Exactly. All bickering to be done in PMs from now on.

When someone asks questions about things there is no actual evidence of, how can those questions be answered? That's how conspiracy theories get legs and perpetuate for years, thereby allowing conspiracy theorists to perpetuate their conspiracies.

Did you or did you not Kill Princess Diana in that Parisian tunnel? And were you ordered to do so by Prince Philip?

As ever your contorted response to a list of specific question, done in your inimicable and impenetrable " a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma" quoting style, is pure waffle, so why bother, when not a single "response" actually made any attempt to provide answers?

Things there are no evidence of? Allright then I'll start you with an easy one. (And there are lots)

Green's company appointed an administrator to come in.
We know that the minute he came in, he also "sold" the business in a pre-pack (to BB2014)
BB2014 had a temporary licence to run the club in SL.

This evidence proves that the entry into administration and immediate exit of the business to a new owner involved a significant degree of pre-planning. BB2014 couldn't have been the buyers under the pre-pack unless they had previously thrashed out the details and documents in advance with the not-yet-appointed administrator. Nor can they have bought the business unless they knew they would be accepted by the RFL to run it.

None of the above is a conspiracy theory.

I would agree 100%, and it wasn't just the compo, though I am sure that was one of the bigger nails in one of our series of coffins. We never recovered from it.

Shame we didn't do a deal with Leeds then quickly done an admin shuffle - when we still had semblance of a decent team. Six points then would of course have been irrelevant, except in terms of league position in the playoffs, which I think would have been a price worth paying.

Lets just make it nice and simple, shall we?

There is an alleged scenario, that we have all seen elucidated in part or in the whole by various protagonists and in various places, that runs something like:

1 - RFL (and, probably, necessity) want to see a change of ownership of the Club.

2 - RFL work with (and maybe advise and encourage) Moore & co to help them bring that about. This requires administration. (And, remember, administration is a rememdy not just for insolvency, but for intractible ownership disputes).

3 - Whilst this is in progress, RFL get Bulls vote for the new league structure proposals - proposals that some major club owners strongly and publically object to. Where the Bradford vote might just have been crucial.

4 - As soon as the deed is done to remove the previous owner, RFL withdraw their support for Moore & co, and leave them (and the Club) hung out to dry.

5 - This despite statements, including in the Adminsitrator's report, that Moore & Co intended to settle with the creditors. Statements that may or may not have been backed up by genuine intent, or by the means to do so.

Given that the RFL and Moore & Co have put out conflicting versions of what happened, plus various public and private contributions from various individual protagonsists, it is understandably very hard for an objective observer to form a reasoned view as to what actually happened - and why. Hence the ongoing debate, and feeling of injustice in some quarters.

If both sides could agree on the answers to the simple yes/no questions that I asked - plus a few more that others will doubtless think of - we could get the matter resolved very quickly indeed. Either something like outlined in the alleged scenario DID happen - in which case what has been done to the club would surely be manifestly unfair, or worse? - or it did NOT happen - in which case the club has suffered no more than it deserved, so tough - live with it.

I want to know which it is, since I really do not know. So we can indeed put an end to the conspiracy theories (or, for the conspiracy theorists, to the sycophantic acceptance of everything the RFL says) and have closure and move on.

All the disingenuous evasion by the likes of Dweeb does is adds fuel to the fire for the conspiracy theorists.

A dozen agreed yes or no answers - simple yes or no - and it gets put to bed for ever.

What is so hard about, or wrong in asking for that?

Why would the RFL "hang you out to dry" when they have previously bent over backwards to help you out with Iconicgate.

Not me mate I'm delighted as it was the only realistic chance of us staying up - that and it also being the only fair and just decision that any decent person could arrive at.

Was it? So ALL clubs that go into administration have SIX points deducted? Is that what you are saying?

Do you concede that the fact the RFL had egg all over their face over firstly granting a license to a business plan with more holes in it than a piece of mozzarella, then secondly buying the lease on an iconic stadium due to a 'short term' cash flow problem might, just might, have set some people in the RFL on a course to make an example of the club! Mr. Hood and his board were the guilty party in that, subsequent people trying to clear up the mess are the one's punished. Is that not a possibility in your world?

Answering one question tells me yes/no to the conspiracy theory, namely, What prompted Moore to comment there would be no points sanction? Mr. Moore comment please?

And all clubs in admin. had 50% of their Sky money withheld and redistributed didn't they. My search engine is bust, couldn't find the links to that.

Really ticks me off when other clubs & supporters talk about fairness from a moral high ground, when it's clear to me the RFL are punishing us to an extra degree because Hood pulled the wool over their eyes twice in less than 6 months.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Anything on the unsubstantiated £1m yet?

Why did Moore & Co set up BB2014 if they had any genuine intention of purchasing OK Bulls? Let's not forget the directors of BB2014 had allegedly agreed a purchase of OK Bulls from Omar Khan, they joined as directors of the company, and then didn't proceed with the purchase upon learning of financial issues that miraculously Ryan Whitcut knew nothing about.

BB2014 them moved to buy OK Bulls from the administrator. The offer accepted by the administrator was only going to pay off what SSG was owed through it's debenture.

Agreement to purchase from the administrator, whose sole purpose is to act on behalf of creditors, was no guarantee of acceptance by the RFL to run the business going forward.

There were no other bidders or interested parties at the time, so in order to allow them to come forward, a temporary licence was given to BB2014 who, if not outbid within one month, and subject to business plan approval would become the new owners.

The administrator was prepared to accept the existing bb2014 purchase offer. After detailed discussions, the RFL didn't accept the business plan & forecasts of BB2014. BB2014 then withdrew their offer to purchase the assets from the administrator. They did this on the 24th February. The RFL then imposed a points deduction on 25th February.

Those are the facts. Anything else is hearsay and supposition.

It is a possibility but I can's see the RFL setting out to doom one of the bigger clubs in the game - it doesn't make sense. I know you're on your collective backsides at the minute, but Bradford Bulls is still one of the most recognisable brands in Super League - maybe 4th after Wigan, Leeds and Saints.

On a side note - does mozzarella have holes in it?