Maybe you should read the rules before commenting. Like most punishments, it is (a) variable and (b) appealable.







As your post was immediately after mine, I presume your gripe is aimed at me.



I note you don't address any issue I raised, so presumably you have no interest. However I object at your use of the term "hissy fits". I have had no fit of any sort. I have been trying to post information, and reasoned points. How you would get "hissy fits" I have no clue.



But, as you can't apparently be bothered to read what i actually say, I need to point out that I have never argued that Bradford shouldn't have a 6 point deduction. I haven't formed a view on what our points penalty should be for the simple reason that I don't know what (if any) proposals to repay HMRC and creditors has been made by the new owners. If it was Nil then I would have no issue with the principle of a 6 point max deduction, if all other things were equal, but they are not.



The rules obviously say that there is a range of possible sanctions of which points deduction is obviously one. However your peremptory tone suggesting relegation is something to do with it must surely be rhetorical. The point is, the existing rules re points deduction were made at a time when there was no relegation. Therefore they should have been changed, to reflect that all of a sudden, a 6 point deduction for the first time could lead to relegation, a situation which has never previously existed, and did not therefore exist at the time this rule was written.



The rules have not been changed. The result of this is that a 6 point deduction this year is an infinitely different punishment to previous years, when its ONLY effect was to dent or scupper your chances in the playoffs. This is the bit I don't get. It's as if Bradford-haters are in some sort of weird state of denial, whereby they refuse to hear the notion that a 6 point deduction now is potentially the ULTIMATE penalty. If it is right that this should be so, then in all previous years it has been wrong. However the RFL doesn't seem to have considered the point, blatantly obvious though it is.



If it is right and fair that the rule should now carry a potential death penalty, then it should have been so written in the first place. It could easily have been. It could have said that the maximum points deduction was 6 points AND that if you finish in the bottom two, you will be relegated. Then the possible consequence that clubs faced in all previous years would have been the same as we now face. But that was never the rule. A points deduction has never previously carried with it the potential of adding relegation as an additional penalty. If it's fair, why didn't it?



I could ask, if it was fair that Bradford lost a year's distribution as part of the sanctions package, why had that never been applied to any other club, and indeed why has it been quietly forgotten about in the present case? But that would be straying slightly off topic, and you seem to have enough trouble understanding the present one.

Can anyone answer when the appeal will be heard / final punishment decided?



Just want this sorting asap given the potential ramifications for other clubs. The RFL have enough people claiming conspiracy at every decision, so the sooner they can finalise this sorry episode the better

With a hardcore support of 2,341 these days (I'll be generous in assuming not a single Catalan supporter turned up to Odsal yesterday) the sooner they are relegated (along with London) the better.

Yes, but you were going into pre SL or, clubs not in the top flight, which is hardly relevant is it ?

I think that you and I have to agree to disagree on this one and fwiw, if Wakefield had gone into admin, I would certainly have expected either demotion or a points deduction, as I believe would be the case for other clubs, in the current climate.

As you know HMRC have got brassed off with sporting organisations going into admin and avoiding paying their tax liabilities and this is the main reason that Football (and RL) have been somewhat harder, on defaulting clubs, in recent years.

You seem to want to go against this trend, because it's Bradford that are involved.

Whether this is a case of principle, or favouritism, we don't know but, judging by the poll on this thread, you remain in a very small minority.

Sure you would, and delighted you'd have been. Odd you don't mention expecting a fine of a year's distribution in the mix.





I think you misrepresent his position entirely. However, in the case of a club that has gone bust owing HMRC approx. £170K, due very largely to the unprecedented fine of £1.6m, I don't think that the RFL or the clubs voting to pay themselves a share of Bradford's money is quite in the spirit, do you?



If each club that stole a share of Brtadford's money chipped in a mere £17K back, then HMRC would be clear, no longer brassed off, and all would be happy. However I expect instead you'll all talk a good game, but hypocritically still keep taking Bradford's money, when it could and should be going to pay creditors.

Neither 97, nor 2000 are pre SL.



And again, I don't want to go against this, I want us to actually do it rather than pretend to. I want the people who take clubs in to admin to actually be punished, I want an actual deterrent rather than a token gesture which is no deterrent at all.



I'm sure HMRC would be absolutely delighted if we did this.

If you don't like it, don't go bust (again). The space below is for you to point out that "you" didn't actually go bust...







If you are happy to accuse the other 13 clubs of theft, I don't feel quite so bad for referring to the "fine" as a bribe to let Bradford stay in SL.



Incidentally, do you have any evidence to support your assertion that it was in fact a fine?

Seems fair enough.









OKB were told that if they wanted to be admitted to SL then they would have to -in basic terms- forfeit one year's distribution. So effectively, forfeit £1,600,000 or thereabouts.



Financial sanction; fine; penalty; all perfectly reasonable descriptions. What would you call it? A voluntary charitable donation?

The "share out" still remains a mystery to most of us and it would be helpful if there was a clear explanation as to the reasoning behind it and exactly why this was agreed to (by all parties)

They had a choice. They took the 'Liberal Democrat' option and then failed miserably to budget according to their income. 6 points is really the minimum deserved considering it's twice in as many years.



Yet again you and you fellow apologists try and excuse Bradford's self destruction by blaming others.



PS I'd bet a pound to a penny that if they'd been given the 'extra' money they would have still overspent by the same amount.

you do realise that when you use the word 'they' you are referring to two completely and utterly separate groups of people dont you? That they are completely independent of each other? Its almost like you believe 'Bradford' is a guy who has done all these things rather than simply a brand going between different businesses.

I don't think that HMRC are able to pursue monies that they are owed from any business that has gone bust, other than taking their place in the line of creditors but, as mentioned, they are trying to clamp down on sporting clubs going pop any continuing (under a new umbrella or otherwise) and the governing bodies of different sports have some obligation to do what they can to assist them in trying to prevent "another Portsmouth"