Bricks?
Nah......the RFL haven't bought us any bricks and with the best will in the world, you'll be hard pressed to show anyone that the RFL has financed London at the same level that Bradford have received!
We're going down and probably bust because we were run badly.....you've had loans and leases purchased and more second chances than anyone.

Leases? As in plural? Can you back up that statement? Of course you can't as you're well known for making up facts and claiming them as true.

Where as London have had no assistance or preferential treatment at all over the last 20 years

Yeap, nice try FA, I spelt it out once, if you want to pretend you cannot read, carry on looking like a prat to every one else on the forum.

Lease then.....and not forgetting the dodgy loan that led to the lease being bought to recoup the money.



Typical Bills fan.....when faced with the blatant favouritism shown to their club by the RFL they try to deflect by pointing out faults in other clubs......

...given your clubs illustrious and long history, your attendances are embarrassing, the flea-pit you play out of is archaic and you're now owned by and sponsored by loan sharks.......

good luck for the rest of the season and we'll see you back in administration next January

Leaving aside that it would (the parachute payment), the [iway[/i the fine is imposed isn't the point.

The first, and seemingly last, new owner to be fined over a million quid was OKB. Why hasn't an equivalent financial penalty been levied against BBNL?

The more relevant way of asking the same question though is: why did the RFL single out OKB to fine over a million quid, at the last minute, agree to this or else?

"Nice try"?



I am starting to think you have issues. I am not "pretending I cannot read", and you can't have spelled out in your post the answers to questions that I had not yet asked.

If I "look like a prat" to you then so be it. I can live with that terrible knowledge. But your self-appointment as spokesman for everyone else on the forum seems to be part of your issue. It betrays a deep insecurity. But the truth is I simply made a sober and reasoned post, and your strange response was unwarranted.

Wouldn't you prefer having sensible discussion to flaming?

I won't claim to have read every word of the current 349 pages but I seem to recall it being established that the "fine" was negotiated by the RFL as some clubs who had paid their bills considered the Bulls to have an advantage by not doing so. As I saw the explanation, OK offered to forego some tv cash to appease the objecting clubs. If this is the case, the RFL kept the club in SL and the "fine" could be viewed as a sweetener.

My memory is not what it used to be so please enlighten me if events transpired otherwise.

Typical Gutterfax fan.....when faced with the blatant favouritism shown to their club by the RFL they try to deflect by pointing out faults in other clubs......

...Ooooh. Supposed Blatant favouritism shown to London dependant on opnions v Proven and documented Loans, lease purchase and bail outs provided to Bradford.....it's gonna be close

Perhaps the owner who managed to persuade 7 other clubs to vote for the proposal last time has found that the support isn't there this time after the financial and reputational carnage it caused to the Bulls, SL & the wider game.

Favouritism suggests, at least in your argument, that Bradford are alone in getting loans and their ground bought by the RFL. But this isn't the case.

The RFL have had a blind spot to London's shortcomings both off and in the field for many years.