It took 107 posts, but it looks like you've finally got something right.

Got to admire the theatrics behind it all by delaying the decision.

In reality though, it proves that there might be a real chance for you boys.

The irony is of course that they might only award points back after knowing it won't make a difference to your survival. Still, its keeping Wakey and Salford fans nervous.....

Hey! Look LD. The board sicophant is on YOUR side now!

Here are the two of you ---->

Everything I've said so far about the Bulls farce is bang on.

TBH it does not bother me a jot. It is our own fault we are in this position and there is nothing I can do about it anyway!

one of the partners is a specialist in employment and trade union issues, the other covers a broad range of commercial matters in the areas of technology and communications; restrictive covenant High Court claims; injunctive relief, corporate disputes (shareholder issues, warranty claims, directors duties and joint ventures) and PFI contracts so hardly sports lawyers depending on the RFL for their fee income.

and the only reference on the website to the rfl is advice on buying odsal stadium, which neither would have been directly involved in. So lets think, destroy my professional integrity or risk tuppence ha'penny of fees from the RFL? difficult choice even before considering the third member is an expert in the subject matter of the appeal.

You are a complete idiot

I await the Dweebtroll posting the review panel's detailed terms of reference on here. So we can see if there is any suggestion that they are being guided towards an RFL-leaning decision, as the Dweebtroll seems to be wanting people to suppose? Since it seems to be so keen on people providing documentary evidence in support of their assertions, I feel sure its failure to do so on its own account must be a simple oversight?

I am curious why it would anyway want people to think that the panel is not impartial? And why it would seek to impugn the professional integrity of the qualified professionals who sit on the panel, with its implication of lack of impartiality?

I'm anyway a bit surprised that it is still making such a fool and a nuisance of itself on here. It seems to have found a new place to annoy all and sundry - that lovely Bulls-friendly place, the VT. Last time I looked, it was deriding and insulting folk on there who disagreed with it. Demonstrating excellent troll credentials, in fact. Although given my experiences with some of the lovely folk on there, there may be a strong argument that it is performing a public service.

I merely provided the information that Pinsent Mason are contracted legal advisers to the RFL since 2005. That it is two of their partners who are on the independent appeal panel looking into the legitimacy of the punishment handed down by the RFL is not something I have commented on.

You never did come back about the capacity in which you had access to OK Bulls accounts, or the NDA you claim you had to sign?

I wonder if Ryan Whitcut has been around Valley parade lately?

Just because you aren't intelligent or informed enough to know of the 9 year link between the RFL & Pinsent Mason is no excuse for such pointless posts

I think I preferred the noble way he used to write his prose, I feel it was more honest.

Give me strength...I really should not bother replying to this troll, but it is hard to avoid an open goal sometimes...



The whole world can see what you were implying, sunshine. You fool no-one.



Did I not? What an amazing thing. Set against the long list of matters you never responded to. But no matter.

In fact, regulars on here already know the answer to that, since I have stated it on here on a number of occasions. Although I never said "accounts" - I said "financials". Which may or may not extend beyond just accounts. I COULD tell you to go trawl back to find the answer out for yourself. Since the answer IS there. In fact, on this occasion, I think I WILL tell you to do precisely that. Since there are quite a few responsible posters on here who know the particulars.

By the way, I do not "claim" to have signed a NDA. I DID sign one. As some on here know for an absolute certainty. Are you calling me a liar? And I did not "have" to sign anything. I elected to.



Your point is?

Yes, I read the "since 2005" bit, please address the point that I am making, that it is the size of the relationship compared to their other clients that make it unlikely they would risk losing them. If it was just those two on the panel I would agree with you, but with another expert on the panel that can shout fix I believe the balance is in favour of an evidence based decision not a corruption based one. Or are you accusing him of being corrupt too?