Lol. If they had any interest in seeing us succeed they have a strange way of showing it.

That they would consider cutting off their nose to spite their face doesn't surprise me in the least though - it's pretty much par for an entity which shows the same signs of being in control of itself as a cockerel running around a farmyard with its head chopped off.

In reality, I only see it as a four point deduction because Robert Hicks gifted you two of them back last Thursday night.

In that same reality you're far from the first to mention how well Wakefield played in that game.

I don't agree with the criticism of the RFL.

They went to absurd lengths with the stadium deal to keep the Hood regime afloat. They've since gone to absurd lengths with the Sky fine to make sure that there was no realistic prospect of recovery.

On average they've handled the situation perfectly.

So, basically you agree they are getting worse?

(Except it's no laughing matter). Bit like their officials and levelling-up the penalty count, eh...?

They deny that as well....strange how it happens soooo often though...

Not gonna give my opinion cause it counts for sod all and would probably be appreciated even less.

......So all the best guys and I hope however many steps backwards you take, it'll lead to taking them forward in the future.

Perhaps it's for the best if you get relegated this year and can just empty the bath of mucky water and start afresh.

Hope to see you darn't lane in a few months

That is very difficult to argue with in its entirity but my point still stands.
The infuriating sadness in all this is that madness seems to lie in all directions, and this comes as a result of the RFL interfering right at the begining of Odsal-gate and the first administration.
I would be delighted to see Bradford go down that is the gods honest truth, because it might mean Wakey dont (short sighted and short termist i admit) but for gods sake it should be done on a muddy pitch with the better team staying up on a copletely level playing field.
Supporters of both clubs may consider that not to be the case for differing reasons.

Indeed mate, on that we agree.

That really made me laugh,thanks for brightening up a dull morning.

I'm presuming you are joking

So who, within the bulls over the last decade is to blame?

I think caisley for one. He started off a chain reaction the moment he signed harris.

Then I think Mcnamara, he signed poor players and declined bradfords on field performance whilst spending the full cap, which contributed to reduced revenue.

Then i think subsequent owners, with money leaking and revenue dropping have failed to reduce costs accordingly until it's been too late.

Now you know how it feels to be shafted by the R.F.L

All of the above! Along with many other awful mistakes by the club!!

Caisley knew who was to blame.

The supporters; the people of Bradford.

He said so, in his final Chairman's statement, October 2004, before standing down.

I don't have the words to hand (although I do at home), but the key bit was something to the effect of "what the supporters and the people of Bradford need to understand is that, if they want to retain a top-level Sl club in Bradford, they need to turn out and support the club in ever-increasing, not decreasing numbers".

This was in response to the disappointing reduction in attendances over the 2004 season, after the triple-champions 2003 season. That was the year the financial rot really set in, when Caisley et al clearly came to realise that the business model they had - based on growing crowds - was unsustainable.

Caisley was a very worried man then, certainly regarding attendances. I saw it with my own eyes. Many people slagged him off for saying what he did then. I stated that heavily criticising the supporter base was hardly likely to lead to a positive outcome. And these were in days of c.16k crowds.

As so often with Caisley, his delivery and wording was aggressive and confrontational. But was he totally wrong? Regardless of the reasons behind the crowds falling?