Quote M@islebugs="M@islebugs"Are there any examples of this pro-OK stance as I can't recall reading anything in the T and A and thinking this is pro or anti OK or Moore/Calvert/Watt.
The article which I thought was bizarre and I have no idea why Ross or the editor went with was the one which claimed Lord Peter of Hood was effectively cleared of wrongdoing and the club would be in a better shape if he'd stayed in control. The sentence which stated the club had 200k in the bank at the time he left without mentioning Lord Peter had sold the ground and begged a half a million in the months prior, is up there with Freddie Starr ate my hamster.'"
The only thing bizarre is that your still missing the point(s) as a starter clue the Bulls didn't own the ground they sold their leasing of it to the RFL! (Which is why the RFL are still taking such a keen interest in having the Bulls as a going concern.)
The rest of your assumptions are as usual up in the air!
