Quote ="mdean"The RFL have got to close the "Administration your franchise back into the black" route.
Nothing personal to Wakey - but the ability to shuffle debt in the boardroom, out of the fire door, down the back stairs - the shuffle some "new money" in to the board room - get some Sky dollars and go again without all that silly debt that was the "other people's" fault racked up is extremely galling.
To see Wakey being loved up by the RFL for their potential stadium etc and the rediculous hole the RFL have put themselves in with Bradford is madness, talk about short memories and gods forbid Bradford pop and they go down the Crusaders route - the RFL own a huge great garden in Bradofrd they have no use for?
This has got to be looked at, becuase otherwise, if I was any club finishing outside the 8 this season, I would use the process as a revenue generator - becuase technically there is a windfall to the Franchise of whatever the current debt-book is. From the Franchise and playing side, if it was planned and didn't leave any players feeling wobbly - there is simply no negative impact outside of this season, when you would only do it if you knew you were missing the 8 anyway - points deduction - pah!
Granted there are some legal impacts to the key players, board wise - but if they are of a stature where future business plans are not that important, then it really does seem attractive.
Perhaps Salford could look at this to support their stadium debt?'"
In agree with what you say regarding our Administration. At the time we were awarded a franchise I thought we were very fortunate, it’s almost felt like a hollow celebration considering clubs were denied a SL place that had kept there finances in tact. Considering what’s become public information since the franchises were awarded, I really don’t care, the way we was treated by the RFL compared to Crusaders and Bulls was a disgrace.
At the end of 2010 when Newmarket got called in we asked the RFL for a £300k advancement on our TV money to see us through until the start of the new season, when new income would be coming in. Part of the reason for our cash flow problem was that our repayment agreement with the tax man was tore up because of Crusaders going bust and not paying theirs. The RFLs policy of chasing their losses was having an effect through the rest of the game. This was at the time that Crusaders had been given a loan and unknown to everyone at the time Bulls had. At this point we as a club had drastically cut our outgoings; our playing budget had been slashed considerably. We had cut our cloth to suite. No such thing was obviously happening at the bailed out clubs. It’s a view in Wakefield (mine certainly) that the RFL wanted us in administration to avoid a difficult decision. To keep Crusaders in this franchise period one of us or you would to have go, it’s quite clear had we not gone into admin it would have been a near on impossible decision for them to make with making the game look a joke. Of course things got even worse for Crusaders and the RFLs hand was forced, in the end they had to accept Economic reality and the rest is history.
AS we are talking what’s right and wrong, I don’t see any difference between a club been bailed out and a club been let go to the wall, in terms of punishment anyway. It could be argued that we were more viable as a business because we cut our cloth. I do believe that a lot of problems around the Franchise system stem from fast tracking Crusaders in. The denial that continued was worse from illegals playing for them to the Bridgend farce, they set a lot precedents with that club that had a knock on effect.
