I agree we need to draw a line under it and move forward - but the RFL screwed us good and proper and I think we should find a fitting way to let them know its all behind us now.

We could all have the same print put on the back of our shirts; some options but feel free to add your own;

1. RFL WTF?
2. RFL FU
3. FU RFL
4. RFL=JOKE
5. RFL non-professionals (maybe that would be expensive with all those letters)

So where in the rule book does it say that we should be deducted 12 points? Has anyone found the rule yet?

[url=http://media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Insolvency%20Policy_final%20PDF.pdf6.2 - Dated 2015?[/url

yes that's the 12 point deduction that applied to the old club that was liquidated. Now explain why it was applied to new club which applied to join the RFL and was forced to enter in the championship with the points deduction and negligible central funding as opposed to league 1 with no sanctions where it should have entered. RFL wants to claim we're a new club on one hand when it suits them but apply sanctions as if we're the old club on the other hand. Case of having their cake and eating it too ( so suit big Nige down to the ground

).

This is an interesting example of what has been mentioned about Gledhill twisting things actually.

In response to him tweeting:


a Jason Priestley responded with:


Mick quoted that question and answered with


Tonight, a Halifax fan questioned him over it and asked Aaron Bower and Michael Carter if this was correct. Mick then back tracked, saying that those four key areas were actually related to central funding, not licensing and that he never said it was licensing related. Even though he clearly did. Then he got on with deleting a lot of the tweets where he had clearly misled people. And then blocked the fan that had proved he was talking crap.

Full of it and dangerous when naive people consider him a reliable source.

I wonder whether Wood and Rimmer have ever been to a Tribunal. I have, many times, and it can be a quite uncomfortable experience.

I find Rimmer's 'moral compass' comment frankly laughable. If an employee has been denied benefits to which his contract entitles him, there is absolutely no immorality in pursuing the employer who has broken the contract. Quite the reverse, in fact. The Tribunal will not concern itself with moral issues , only the legalities will matter.

The claimants will be represented by a barrister, possibly more than one, and the contradictions so apparent in the RFL's case will quickly be used to embarrass and discredit them. The only outcome I can foresee is significant costs and loss of credibility for the sport's governing body. I'd love to watch it, seeing those two squirm and bulls***t under oath would be well worth paying for.

But, assuming they are receiving some kind of legal advice themselves, it seems certain they will avoid this by agreeing a settlement, the terms of which will be confidential. Disappointing, but I can't see it going any other way

On the subject of the court case, I think we can all now clearly see what the argument is. The simple fact that by starting the club in the Championship and on -12 points, it completely contradicts the idea this is a new club/entity. It's hard to see how this won't end in the claimants winning either by settlement or court case. I now just hope from a purely selfish POV that this doesn't cripple the club again and that the RFL or one of the others being sued are the ones that end up paying most of the money out.

Don't forget your own Club are also one of the defendants. Could end up being pretty embarrassing for them too if it does actually get to a tribunal. As the old saying goes caveat emptor.

As the RFL is a member organisation, it could be argued that all 42 clubs are defendants.

No backtracking at all.

I can't be held responsible if Halifax supporters possess an inability to listen.

Ralph Rimmer quite clearly says (3.55 mins in) that it is for all clubs - Super League down.

It's quite dangerous to note your pathetic obsession with me. Have you tried professional help?

It's you with the inability to listen.

The question asked to you was in relation to licensing. You answered with those 4 criteria. When questioned on that, you said it was actually about central funding and you never said it was about licensing, which was a blatant lie. When questioned on that, you deleted all the tweets knowing you were wrong.

I saw the full conversation before you deleted it. You can't lie about it to me.


I'll give you chance to clarify. Are those 4 criteria actually about central funding and nothing to do with licensing? And if that's the case, why did you originally respond with that answer when asked what the criteria for licensing was? I'm more than happy for you to explain.