Nonsense. It was a financial sanction and of course that is in the rules. The RFL only used some money which would have been due to the club anyway and no funds outside that. It did not "prevent liquidation". Why would the RFL care whether or not the old company was liquidated anyway?

Nonsense. The issue with BBH was that there were so many shareholders it was a company which, if kept alive, was uncontrollable. No new owner for BBH ever did come forward. Not even its main shareholder Mr Caisley who effectively brought the old company down.

So in his original letter to all creditors, the administrator blatantly lied, did he?

But those two things are totally unrelated. You really don't understand anything, do you. Look, whether or not Green's company pays anything to creditors IS NOTHING REPEAT NOTHING TO DO WITH the administrator. If they did, they would do so direct.

So, in your head, OK's £1 million doesn't count, because... ? I would suggest that his £1m is a slightly bigger contribution than his ego, in this farrago.

Nonsense. MG is a legal entity. SSG is a separate legal entity. You need to try to understand that a limited company IS A LEGAL PERSON IN ITS OWN RIGHT. It may be CONTROLLED by one or more persons, but they and the company are not the same thing. Of course the officers of a company must execute any legal documents. Seeing as a company cannot write.
Oh, and if MG is "paying out of his own pocket" as you weirdly claim - then WHAT is he paying? You just said he isn't paying anything, which is why it's 6 points!

I don't have any prblem at all with either facts or valid arguments. You seem to me be someone who does have some information, but doesn't understand that information properly, and lack key information too. Maybe you should get someone who does know what they're talking about to explain it to you as you are struggling. Also, don't get so bristly and defensive. If you state either correct information or even tell me something I didn't know then fine. I have no axe to grind, but do dislike misinformation.

Blake could you provide us with proof of this

MG hasn't offered the administrator any amount of money to pay creditors. The appeal MG is paying for involves no offer of payment of creditors. HTH.

It will be heard & a decision reached prior to the Bradford Bulls home game with Wakefield Trinity Wildcats on 1st June

Thank you for the well informed and accurate information, the final task before the new job starts on 1st June eh? Have you got enough nails for our coffin? Can't say Im confident in the independant nature of the appeal or the RFL in general after your contribution here.

If this is true, which i'm not doubting, the thing I don't understand is why was OK penalised (financially) due to the RFL pumping money into the old regime?

OK wasn't liable in any way for the additional funds the RFL put forward, yet he had to pay for the mistakes of the previous owners, hardly seems he was given a fair chance to run a club.

Last question - what is your response in regard to the statement put out by RW last week? It appears the RFL, apparently, advised the proposed new owners to place the club into admin to rid them of their current (at the time) majority shareholder. There are other claims/allegations within the same statement that make the RFL look pretty bad. To say that the statement suggest there was an 'agenda' from the RFL is an understatement.