perhaps they think they can also recover the consequential losses, and get say two points per lost player back as well so (3 x 2)+6 = 12 points?

The reference to it being for the benefit of the wider game worries me, presumably they are all queuing up to chip in towards the costs?

Koucash?

The 'wider game' want us to shut the fkup. We the fans will cop the animosity that this kind of fruitless action engenders.

Worrying, very worrying.
In my mind I can only see Marc doing this out of desperation to remain in super league. And if he's desperate, then that must mean he knows we will be f*cked if we're relegated.
Either he isn't willing to fund the team should we end up in SL2, or he doesn't think remaining at Odsal is viable (with no obvious alternative), or perhaps he just has no confidence in us, the supporters, turning up.

How does this affect Steve Ferres' mysterious 'Envelope B' scenario? Has Marc told him to open it, or throw it away?
I just hope there are other things going on behind the scenes, that RHP and Steve are quietly scouting the market and speaking to players and their agents on a regular basis. But doing all of this in tandem with a high court appeal just seems illogical to me.

Excellent. we just need to win a few games so that we are less than 6 points behind the next team and then wait for all hell to break loose.
Love it.

Maybe the "wider game" will appreciate us getting to the bottom of it all so that they will know whether the RFL can be trusted or not. It may well have implications for other clubs if they head into admin in the future.

Maybe they want more than the points back and are suing for damages?? Imagine the loss of income to the club that this whole mess has caused.

Part of me thinks you are right, another part assumes that from where we are, we can't stay up even with the 6 points, but part of me does want the RFL to be held to account for the way they have dealt with the whole situation.


What could that last remark hint at? Clearly, if the court proceedings relate simply to matters specific to the Bulls and BBNL, that comment would be meaningless. It would make sense though if it was a veiled reference to the sort of behaviour publicly alleged by Moore, Whitcut and others.

I have also previously mentioned the point which doesn't seem to be widely realised, namely there is no chance of a hearing of such a case for many months. This [icould[/i mean, depending how Jimmy improves results, that come end of season, the position re relegation can't be known. If for example we finish 5 points short of safety, but at some point next year there is going to be a High Court hearing (and note - that decision, whenever it is reached, will itself be vulnerable to appeals in the normal way) then what would (could) the RFL do about promotion/relegation? And could the Bulls - if the RFL in those circumstances indicated an intention to just plough on - apply for an injunction?

I can certainly see grounds for one; if the Court did not grant an injunction halting relegation, then in those circumstances, the whole point of the appeal (or perhaps i might say, one very major aspect of the appeal) would be rendered totally pointless, since if the court later ruled in our favour, so we were no longer relegated, but we had already [ide facto[/i been relegated ...

This is a real mixed metaphor - a proper can of worms hiding in a bombshell.

Then Green gets his money back........

Thats the thought I had, if we win the high court case, irrespective of the points back - would it not open the way to sue for damages?

But without knowing what the smoking gun is that Mr Green thinks excists, no-one on here can really say for certain if this is ultimate folly or a just cause needing truely independant examination worthy of the cost and risk of a high court judgement.

All I do know is that we are about to be swamped with visitors on here who certinaly do know all the details, and are about to tell us....

Is it itchy bum time at red hall or another wild goose chase at odsal?
I have to admit i would love to see this all explained and out in the public domain.
A small part of me hopes the rfl will be left with egg all over their faces, but i think that the most that this will uncover will be a bit (probably a big bit) of bad practise and lots of gaps in the paper trail (if ever there was one) and the rfl's accountability will be called into question.
If i were a RL hack i'd be sharpening my pencil, if i were a bulls fan i would be preparing for some court room kerfuffles, some mud slinging (that will do nothing for either party) and little else.

MG said that they advice they had received from their lawyers was basically that they were 100% confident of success. Invariably lawyers tend to hedge their bets and even in a banker you wouldn't expect better than 95% but MG basically suggested that it wasn't whether therefore we would win that he was mulling over, but whether it was in our interests.

Those claiming we have no chance whatsoever should take a deep breath. And consider how if that were so, a barrister would have given such smoking advice. Whatever the grounds are, I suggest they must be pretty damn good for such remarkably unequivocal advice to be given.

What with OK's case against the administrator due up in a couple of weeks, we may yet come to see a considerable number of rocks turned over one by one.

And it's about to hit the fan.

(The desktop appliance, not a foam finger wearer)

Have you got your spreadsheet at the ready?!

I have my tin hat, well, sort of.

Clearly I'm missing something here.

Say the high court concludes that the RFL are a corrupt bunch of monkeys, and gives us the 6 points back. We'd still be relegated.

Other than in an abstract "for the good of the game" sense, why would I therefore give a damn about the appeal?

Would be interesting to see how much we have paid for all this appealing. Maybe we could have paid some creditors back and guaranteed some points back