should be just a graduated points penalty depending on the amount of debt left unpaid by the new owners......no creditors (apart from previous owner/directors) owed money then no points deduction...the more creditors are owed then the greater points deduction....DEFINATELY NO FINANCIAL PENALTY as this will deter new investors and start the spiral of incurring debts again

That's broadly how I see it, too. See above.

Is it? So the obsessive who posted this in the opening post:



[i=#400040In case you are wondering, this is most assuredly directed towards the ICONIC club who it seems are in a constant state of flux, but not required to cut their cloth accordingly![/i



Must have been accidentally misposting it from another of the numerous threads that he has vented his unhealthy obession with Bradford on?`



But, I'm not missing any fact anyway.



If we ignore the inane ramblings of our resident obsessive, and the thread IS about future conduct, then you have not yet explained how punishing new owners will deter ANYONE from making the same mistakes (or worse) that Bulls, Wakey, London, Salford etc PREVIOUS owners have made (in greater or lesser measure) in the recent past?



I've already given three possible solutions, which you dismiss.



Two of those result in real financial pain to the owners, and one of those requires the owners to front up with funds at the start, as a demonstration of good faith. You'll have a lot more chance stopping irresponsible behaviour by owners if they KNOW it is THEY who will be hit financially if the club goes bust, than you will by hitting their successors. Can you not see that?



The third is effectively requiring clubs without a very wealthy owner to have an experienced, independent, non-exec finance director. Who has to report monthly to the RFL. You don't get the RFL to do the policing, you get an independent professional to do it, who has no axe to grind one way or the other, otehr than a genuine desire to help the club survive and prosper. Filling what is so often a huge hole in the teams that owners - so often salesmen - put in place.



Your response seems to be to keep insisting on automatic points deduction or relegation, regardless. Even if there is no unfair advantage gained. Even though it has surely been demonstrated, and not refuted, that such actions do NOTHING to stop it happening again. Nothing.



Surely pie.warrior's proposal is the way to go, to ensure no unfair advantage is gained?



I'm sure you are not one of these folk who want to see Bradford punished to help their own club or to right perceived past wrongs, so I must admit I'm a bit perplexed with your responses here.

Im must be seeing this slightly different to others.



Isnt it Bradford Bulls(replace with any other club) that the punishment is aimed at,rather than the company behind it?



IE,The limited company takes on all the benefits of taking over Bradford Bulls trading name.such as the super league licence,but must also take on the pitfalls that come with it.

Not certain on this,but the licenses were awarded to the clubs - not the company behind the clubs,therefore surely it follows that the club has to be punished.

Adey, looking at all your recent posts you're spouting the same bull' as you did when Bradford first went belly up. TBH the sooner they stop fudging the issues, go completely poop and start again at a LEVEL THEY CAN AFFORD the better as far as I'm concerned.

There are two ways of looking at it.



This is a new company, in which case you have to ask, other than being new, what are we punishing for?



Or this is a continuation of the old club, in which case why are we trying to punish a struggling club for struggling, and why is our solution to a club struggling to punish it, make it harder for it to recover and deter new investors from it.



None of these punishments make any sense if our aim is for a club to recover and fulfil its potential.

Well put Turfedout.



There does seem to be some history between Gutterfax and The Bulls fans and there are some excessive and inane ramblings in both directions.

But, the thread is supposed to offer a solution from 2014.

Obviously licensing has now ceased (or will have from the start of next season).

Pie Warrior isn't too far off with his solution and Adey does now seem happy for "punishment" to be "suffered" by the new BoD, what a relief for all of us.

Is that the sum of your considered, objective analysis? Pretty lean pickings indeed, if it is.



As it happens, if it was the same shower running it, anything other than a pretty severe penalty would be hard to argue against. One of my pet hates is owners/managers of a business letting it go bust, screwing the creditors, and then starting up again as a phoenix. But, lets apply your logic to a simple analagous scenario, shall we?



You bought a used car from a dealer. You even agreed to pay off the HP owing on it by its previous owner, even though it was not down to you to do that. Then you get told that, because its previous two owners were incompetant or useless drivers, you are not allowed to drive the car on motorways or A roads. Yet you believe yourself to be a good driver, and able to pay your way in the world too. And you cannot understand why folk are demanding the car be punished for the sins of its previous drivers. And you, as the current owner, with it.



And the previous useless driver anyway complains that the only reason HE lost the car was because a big chunk of his earnings had been confiscated by the authorities, because of the antics of the PREVIOUS owner before him. And that he agreed to that crazy condition because he really thought he could do some good with the car, but badly underestimated its running costs.



How would you, the current owner of the car, feel when some of your neighbours were lecturing you that everything above was all perfectly fair and reasonable? How would your familty and friends feel? And react?

No I don't. I never said that. As a blanket statement. Put your straw man away.



Any handicap (you can't "punish" someone for something someone else did) should be proportional to any comparative advantage gained. No advantage, no handicap. Big advantage, big handicap.



Even then, you need to set the handicap at a level where it does not make it too big a mountain to climb for the new owners, so there is no point in them taking it on in the first place.



Sorry if I keep pointing out inconvenient truths to folk who do not want to hear them.

Oh, and notice how the derision and the straw men start putting in increasing appearances, when they can't refute the arguments?

I see it as a continuation of the club and its actions taken have to have consequences.If the club has potential,punishing it doesnt remove that potential,its still there,just may take longer to realise.

I dont really see that the game has any option but to punish clubs,particularly in cases of insolvency.Although i dont see the point of a financial penalty,points deduction only.

Would you "punish" a club, if there was no material loss to third party creditors? Becuase the next owners settled them? Serious question, since you are making a serious and reasoned contribution to the debate.

I see your point,i would have a minimum points deduction of say two points for an act of insolvency,this been the minimum where it can be evidenced that there will be no loss to third party creditors.

And then it moves up the points deduction scale in relation to how many creditors are getting screwed over.

Using your car analogy...........



You bought the car for a fair market price for the condition it was in and should have expected it to have problems.