Bravo. Now, a competition, no prizes, just a bit of fun to calm tempers.
Question 1
Can you identify this bird?

Crikey, you are even using his phrases now. Dear me.

BTW, the reason I have an issue with Adey is because of his attitude and his pompous way. He thinks he is superior to everyone else and when he gets told about it he goes off in a huff.

If he is not prepared to play by the rules then he should just sod off. Similarly, if he was stopped from doing so by some of the admin then it would not be allowed to continue.

That is all, I have said my piece. He has shown himself up on here as the hypocrite he is anyway.

You don't have to be better than 4 worst teams in SL1 though. Top 3 after mini league are guaranteed SL1. 4th then plays 5th for last spot in a one off game. So in theory you only have to be 5th best out of that group of 8 then win a one off game against a team that finished one place higher than you. still stacked against SL2 teams but not as hopeless as some are making out.

yes, knowing our luck we would get 4th then lose the playoff.

Ok, hadn't grasped that, cheers. Not as bleak as I feared, but still challenging unless a team is like London and implodes. But, as I said in earlier comment, going into admin and coming out in a per pack becomes even more attractive, retain the players screw the creditors but stay in top flight!

Question 2http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4c6149ab7f8b9a8015430000-480/sniper.jpg" >

I can't and neither can you and that's the point

Technically, isn't that two points?

What I don't get is why Adeybull seems to have the view everyone on here is answerable to him? You are all just fans and the likelyhood of ever getting the full picture is virtually zero. The only people that will have anywhere near the full facts and the current owners and the independant board.

Adey have you contacted the current owner for discussions as I am sure together you could clear up some grey areas to your satisfaction. Repeatedly asking the same question to fans on a forum will not give you answers and the view that if they can't be answered byt fans means something is fishy doesn't add up.

Saying if it should be 4 or 6 isn't relivant the case was for all or nothing, if they has said they had paid of some of the creditors or appealed it should have been 4 not 6 I would have understood this being discussed.

Still points to be had this year and if that isn't acheivable get your youngsters signed up an start looking at Leighs business model. Stop wasting energy on chasing shadows.

Ha, sorry about the latin, mea culpa.

No-one on here wrote it though, or has usage rights. After all, there are a few latin phrases in [fairly] common usage in English. It is also true that there are no special cases and all on here are pari passu, so you see, it was just a gentle caveat about the way ad hominem stuff was leading, though sadly, I suspect that alea iacta est....

We could see this all again in 2015 if Bulls are relegated and docked another six points and fined in 2015.

How might that happen? ...... Nobody on here (not even the know alls) seems to know if players' contracts are null and void on relegation. If they aren't and that means Bulls go over the Championship salary cap next year, there'll be more sanctions... Happy Days...

OMG!! I never realised it was that bad.....what on earth can we do?? We're doomed, I tell you, we're doomed!

1 - What you say in the first paragraph is not my view, is not a view I have ever put forward, and (other than in the minds of any whom it suits to think or suggest that) is not a view supported by any evidence.

2 - The questions are quite clearly not aimed directly at the current owner (although his answers would be enlightening), or fans on here. They are quite clearly aimed at the key protaganists t in this debacle - the RFL, Moore & Co and to an extent Green, as well as the likes of Khan and Whitcu*t. I posted the same questions in several other places. Have a read of rlthis threadrl for a rather wider discussion of the questions. I seem to have accumulated 30 likes so far to my original post, which is quite a lot for that place, so I must be doing something right?

3 - The questions, as you will see from the extra paragraph in that and other places, are a clear invitation to journalists and others who are far better placed to get to the bottom of things, to see if THEY can get some answers. And the T&A journalist rang me up earlier precisely in response to that post. In a brief discussion, we each ascertained that we did not have many of the definitive answers. I had nothing new I could tell him, and vice versa.

4 - I already know some of the answers some of the protaganists would (or did) give, since they have told me. But, given there are always two sides to any argument, I would want to hear the other side. And compare the answers, and any disagreements, and THEN try and form a view. It seems to me that many people have already formed a view, without having heard the responses from both sides. I say again, the only people who are likely to be able to get to the bottom of what really happened - if anyone is - will be the likes of journalists. And there must be wider stories in all this, not least the roles of the various politicians, and of one in particular.

5 - the reason for posing the questions is simple: I do not believe we have anything like the whole explanation for what has happened. Any more than we did over Iconicgate (that was quite good, the guy who coined that! I might steal it...), the first administration, the sale to OKB, and what happened under OK's tenure. Some folk may be content to let it lie, and just accept the present disaster for what it is. Some other folk would prefer to know how the hell we got to this disaster, and what lessons might be learned. And who really are the guilty men. I am one of those, and I can see I am not totally alone, even if doubtless in a minority. THAT is why I posted what I did. To provoke some thought; maybe some consideration that things may not be quite as clear-cut as some folk - many folk outside of the Bulls fanbase - might believe or want to believe; and, just maybe, some more probing questions to get some better explanations.

If anyone has a problem with any of that, just put me on ignore and don't read what I say. Simple.

At a secret meeting with the RFL it has already been agreed that if the Bulls were relegated then they would have special dispensation to pay whatever salaries they liked. The RFL were dead set against it, but when it was pointed out to them how much this would annoy, they loved the idea.

PS as we are majoring in Latin today, can I just point out that your post contains a [inon sequitur[/i since obviously, if certain people didn't know about the contracts then, by definition, they wouldn't be "know alls".

Nonsense. The current owner will have very limited information on previous management and effectively none at all for most of it. Why would he? Where would he get it from and why would he be remotely interested in (say) what happened under the Caisley, or Hood, regimes?

The independent panel would know practically nothing at all, since none of the issues raised by Adey were anything to do with them, and they never even got to considering such extremely narrow single-subject remit as was given to them as the Bulls apparently didn't even qualify to get their appeal heard. So what on earth would they know about any of that historical stuff?


What are you trying to say? That because maybe no answers can be gained, no questions should be asked? If I want to come on here, or anywhere, and ask or answer questions, then it is up to me. And as it happens I have found out a great deal over the years either directly via these forums, or indirectly in private communications with members of these forums.

To use your "fishy" turn of phrase, anyone who has even read anything in passing of the debacles of events in recent years, if they have learned anything at all, it must surely be that the stench of fish would overpower a thousand Grimsby docks in a summer heatwave. How naive are you?