It looks like an exercise in due process.

They have described the 6 points as "a penalty for going into Administration". So 6 points is now the benchmark simply for going into Administration. If we go bust then at least, from the RFL's point of view, they've established a new going rate.

It also leaves them with the option of imposing a quite separate penalty if the club is liquidated and a Newco is formed.

As I understand it, 3 games (6 pts SL, 9 pts championship) has always been the "benchmark".

Wakey were only penalised by 4pts because they paid off a proportion of their debt. I suppose the next question is what is the benchmark for debt repayment?

I think you've answered your own question FA. They are cretins and morons ergo there was no reasoning. Once again the politburo in Rot Hall making it up on a whim.

If anyone thinks I'm being harsh, then I'll reconsider, if and when, there is any explanation, but from those hopeless despots I'll not hold my breath. Maybe we could write to Martyn Sadler??

It's a difficult one. With no explanation yet as to how the RFL reached their decision we can only speculate. I'm surprised that with a potentially final decision on the consortium and future of the club so close the RFL could not have held back the points decision for a week or two. Admittedly it would give less visibility for you going for the play offs yet 6 points is the maximum deduction.

With you being only 2pts off HKR you are still in the mix. There is still (on field) a very real chance of the play offs which your coach and players have earned based on this season's performances.

while i have to agree, i would also be careful who you brand in this way.

remember who will decide if you remain in SL.

and then remember these comments again when they alow you to carry on in SL, even as a completely new co. having paid off minimal debts.

That was based on both clubs paying some of their creditors so if nothing else, the 6 point penalty indicates the consortium's intentions in that respect.

I agree that the interminable delays are far from helpful, but I can't see what else the RFL could do - if the penalty they impose is contingent on how the club intends to deal with creditors, how could they decide on said penalty until a firm proposal from ABC was on the table, which wasn't the case until yesterday?

2 points from making the play offs, with full squad still intact, we may actually pull this off!!

Would be one of our finest achievement imo, the play off cash would also be nice!

Definitely something to aim for and give the team an achievable target

Sorry but nonsense. That would only make sense if the penalty was imposed once there was a new owner. It doesn't make any sense to impose a penalty based on the prospective "intentions" of someone who at date of penalty has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the penalised club.

But unkind to slag the RFL off when you remember that they leant you £ 750,000.00 on January 2011 to keep you going, then when the repayments on this loan were not made they worked with you to find a way forward, as a result thaey agreed to pay you £ 1,500,000.00 plus vat for the Odsal lease, they contrad the original £ 750,000.00 and paid over to you £ 750,000.00 plus the vat on £ 1,500.000.00. I think you have to agree that the above shiowed great faith towards Bradford from the RFL. On top of this the SL have pre paid sky monies to you, a company in administration on the verge of liquidation, to pay wages. I think a bit of humility and gratitude is in order from bradford fans towards the games authorities instead of silly name calling. It is the rest of the game that should be asking questions of the RFL to find out why such finacial support was offered to an obviously failing business.

Hopefully the max points deduction is a green light to tip the wink to staff and suppliers that they'll get paid and then tell the Bank and the Tax man to shove it!

Careful, i'm sure some Bradford fans are already in agreement with you.

Can the 6 pts be appealled against if new owners came in and paid debts off like in wakefield crusaders case?

They didn't give me or anyone else on here a penny. They apparently paid over 700k without an audit of the books, then a similar amount for the lease, then stood by whilst 'we' handed over another 500k which went to same way as the £1.5 million - a situation one might reasonably expect to have been avoided had the RFL sent the accountants in.

I'm not grateful. I'm appalled at the both the startling failure of governance and that the RFL are complicit in this fiasco.