And a Scrum Half...

Surely not when he was supposedly given legal advice that the club was 100% certain to win the case ?

Do you really need to fart in with your sarky rubbish? Everyone here sees it as bleedin obvious that whatever the chances of winning, if 6 points back is totally irrelevant then the game isn't worth the candle. Green himself made almost exactly that point and it was widely reported. It's his money, and so Green can surely choose whether to waste it or not.

The thing is, you know all this, and so your post is just the sort of pointless childish, sneering drivel that sadly our situation will continue to attract, like to a bogbrush.

You could try for Jarrad Sammutt on season long loan, he can't get a game for us.

Perhaps he should, 2 wins from 5 is pretty poor.

I think we'll be going with Adam Brook as our 7 next year. Expect him to get a few games between now and the end of the season.

I have not made a single denigrating remark about Bradford's situation on this or any other topic. My point is that when he came out with this stuff it was simply catering for the masses, telling people what they wanted to hear. As soon as he made the claim about barristers being 100% certain of winning the case I knew it to be complete BS, as I'm sure you did too, as there is not a single member of the legal profession who would ever say they were 100% certain of winning any case.

...and that allegation isn't denigrating how, exactly?


An oft-repeated urban myth. In fact there are plenty of circumstances where a case may be a certain win. I would also suggest stating starkly that the claim was "complete BS" could be taken as denigrating too. What if -for example - he was paraphrasing and had been told that there was an "extremely strong case"? Would his comment then be "complete BS"? I suggest not.

100% or whatever, he also very clearly stated that he would only proceed if it was in the best interests of the club, =#FF0000and he would take a bit of time to think it over. He has done what he said he would do, and I would guess come to the conclusion that the court case would cost too much in time and effort that would be better spent trying to ensure that we return to SL1 asap. Or that rebuilding in SL2 carries far less financial risk than eventually winning a case with one day left to prepare for SL1. I dont think that that is hype.

It was bizarre that he'd even consider appealing given that the return of the six would be about as much use as a chocolate poker anyway.

If anything requires 100% certainty it's the focus on re-building so I'm glad he's ditched the idea.

I'd like to think we were accepting relegation with good grace, building again in SL2 and restoring a bit of integrity to the club's name.

That doesn't fill me with confidence, although i expect Brook will be one for the future i would like to see some experience brought in to guide us around the park.

At least the point has been made that perhaps a serious look at those that run the games is required.
Something that seems to be happening with a number of chairmen asking questions about the suitability of the hierachy who are trusted with the games creditability at many levels.
Personally if the rulling body can create this experiment with the two 12 and 3 x 8s whilst having the temerity to talk about promotion and relegation, which of course is the other way round> ie Relegation---Relegation and promotion (one team from championship 1 will be promoted in 2015, whilst 7 clubs will go down).
I honestly think the person that thought that one out, probably thought "Blue Sox" was a good name for a RL club??????