ground management as set out in the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds.
Each Club shall ensure that an occupationally competent (as set out in the Green Guide) Ground Safety Officer (GSO) takes responsibility for the safe management of its ground on match days. Such GSO shall be a current and active member of the Rugby League Ground Safety Officers Association (RLGSOA).

DISPUTES BETWEEN CLUBS AND COACHES

C2:21 Whilst the jurisdiction of the court and tribunals are not excluded, in matters of dispute between a registered coach and his Club or former Club where the employment is subject to either a RFL standard coaching contract or RFL standard players contract then subject to the dispute being submitted during the period of employment or within three months of the termination of the employment should ordinarily be submitted (by the Coach, Club or the Board) to the Independent Tribunal and any appeal should ordinarily be submitted to the Independent Appeals Tribunal, members of each of which are drawn from the Operational Rules Tribunal. The Independent Tribunal and the Independent Appeals Tribunal shall conduct their proceedings in accordance with the procedures and practices under the Coach’s contract, the Regulations and/or as set by the Board from time to time and shall be entitled to award compensation and costs.

Schedule One
Declaration
To be completed in relation by any individual wishing to become an Influential Person (as defined in the Fit and Proper Persons Regulations) of a Club on or after 1 January 2010.
Any individuals completing this form should read the Fit and Proper Persons Regulations before doing so.
Full name …………………………………………………………………………………………………
Home address …………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………
Date of Birth...…………………………………………………………………………………………….
Date of Completion of this Declaration.……………………………………………………………….
Relevant Club……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Date became Influential Person of Relevant Club……………………………………………………
I can confirm that:
(a) I am not subject to a disqualification order as a director of a UK registered company under the Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (as amended);
(b) I have not been convicted of any Relevant Offence or where I have this conviction is now considered spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974;
(c) I am not banned by any other sport governing body from involvement in the administration of that sport;
(d) I am not subject to any form of disqualification or striking off by a professional body including the Law Society, Bar Council or the Institute of Chartered Accountants;
(e) I am not an Influential Person of any other Club;
(f) I have not been an Influential Person of a Club that has entered into an Insolvency Event whilst I have been an Influential Person of that Club (or within the 12 months immediately following my ceasing to be an Influential Person of that Club) in the 10 years preceding the date of the completion of this Declaration;
(g) I have not been an Influential Person of 2 or more companies that have entered into an Insolvency Event whilst I have been an Influential Person of those companies in the10 years preceding the date of the completion of this Declaration;
(h) I am not subject to a Bankruptcy Order, Interim Bankruptcy Restriction Order or a Bankruptcy Restriction Order and have not entered into an Individual Voluntary Arrangement in the last 5 years;

I, the Influential Person, confirm that I have read the Fit and Proper Persons Regulations and consent to the RFL holding and processing the above personal data and sensitive data for the purposes of assessing my compliance with the Fit and Proper Person Regulations.
I certify that the above information is correct and I acknowledge and agree that the RFL shall be entitled to undertake such checks as may be necessary to verify the information contained within this Declaration. I acknowledge that if I provide a false declaration I am liable to such penalties as determined by the RFL. I also acknowledge that having submitted this Declaration, in the event that I become unable to satisfy any of the conditions above, I must notify the RFL immediately and I will be unable to act as an Influential Person of a Club from this time.
Signed………………………………………………………………………………………...…………
Name……………………………………………………………………………….……………………
Date………………………………………………………………………………….….………………
To be completed by an Authorised Signatory on behalf of the Club
I hereby confirm on behalf of ……………………………………(insert name of Club) that the above information is correct.
Signed………………………………………………………………………………………...…………
Name……………………………………………………………………………….……………………
Date………………………………………………………………………………….….………………

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:40 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

It was, but if you didn't mean it to be, fair enough.

Yes, and I have also read the drivel which has come out all over these forums too, from people who similarly have no idea yet at the same time "know", "cos it's obvious innit". Maybe you should run off a copy and send it to the RFL, because it seems certain that they must somehow have completely missed this evidence.

What I have so far not seen explained is WHAT is so blatantly obvious. That Mrs. K. can't afford a rugby club? If so then she would just be the latest in a lengthening list; it didn't stop them. That she can't run a rugby club? What, as opposed to Whitcnut? Do me a favour. That she "has none of her own money"? I must admit I am intrigued why she has clearly released full details of her finances and assets to so many on these forums, but I suspect that in the unlikely event that she divorced the good doctor in the morning, their lawyers may well take a different view.

You at least concede that you have no idea of the bid submitted or what criteria the RFL will use to assess whether the move should be blocked. Perhaps it will be blocked. Or perhaps it will not be the accepted bid. If it was, though, would you not concede that would have been by people who DO have full knowledge of the bid submitted (as opposed to your and my zero) and of the relevant criteria to assess whether the move should be blocked?

Of course the RFL have a better knowledge of any bid submitted but I'm happy to apply the duck test (if it looks like a duck etc) as at present we have nothing else. You can mock the 'it's obvious' line of reasoning and of course it's easy to deconstruct any argument based on this because of the limited information in the public domain at present but equally you appear to have a lot of faith in the rugby football league's ability to scrutinise the quality of prospective club owners. You certainly have more confidence in the RFL than I do.

The fit and proper test you have posted is a bit of a red herring in all this. It equates to not having been disqualified as a director, made bankrupt or convicted of a criminal offence as far as I can see. Doesn't really impact on the conflict of interest issue.

It seems to me at present the potential options are this:

1. Mandy Koukash has decided she wants to own a rugby league club and has the independent funds to finance the purchase and subsequent running of the club. If this is the case then fine the takeover should be approved. At present we have no obvious proof she has the funds but admittedly, equally, we have no proof she doesn't.

2. Marwan Koukash, for motives unclear, has decided he wants to buy Bradford and to avoid the obvious conflict of interest issue has used his wife to front the takeover whilst he will be the club's puppet master. In this case do you think the takeover should be blocked? I have seen some people suggest they are willing to overlook the fact that one man would control two clubs in the same competition as they think another financially stable club is the most important thing. That's a valid opinion but one I don't agree with.

At present, I'm happy to use my knowledge of Koukash as an unpredictable, attention seeking ego-maniac and yesterday's toe curling interview on sky sports news to form the opinion that option 2 is more likely. Others appear to be more open to the idea that the RFL will review all the evidence in front of them and come to the decision that is best for the sport. Only time will tell who is right - hopefully it works out for all involved.

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:00 am  

He did say all his rejected ideas would eventually get voted in. I'd say owning several clubs would make that a certainty.

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:23 am  

Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:

You haven't seen any evidence you're just a gob poop

A) if all your doing is insulting me, then what's the point of posting

B) I've seen as much as anyone, I've watched the interviews, I've done some background reading, and formed an opinion. Whilst this may seem a terrible crime to you, it's what most people do. The ONLY business experience mrs koukash has is a failed hotel in Liverpool, which the doctor has basically written off - tell me, how is that a suitable foundation for someone owning Bradford?

C) since no one has answered the question yet, I'll ask it again - if Bradford (mrs koukash owned) goes on and flourishes, and stops Salford (the doctor owned) being successful, what is stopping the doc limiting the cash his wife spends until Bradford are squeezed out and Salford over take them? How is there not a conflict of interest when this is a viable option to the doc?

I've argued long and hard in defence of Bradford over the offseason and this is the thanks I get ...

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:53 am  

Walshovski wrote:

Of course the RFL have a better knowledge of any bid submitted but I'm happy to apply the duck test (if it looks like a duck etc) as at present we have nothing else.

Mrs. Koukash is a duck?

Walshovski wrote:

you appear to have a lot of faith in the rugby football league's ability to scrutinise the quality of prospective club owners. You certainly have more confidence in the RFL than I do.

Confidence in the RFL? I think you forgot I'm a Bulls fan.

They seem a pretty ruthless bunch to me, though and most unlikely to be easy to "con" in the way you seem to think they are being.

Walshovski wrote:

The fit and proper test you have posted is a bit of a red herring in all this.

"Red herring"? (a) someone (who couldn't be arrsed to look it up themselves) asked, so I simply posted it. (b) It is what it is, you pass it, or you don't. Fish don't enter into it.

Walshovski wrote:

Doesn't really impact on the conflict of interest issue.

What issue? If you know of a conflict against the Operational Rules then you should immediately phone the RFL and explain it if you think they are unaware. The only question I would ask - do you actually believe that where a bid from a Koukash is live, the RFL really hasn't noticed who it is, and really is not alive to any possible conflict issue? I mean, really?

Walshovski wrote:

Only time will tell who is right - hopefully it works out for all involved.

Don't worry about that, nothing works out right for the Bulls so we don't expect this situation will end any different. Hope ... of course. I disagree that time will tell. We have lurched through about fifty consecutive disasters recently but have been told as little about what actually happened or why as has the average Azerbaijani goatherd.

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:40 pm  

Ok I'll chuck my 2p worth in.

To me it looks like there can be a danger of colussion (spelling).

However, this is the case and always has been the case in any family run business. The law can cover most aspects of life, but if I wish to buy something off ebay and I don't have the cash to win, who is to know if my wife gives me an interest free loan or gift.

I get why it makes people uncomfortable. But there is little the law can do regarding this. If Mr Koukash turns up at Bradford and starts telling them to drop certain games then fine someone can tape it. But within the confines of his own home he can do as he wishes.

I doubt Mrs Koukash is her own man so to speak, but really it's bleating about a situation no one can do much about.

All relationships are different some couples split everything, some keep finances separate and all the combinations inbetween. But this is something done verbally and internally within a relationship, very few couple actaully have documents to describe there financial goings on. (until divorce when the courts have to decided who owns what)

You can think it's great you can think she's a proxy owner. But there is little anyone can do to prove or legislate for it.

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:43 pm  

I think the above statement can be shortened!


It's not what you know(think), it's what you can prove.

You may know that someone is cheating, but unless you can prove it, it's just speculation.

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:50 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

A) if all your doing is insulting me, then what's the point of posting

B) I've seen as much as anyone, I've watched the interviews, I've done some background reading, and formed an opinion. Whilst this may seem a terrible crime to you, it's what most people do. The ONLY business experience mrs koukash has is a failed hotel in Liverpool, which the doctor has basically written off - tell me, how is that a suitable foundation for someone owning Bradford?

C) since no one has answered the question yet, I'll ask it again - if Bradford (mrs koukash owned) goes on and flourishes, and stops Salford (the doctor owned) being successful, what is stopping the doc limiting the cash his wife spends until Bradford are squeezed out and Salford over take them? How is there not a conflict of interest when this is a viable option to the doc?

I've argued long and hard in defence of Bradford over the offseason and this is the thanks I get ...

A) If the cap fits

B) So I'm right you don't have any evidence - only RFL and the Administrator do and given you're neither...

C) Here we go another doomsday scenario. Also for RFL to accept the change in ownership and take the club out of special measures they have to show they have the funds to run the club and not only that invest in the club.

Any other moronic hypothetical straws you want to grasp at? Some clown on here even alleged that this would lead to teams throwing games.