Tbh if what they claim to know is true there would be no risk in saying so would they, or am I missing something??

Having an opinion and what the facts actually are can be 2 different animals completely..
Mick has a bit of reputation to be fair but Craig to listen to comes across as Mr straight...

Pretty much my feelings exactly

The bit in bold is that part that I'd really, REALLY like to have thoroughly investigated and exposed for what really happened. It's been stated in print that Chalmers was not only 'appointed' but also 'approached' by the RFL to take over the club.

IF it turns out that there has been dodgy stuff going on all along (3 years of pension contributions suggests so) then the RFL surely HAVE to be held to account.

I won't hold my breath though....

These situations always bring out the liars. You would think we have enough experience by now to take everyone who claims to have insider knowledge with a whole salt shaker, never mind a pinch. And yet still the stirring and attention seeking gets people talking.
There's only one person who claims any insider knowledge on here that I ever believe and that's Roger, largely because he has backed everything up in the past and only passes on information he knows to be accurate and he is able to share. Anyone else claiming knowledge, remember your salt folks and try not to get wound up. If you want to put energies into this, I'd suggest just hoping something gets sorted that those who want a club still have it, and those who have been shafted with pensions or unpaid bills get their money.

I'm not so sure where I fall on this. Whilst I agree that on the face of it a massive blunder has been made by the RFL in picking this particular chairman, I'm not sure how much blame falls at their feet for what's happened. How much can you really know about a person before they perform the act? Sure there were some warning signs there, but presumably there were also some indications that they may do something right, otherwise why would they possibly have gone down that route in the first place.

It kind of reminds me of a situation a few years back when an ex work colleague of mine died. Whilst looking up funeral proceedings on the internet, we discovered that actually he had a past before we worked with him that made him very much not a nice man. Without going into detail of what he did, it was bad enough that he only escaped jail time because he appeared to be terminal at the time (he ended up at least temporarily beating that diagnosis). I worked with him for years never knowing about the past and before it was discovered, I would have swore blind he was a lovely chap. Since presumably his past wasn't known about when he was hired, should the people that hired him be lambasted for doing so, even though they clearly didn't know what he was? I don't think they should.
Different situation I know, but when people are saying the RFL should take the blame, it just reminds me of that event. Which is why I'm not sure where my opinion sits on it.

what worries me in the link between how Chalmers and Lowe ended up at the club is that 3 years is how long they have lasted.
3 years til the odsal break clause, 3 years log enough to hide certain things? long enough for them to advance monies without becoming apparent? long enough to not look overly suspicious. 3 years for the then chief exec who was close friends to plot an exit from his roles and have less ties with the rfl?
it is a shame we cant as bulls fans push a claim against the rfl for their interference in the administrations as their input has clearly not helped. The stipulations and punishments were never going to aid an organisation to thrive not that I am supporting Chalmers but whoever did take over may have challenged this more if it wasnt for the rfl insisting and bringing in their yes man. I am not blaming the rfl as a conspiracy against us as they haven't allegedly mislaid pension payments for 3 years nor do I know of any involvement.

That's exactly why it needs to be thoroughly investigated

If the RFL were shown to be without any fault, then fair play to them. But, as it stands there always seems to be 'smoke and mirrors' when we hit trouble, which gives rise to the speculation. Only by the whole process, going right back to them giving Hood the loan, being independently investigated can those issues be put to bed.

Let them 'clear the air' if they really do have nothing to hide

Couldn't have put it better myself.

On a one off situation you are correct. But when the should have been policing salary cap breaches we carried out, agreeing to register Harris as a player which was subsequently found out to be illegal, Hood's massive overspend, followed by fit and proper person checks on Greene (twice?) and Chalmers then they would seem a little inept. They have given rise to a new saying however. "Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, shame on me. Fool me four times, shame on me again ad nauseum"

You also missed the often over looked consortium that was going to buy off OK. Who allegedly forced admin 2 on RFL advice( how true this is I don’t know) but then walked away for reasons that have never been explained

Where did the 3 years bit come from? As we were a new company in Jan 2017, we had to start enrolling people in the workplace pension from Jan 2018, didn't we? So the maximum pension screwup is about 20months?

That [uwas[/u true. AS for walking away, they were due to sign up for the club when the RFL parachuted Greene in with Steve Ferres as babysitter.