FORUMS FORUMS



  
FORUMS > Bradford Bulls > Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thought'
286 posts in 20 pages 
<<   PREV  NEXT   >>
Subscribe | Moderators: Admin
mat
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach9554
JoinedServiceReputation
Jun 200519 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Nov 2024Nov 2024LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: paulwalker71 "Genuine? Or fake?
wording certainly sounds pretty genuine. Not sure what anyone gains by leaking it now though.

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman17146No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Dec 200123 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Dec 2024Nov 2024LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: Bullpower2012 "
The cynic in me would suggest that this could be a stunt....'"


A cunning stunt.

RankPostsTeam
International Star1934No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 201114 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Nov 2023Mar 2023LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Incredibullman has few posts most of which are pro-Hood and anti-CC. It would be quite a about turn to fabricate a letter which present CC trying to save the club from admin, in the face of a Chair who is accused of strongly indicating admin is inevitable without any reference to the shareholding whatsoever. He also claims to have high level contacts at the club.

If what this letter and Coulby also accuses is true, it's a wonder Hood isn't in Linfield Mount. The whole thing amounts to one of the most bizarre tales I've ever heard.

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
May 2024Oct 2019LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: mystic eddie "Of course, your head is so far up your own 'arris that you didn't realise it was aimed at you.
Touché c015.gif

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
May 2024Oct 2019LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: M@islebugs "...
...The whole thing amounts to one of the most bizarre tales I've ever heard.'"


Indeed, I agree that it looks genuine, both due to the posters credentials, but mainly because you couldn't make it up icon_smile.gif

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman14145No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Dec 200123 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Aug 2020Oct 2019LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: mat "wording certainly sounds pretty genuine. Not sure what anyone gains by leaking it now though.'"


Pretty explosive stuff indeed.

If it's not genuine, its one hell of a good fake. And of course Hood and Bennett could challenge it. Or of course it could be an "amended" version of the original - although again that would leave them open to challenge by Hood and Bennett.

I am therefore minded to treat it as genuine, albeit with considerable caution. The language certainly sounds like the man, but there are one or two bits that make me wonder - would a lawyer write "2" rather than "two", for example? I would very much like to know the date though. The reference to "next Tuesday" suggests it was the week before Easter, the same week that CC made his public statement. That would make sense.

IF it is genuine, that then leads us to why leak it now?

The content is, in my view, not particularly inconsistent with what we either already knew or some of us at least had been told, albeit the emphasis is quite different. The one significant point of variance I can see is the following
"From your recent media comments it is reasonable to assume that you have received no tangible interest from the latter."
[/i

That, I note, is a presumption and not a statement of fact. Having been told, face to face, that there were three separate options being pursued, all aimed at avoiding the need for administration, we have a clear difference between the "letter"'s presumption and something we were specifically told (as were others). At this stage, I can add nothing more to that, other than if the directors called the pledges in without reasonable expectation of avoiding administration - which I take as meaning without reasonable expectation of ongoing funding) then they were reckless fools. Or worse - as Maislebugs conjectures. I suspect we will never get to know the truth of it.

I am quite sure that Hood had administrators lined up for the week after Easter -not from what anyone at the club told me, but even so. And, assuming that we were being told the truth about how imminent the threat was (and this "letter" surely confirms that one and for all?" he would have HAD to have had, to avoid trading whilst insolvent. So that part rings very true to me.

That comment about £600k "causing" him to reflect has again led to a supposition in the letter, which on the face of it is understandable. Except of course we know that hood DID call in the pledges and did NOT appoint, therefore one must assume that £500k WAS enough to stave off the immediate threat and therefore the supposition was incorrect? But that is itself a supposition! And does not really tell us much. What an unholy mess.

Here it gets interesting again[i"I pointed out that according to my information, even if you were to raise £1m by the end of April the Company would still suffer substantial month on month losses going forward. You agreed and said there would have to be significant expenditure cuts."[/i

I note "according to my information", so that is not necessarily fact. Nevertheless, I am sure it IS correct - just the scale of the losses is never made clear. It has been obvious for ages that expenditure in the current economic situation has been exceeding income, and no amount of one-off funding fixes that. All that WOULD fix it is either new ongoing income streams - which the letter presumes to be ruled out, but we were assured WAS very much the plan (so you takes your choice there) or cost reductions - which could only really come from the playing staff budget.

Otherwise, it all rings pretty much what I would have expected to be honest - including the threat to hold Hood and Bennett personally responsible - I have been raising that issue for weeks now. If Hood was not a frightened man, he probably should have been - damned whatever he did.

A big question I guess is was the wording of the letter intended to future-proof it against whatever might subsequently happen? After all, as has been pointed out there is no assurance of funding or avoidance of administration from Mr Caisley either, just a demand (as a majority of the shareholders were perfectly entitled to make) for Hood and Bennett to step aside so they could see if they could do any better.

Leaking it NOW could be to head off the reaction if they now decide to appoint administrators – they can say that it was never their intention but the actions of the previous board left them no choice. And there is no way of knowing now proving whether that statement would be genuine or otherwise. The wording of the letter leaves them all avenues open. And Hood and Bennett look to have got themselves into a very exposed position.

If this letter IS genuine, then for me the timing is crucial, in all sorts of ways. If it was received AFTER the meeting a group of us had with the board the week before Easter, then it fits in with the Thursday-before-Easter announcement from CC through the T&A. If it was received BEFORE, then I would have a major issue indeed with Mr Hood & Mr Bennett.

But, if it IS genuine, then why did Hood and Bennett not call in the pledges (to stave off administration, as they were obviously sure it would and therefore would presumably be acting in the best interests of the company) and then immediately stand down as a majority of the owners of the business demanded? Instead of hanging on for several weeks leaving everything seemingly in limbo? There seems to be a big case to answer there.

Again, always assuming the letter is genuine in all respects.

What a hell of a way to own and run a business.

And yes, its all so bloody impossible that it must be true.

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
May 2024Oct 2019LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: Adeybull "...would a lawyer write "2" rather than "two", for example? '"

Aye, under court rule changes of recent times lawyers are supposed to use digits not words. So you'll find litigators use numbers, and probate and conveyancing lawyers tend to write everything out in words
You learn something every day! And Caisley is litigation, so it adds to the credibility?

You really would struggle to make it up, wouldn't you?

RankPostsTeam
International Star1934No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 201114 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Nov 2023Mar 2023LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



The 'leaker's previous posts are predominatly in defence of Hood and critical of CC so I can't see how it's been leaked to provide political cover in advance of administration.

What does appear to be 'fact' or as close as something we all agree on is that Hood and Bennet almost certainly had administrators lined up apparently without reference to the other shareholders.

The point about ongoing losses is almost certainly true. This all places Bennett's claim that CC was planning to put the club into administration at the same time that the current board also had plans to do the same in a less than positive light. They were teetering somewhere over the brink of insolvency yet AB inferred that the club was in reasonable financial shape and CC was orchestrating an administration.

In the light of Stephen Coulby's intervention which makes a primie face case against Hood for outright lying, I believe the assurances made to Adey and others about potential investors were at best exagerated and at worst, dishonest. The story PH told about the sale of the ground (which never rang true) and the public statement made by SC are so widely divergent as to demand a response. None has been forthcoming.

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman14145No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Dec 200123 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Aug 2020Oct 2019LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Unless the leaker has found it appropriate or necessary to change sides?

But as for "almost certainly had administrators lined up", in my mind it has to be a certainty. As I said, in the situation they explained they were in, if the pledge failed then administration was a certainty. So to NOT have administrators lined up would have been criminally reckless IMO.

And the point about ongoing losses again IMO is a certainty. That was why the previous BoD was seeking additional income sources - to plug that gap.

As I said, nothing new to me there.

The reason I supported the pledge was because it was the only way I could see what I saw as the evil of administration could be avoided.

Not sure how you can conclude that the assurances to us from the BoD were "at best exaggerated and at worst dishonest"? Why not just "optimistic" or "premature" or "over-ambitious"? Or even "reasonably-held expectation"? Not being funny, but I don't know which it was, so I wondered if you knew something I did not?

The statement re the sale of the ground most definitely has a big hole in it, in the light of subsequent events. (The sale of a big hole has a big hole in it...?). Of all the things I'd really like to get the full facts on, that is the biggest - and there are plenty on the list! And THAT is one issue I do feel the BoD - all of them - were at best disingenuous in presenting - to the fans in general, and to me to my face.

RankPostsTeam
International Star1934No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 201114 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Nov 2023Mar 2023LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



On the 'dishonesty' charge, no I don't know anymore than you but in my experience dishonesty is infrequently a one off event but much more likely to be a slow creep of self justification which results in a pattern of deception. I think this is where Peter Hood has found himself.

I don't want to go into details which we've already gone over but the use of confidentiality clauses whilst briefing privately, the narratives around Harris, Orford, the sale of the ground lease, the financial security of the club all involved the stating of one thing in public and a slightly different story on here. Gradually as time went on the gap between what he was saying and the accumulated evidence became larger and larger. People simply don't invest in people who say and do what Peter Hood has said and done.

Ultimately, I feel the Coulby story demonstrates a man who has found himself compelled to move 1 degree from the truth and many years and events later has suddenly found himself at 180' to reality. It's a sad, rather than malicious story of a person who's decieved himself more than anyone else.

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman14145No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Dec 200123 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Aug 2020Oct 2019LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



I can appreciate your point regarding the appearance of differing and changing stories. Indeed very much fell victim to that over the ground sale - although the story we were told at the forum was backed up to me, ftf, with more detail, by all three directors separately plus Stuart. The fact that both Ryan and Stuart backed the line suggests to me that either they were not fully aware of the situation themselves - which in the case of Ryan at least would surprise me but would then suggest PH was not being open with his own team - or they all saw the need commercially to portray the same picture - in which case you can hardly point the finger just at PH? Is there a fault in my logic there?

You refer also to the Harris and Orford situation, as examples of dishonesty. I suggest neither of those were really any such thing, even if that is how the results may indeed look. I can only try and reach a reasoned conclusion based on what information I have and what deductions I can make, and if I become aware of anything new then I might find I need to change my conclusions. I had to do it over Harrisgate and over the ground sale, and if it becomes necessary I am quite oprepared to do so again. Betre to acknowledge you reached a wrong conclusion based on lack of information than to stick with the argument regardless? But, as it stands, the following is my conclusion on those two issuesvolte face[/i? And, as far as I can gather from a number of sources, the reason was because of changes in the circumstances that meant the club's lawyers advised the directors that the club was facing an existential crisis if they continued to contest. Some people have posted on here and elsewhere what they understsand was the principal development that brought this about, but I have no firm evidence tyhat i could prove one way or the other and am not dumb enough to risk defamation. But even to win but with both parties standing their own costs looked likely to bankrupt the club, based on my understanding of the sort of costs involved. And, incidentally, I never once spoke to PH about Harris (until, in fact, the meeting we had just before Easter) - what I learned that came from the club came from others.

Orford? I have told you in PM in the past why I was assured (again, not by PH, ever) that the club had to move its position as time went on. And you therefore know full well why I cannot post that on here. I so so wish I could, since it would probably give people a rather different perspective on what happened to at least take into consideration. And, incidentally, I was able to cross-reference the story from elsewhere - there are seemingly leakers at Red Hall, as we found over last autumn where there were rumours apparently coming out of Red Hall about "a big Yorkshire club" being in financial difficulties. Again, I would argue that the changing (and frustrating) changes in the position coming out of the club reflected developing circumstances, particularly when that scumbag of a manager of his (who, you will note, has been suspended by the NRL for six months for major dishonesty, so you really do pick a poor example...) realised that the club was not just going to let Orford go back home with no consequences and was telling the truth.

As I have said regularly, I hold no brief for Hood. I formed the view, a few years ago and indeed from the first time I ever sat in a meeting with him, that he seemed somewhat lightweight and naïve - and most certainly in comparison with his predecessor, whom no-one could ever accuse of being either! - but also probably fairly genuine in his motives. That remains my view to this day, until and unless I receive better information, and to a fair extent therefore I think your last sentence may well be fairly close to the truth.

RankPostsTeam
International Star1795No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jan 201114 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Apr 2021Jan 2021LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



The timing is definitely that Thursday, Caisley says that recent media comments indicate that there are no investors. Hood had on Tuesday the 3rd said that although they were in discussion with a number of parties, nobody was in sight at the moment, that not got to £250k yet, 1660 individuals (ie a relatively small number of Members) had pledged and the response from the business community had been poor. on the 4th he said £248 k pledged with much more to come in, and that he was reluctant to cash in the pledges unless the clubs survival can be guaranteed after the current liabilities had been met. Thursday that letter. So hardly surprising that Hood extended teh deadline, Duckett announced on the 11th that there were talks with investors, on the 14th talking to 2 potential investors, on the 19th 3 opportunities plus Caisley. Also on teh 19th if Peter and I cannot find the investors we will stand aside 22nd Caisley says he has the money, good, 3rd May Coulby stated the investors were not factually supported, 9th resigned.

so it looks to me as if Caisleys intervention was based on the belief that there were no investors, which if you believe the PR was not the case until much later. Equally Caisely seems not to have any money lined up, despite allegedly telling Hood that he had before the 9th May when Hood resigned. So it comes down to both of them not wanting to go into admin or sell players, which both require a rabbit being pulled out of a hat: the first "Bulls Chairmans Have Got Talent" contestant failed to produce the rabbit, can the Amazing Conjuring Caisley do it and will it be big enough to feed the black hole of Odsal?

RankPostsTeam
International Star1934No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 201114 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Nov 2023Mar 2023LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



No, I wouldn't call the Harris, Orford situs outright dishonesty, more a Blairite management of the story through public and private channels. What I do believe though is that without the backing of the shareholding they were (and I'd include Bennett and Ryan) in an impossible position in both cases and were left with two choices; resign, state the impossibility of the situation and bring the situation into the open or, enter into a years long process of saying one thing in public while trying to get their story out in private.

This has given the strong impression of dishonesty and I think has led to a looser relationship with the truth going forward. Over time, in order to further prevent disclosure of the real position of the club Hood has blatantly misled the fans.

The Harris situation was one they inherited but nevertheless persons (and you know who I mean) have briefed both before and after the capitulation, a version of events for their own ends.

The Orford situation is a case of a BOD not recieving the backing they needed to enforce their own contracts. That they were dealing with sharks is not in doubt. That they were not up to the job of dealing with sharks, nor had any support to do so, is the real story in my view.

FWIW, I think their analysis of the situation they found themselves has some merit. Undoubtedly, they feel they were left holding a rather poorly baby. What they should have done is resign and hand the baby back to its parents. Up until recently, I've had some sympathy for Hood and Co. You can't run any business if the owners are not behind you and clearly they weren't. However, the only thing to do in this situation is resign.

The Coulby story is one of total fiasco in which Hood, Bennett, Duffy, Duckett were significant but by no means the only players.

There's a book in this mess.

RankPostsTeam
International Star1795No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jan 201114 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Apr 2021Jan 2021LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Its called the Titanic, simple storyline: unsinkable ship, tip of the iceberg, glug glug glug...

286 posts in 20 pages 
<<   PREV  NEXT   >>
Subscribe | Moderators: Admin
286 posts in 20 pages 
<<   PREV  NEXT   >>
Subscribe | Moderators: Admin



All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.

Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.

RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.

Copyright 1999 - 2024 RLFANS.COM

You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.



Please Support RLFANS.COM


3.4755859375:10
RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
4m
ALL NEW 49ERS ERA LEEDS UTD THREAD
Trebor1
2646
20m
2025 Shirt
Zig
30
22m
Rumours and signings v9
Zig
28914
55m
Film game
Boss Hog
5925
Recent
Shirt reveal coming soon
FIL
51
Recent
Liam Kay
FIL
54
Recent
Leeds away first up
Scarlet Pimp
55
Recent
Super League
Dr Dreadnoug
27
Recent
Ground Improvements
Wollo-Wollo-
253
Recent
Transfer Talk V5
Whino4life
556
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
54s
Friendlies
Deadcowboys1
3
1m
2025 Recruitment
Bullseye
236
1m
ALL NEW 49ERS ERA LEEDS UTD THREAD
Trebor1
2646
1m
Mike Cooper podcast
karetaker
30
1m
BORED The Band Name Game
Boss Hog
63304
1m
Film game
Boss Hog
5925
1m
Leeds away first up
Scarlet Pimp
55
2m
2025 COACH Brad Arthur
Ex-Swarcliff
258
5m
Co-Captains for 2025
Vic Mackie
19
6m
Game - Song Titles
Boss Hog
40839
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Friendlies
Deadcowboys1
3
TODAY
Sam Luckley likely to miss the beginning of new season
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Frankie Halton sign new deal
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
Jake the Peg
10
TODAY
Trinity shop Sunday opening
phe13
1
TODAY
Tyler Craig
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Matty Ashurst testimonial dinner
Big lads mat
1
TODAY
2025 Squad Numbers
Jake the Peg
27
TODAY
England Women Las Vegas train-on squad
RLFANS News
1
TODAY
Quiz night
H.G.S.A
1
TODAY
Co-Captains for 2025
Vic Mackie
19
TODAY
Cornwall has a new owner
CM Punk
2
TODAY
Callum Shaw
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Squad Numbers
phe13
4
TODAY
Rhinos squad numbers
Rixy
1
TODAY
Squad numbers
Warrior Wing
8
TODAY
Mat Crowther pre season update
Dunkirk Spir
1
TODAY
Mike Cooper podcast
karetaker
30
TODAY
Shirt reveal coming soon
FIL
51
TODAY
Opening Championship and League One Fixtures for 2025 Released
RLFANS News
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS
POSTSONLINEREGISTRATIONSRECORD
19.65M +11,750 80,15614,103
LOGIN HERE
or REGISTER for more features!.

When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
RLFANS Match Centre
 Thu 13th Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R1
20:00
Wigan
v
Leigh
 Fri 14th Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R1
20:00
Hull KR
v
Castleford
20:00
Catalans
v
Hull FC
 Sat 15th Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R1
15:00
Leeds
v
Wakefield
17:30
St.Helens
v
Salford
       Championship 2025-R1
18:00
Toulouse
v
Widnes
 Sun 16th Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R1
15:00
Huddersfield
v
Warrington
       Championship 2025-R1
15:00
Bradford
v
LondonB
15:00
Featherstone
v
Doncaster
15:00
Oldham
v
York
15:00
Sheffield
v
Halifax
15:00
Barrow
v
Hunslet
 Thu 20th Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R2
20:00
Wakefield
v
Hull KR
 Fri 21st Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R2
20:00
Warrington
v
Catalans
20:00
Hull FC
v
Wigan
 Sat 22nd Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R2
15:00
Salford
v
Leeds
20:00
Castleford
v
St.Helens
 Sun 23rd Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R2
14:30
Leigh
v
Huddersfield
       Championship 2025-R2
15:00
Halifax
v
Barrow
15:00
Hunslet
v
Bradford
ALL SCORES PROVIDED BY RLFANS.COM (SETTINGS)
Matches on TV
Thu 13th Feb
SL
20:00
Wigan-Leigh
Fri 14th Feb
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Castleford
SL
20:00
Catalans-Hull FC
Sat 15th Feb
SL
15:00
Leeds-Wakefield
SL
17:30
St.Helens-Salford
Sun 16th Feb
SL
15:00
Huddersfield-Warrington
Thu 20th Feb
SL
20:00
Wakefield-Hull KR
Fri 21st Feb
SL
20:00
Warrington-Catalans
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Wigan
Sat 22nd Feb
SL
15:00
Salford-Leeds
SL
20:00
Castleford-St.Helens
Sun 23rd Feb
SL
14:30
Leigh-Huddersfield
Fri 28th Feb
SL
20:00
Huddersfield-Hull FC
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Salford
SL
20:00
Leigh-Catalans
Sat 1st Mar
SL
14:30
Wakefield-St.Helens
SL
21:30
Wigan-Warrington
Sun 2nd Mar
SL
15:00
Leeds-Castleford
Thu 6th Mar
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Leigh
Fri 7th Mar
SL
20:00
Castleford-Salford
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wigan 29 768 338 430 48
Hull KR 29 731 344 387 44
Warrington 29 769 351 418 42
Leigh 29 580 442 138 33
Salford 28 556 561 -5 32
St.Helens 28 618 411 207 30
 
Catalans 27 475 427 48 30
Leeds 27 530 488 42 28
Huddersfield 27 468 658 -190 20
Castleford 27 425 735 -310 15
Hull FC 27 328 894 -566 6
LondonB 27 317 916 -599 6
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wakefield 27 1032 275 757 52
Toulouse 26 765 388 377 37
Bradford 28 723 420 303 36
York 29 695 501 194 32
Widnes 27 561 502 59 29
Featherstone 27 634 525 109 28
 
Sheffield 26 626 526 100 28
Doncaster 26 498 619 -121 25
Halifax 26 509 650 -141 22
Batley 26 422 591 -169 22
Swinton 28 484 676 -192 20
Barrow 25 442 720 -278 19
Whitehaven 25 437 826 -389 18
Dewsbury 27 348 879 -531 4
Hunslet 1 6 10 -4 0
YOU HAVE RECENT POSTS OFF


Visit the RLFANS.COM SHOP
for more merchandise!