100% wrong? That Mr Whitcut being involved with the club would mean the new owners wouldn't be ratified by the RFL? I don't think I was, was I? After all, the new owners HAVE been ratified, haven't they? Which would mean I'm not wrong.

No, what I did was deflect your constant character assassination which you were basically using to deflect any attention away from your club and the complete toilet they find themselves in. But you didn't need to do that as, apart from 200 or so people, no one cares about the London club and tbh, if you're an example of their fan base, it's not really a big surprise that no one cares, is it?



Oh, and the RFL haven't bought us a ground. They bought our ground off us. It's a little point, but completely in keeping with how you operate, ie ignore facts that don't back up your argument or just plain make stuff up

No....you defended this guy. I never said the new owners wouldn't be ratified...I simply questioned his track record.


Why would I deflect away from London Broncos position in a thread about Bradford's new part owner on the Bradford forum

I simply pointed out that Ryan wasn't the knight in shining armour you held him to be....you brought up the irrelevance that is London's current plight




The RFL bought the lease before you lost it....ergo, they bought it "for you".....argue semantics all you like, the great train robbers could make up your BOD....the RFL would kick Biggs out but let the rest stay to ensure they aren't left with a massive white elephant....

I was 100% spot on about Whitcut and your defence of him was shown to be misguided at best....amn up and admit you were wrong!

No, you never said they wouldn't. You did however constantly suggest it.

I never said he was a knight in shining armour. But again, that's YOU making stuff up AGAIN like ALWAYS. But I'm glad you see London's current plight being irrelevant, as that's the attitude of the majority, which seems to include the people running London.

You insisted that Whitcut was a detriment to the Bulls continued existence. I said that he wasn't. Mr Whitcut is gone, the Bulls new board and their ownership of the club has been ratified by the RFL. What was I wrong about?

You're the one arguing semantics over the RFL buying the lease for Odsal and then you go back to your character assassinating ways by suggesting that the current board at Bradford are criminals. As for Odsal being a white elephant? A large expanse of land right on the entrance to the motorway? Gee, who'd be able to shift something like that if they were forced to sell it? No, you're completely right, if the RFL hadn't let the Bulls stay there they'd have been stuck with a prime piece of real estate that they'd not be able to get rid of.

I said Ryan Whitcut was dodgy
you decried my opinion and defended him to the hilt
I have been shown to be right.
you refuse to accept you were wrong......

Yes you did.

I said he wasn't a detriment to the future of the club.

You said he was.

The new owners have been ratified ergo the club continues

So yes, as you so desperately need me to validate your opinion, you were right. Ryan Whitcut failed the fit and proper persons test. But hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.



However, was he a detriment to the future of the Bulls as you also contested that he was? It would seem that as he's got a new set of owners in place and they seem to have a idea of how to move the club forward it so it would seem that the answer is NO he was not a detriment to the future of the club.

I notice you've shied away from referring the Bulls new owners as criminals again. Well done on avoiding any further libelous comments.

no.....I simply said he was dodgy and you said he deserved the benefit of the doubt....the RFL would seem to agree with me. I don't recall calling anyone a criminal.

Your comparison of the Bradford BOD to the great train robbers. Some could argue that's defamation of character.
But that's been your agenda all along. Character assassination and defamation of character along with invention of facts and ignoring of anything that does not correspond with the argument you're putting forward.

Ah, can't refute the argument. Can't risk making up another fact as I'll clearly call you on it. So what do you do? You put up stupid pictures and reduce everything to a sad and childish state. Sad, sad, sad little troll

I said Ryan Whitcut was dodgy...you disagreed, you were wrong.

You have spent the last couple of hours wriggling and dancing around this fact, unable to bring yourself to admit you were wrong......all you had to do was admit your error, but instead, you prefer to try and cloud the issue with other accusations......the guy is dodgy, simple as and regardless of your continued failure to accept and admit this, nothing is going to change that!

And again you ignore anything that doesn't match up with your argument. I've already conceded the point that Ryan Whitcutt failed the fit and proper person test. But that wasn't my point. My point was that you said he was detrimental to the Bulls going forward and as of yet, he hasn't been.

Dear oh dear, and you have the gall to say I'M grasping at straws.

no....again.

I said he was dodgy......when I started saying he was dodgy, he was part of the dynamic duo......without the cavalry arriving, then bedman moore would have been on his lonesome and that would have been detrimental...but that's an aside.
I repeatedly questioned Whitcut's suitability, you repeatedly defended him....you were wrong...everything else is a smokescreen designed to cover your .....you were wrong, pure and simple!