Thats not the way franchising works. If Widnes were to have been 'banned' from SL because of their admin they wouldnt have been allowed to apply.

no they arent.

Bradford, and the year before that Wakefield and Crusaders were deducted 4 points.



Wakefield in 2000 got no points deduction.

Sorry Smokey, there are 2 things wrong here.



Firstly Wakefield entered a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) in 2000 and they received a 4 point deduction for this misdemeanour, which was reduced to 2 points on appeal.



Cheers

Quote wrencat1873="wrencat1873"Sorry Smokey, there are 2 things wrong here. Firstly Wakefield entered a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) in 2000 and they received a 4 point deduction for this misdemeanour, which was reduced to 2 points on appeal. Cheers'" a CVA is classed as an insolvency event. In fact in football, a club can only exit admin via a CVA if they are to receive the standard penalties. Leeds Utd were deducted additional points for not exiting administration via a CVA. My memory is a bit fuzzy, but im pretty confident Wakefield were deducted 4 points, reduced to 2 on appeal because of salary cap infringements, not their insolvency event. Their appeal was on the basis that because of the CVA they didnt have to pay out wages they had promised. edit: www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... ppeal.html [iTed Richardson, Wakefield's chairman, said: "We hope on appeal to bring to the Rugby Football League's board the mitigating circumstances.[/i" Whats that they say about people in glass houses? [iA statement issued by Wakefield's independent auditors, Buckle Barton of Leeds, said: "As a result of the CVA, well in excess of £300,000 was not paid or payable in the year covered by the 2000 salary cap rules"[/i Classy!

Quote wrencat1873="wrencat1873"Sorry Smokey, there are 2 things wrong here. Firstly Wakefield entered a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) in 2000 and they received a 4 point deduction for this misdemeanour, which was reduced to 2 points on appeal. Cheers'" a CVA is classed as an insolvency event. In fact in football, a club can only exit admin via a CVA if they are to receive the standard penalties. Leeds Utd were deducted additional points for not exiting administration via a CVA. My memory is a bit fuzzy, but im pretty confident Wakefield were deducted 4 points, reduced to 2 on appeal because of salary cap infringements, not their insolvency event. Their appeal was on the basis that because of the CVA they didnt have to pay out wages they had promised. edit: www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... ppeal.html [iTed Richardson, Wakefield's chairman, said: "We hope on appeal to bring to the Rugby Football League's board the mitigating circumstances.[/i" Whats that they say about people in glass houses? [iA statement issued by Wakefield's independent auditors, Buckle Barton of Leeds, said: "As a result of the CVA, well in excess of £300,000 was not paid or payable in the year covered by the 2000 salary cap rules"[/i Classy!

But that wasn't Wakefield was it? Or not the Wakefield currently in SL. It was a different company so anything they said or did then is irrelevant now, isn't it?

Well actually if they came through as a CVA it is likely to be the same holding company, so that would be the same member. Though they have since gone through a different administration under Ted Richardson and changed when taken over by Andrew Glover.



So no, this Wakefield is not the same member as that one, and i wouldnt hold Michael Carter responsible for what Ted Richardson did, never mind Pearson & Co.



Im not sure who you are referring to as 'they'? or why you think comparing what happened then to what happened now in an debate about consistency would be irrelevant?

You do seem to have a "bee in your bonnet" over the whole Club/owner issue.

Whatever you wish to call them (and "member" may be the most appropriate term), each club that has gone into admin, with the exception of Salford, have been deducted points.

The recent case with Bradford, n terms of timing and life support, seems to have been the worst during the SL era and as such, it would be quite reasonable for the "punishment" to be the most severe and although this does impact on the new management, I'm sure (in spite of their original "no penalty" comments), they would have expected a points deduction.

6 points actually seems quite lenient after the utter turmoil that they have brought into the RL arena.

Wakefield in 2000 didnt. They were deducted points for Salary Cap irregularities.



We are seeing the arguments for Bradford getting a deduction shifting constantly, like people have made up their minds that Bradford should get a deduction and are changing the facts and their arguments to support that belief.



We had that it was necessary to act as a deterrent, only for it to turn out that it when you thought about it, it isn’t a deterrent in any way, shape or form,



We had the consistency argument, until it was pointed out that there was no consistency in the punishments already. An example would be that Wakefield having had 2 insolvency events receiving points penalties totalling 4 points, and Bradford having 2 insolvency events receiving penalties totalling 12 points.



We have the owners must have known, or they bought it knowing these points were to be deducted, yet the facts show those penalties were given to a member that never actually took over the club, and the buyers bought it AFTER the appeal had been lodged.



Now we have that it is lenient because it made the game look bad, even though it is the maximum punishment and an utterly pointless one at that.



You are now saying that the time and life support make this the worst example, Wakefields initial CVA lasted 4 years, we have had clubs like Keighley, Hull KR, Workington be in administration for more than a year with the RFL contributing heavily, not in loans but gifts to keep them ticking over.



WHen it comes down to it, the reasons people want Bradford to get a penalty is to help their own club against relegation, and because they like to see a club which was successful 'take their medicine' for that success.

Thanks for pointing that out Smokey, really.

Please remind the viewers how a CVA should work.

Usually, its due to a company having severe cash problems and an agreement is reached with its major creditors to pay them back over a long period of time, paying a large percentage of the debt upon agreement of the CVA (often 50%, sometimes more, sometimes less) and the residue over a longer period of time, while allowing the company to continue trading, hence the 4 years ??

In recent seasons Crusaders, Wakefield and Bradford ALL suffered points deductions for going into admin, so why stop the penalties now ?

And I am fine with that. I don’t believe that a points penalty would have positively affected that situation, you are arguing it would.



You also ignore the other example, not of clubs being in a CVA but actually being in administration for a long period of time.



why arbitrarily only judge consistency on those three events? ignoring all the years that went before?

Your fervent backing for the Bradford cause is admirable, however, if I were a Bulls fan I would be concerned.



In your previous forays as a White Night, notably the Crusaders venture, & more recently your argument for retaining the licencing system, have come to nought

.



God knows how Leeds do so well, but then again, I think you're a lapsed Hunslet fan

.