Roger I am but one of you.
But without the rose tinted.
On a happier note I did say somewhere I thought it would be good if the Bulls won the cup this year.

Two games from Wembley of course that is possible.
Anything is on the day.
Supporters need to be there in their bucketful.

Even if Marc Green IS a Leeds fan I think he will know whats needed.
So will Ferres.

What is not needed is a shedload of overpaid players that finish 8th 9th or 10th every year that take the club by virtue of the ridiculous salaries given, to the point of no longer existing.
Freedom of Speech does not make me Stuart Duffey.
Any more than it makes me "The Man From Uncle" or Peter Brady.
Now you see it now you don't.

That's how close the Bulls were.
Twice in 17 months

I'm guessing you have been involved with the Bulls in an official capacity at some point, I have known one or two people involved in an official capacity over the years. I have had a couple of guesses about your real identity in the last few weeks,one name I have not mentioned is Paul Medley

Are you Paul Medley?

The only official capacity I have served is as a paying customer.
Like you I know people.
People who were powerless but despairing at what was going on.
Nothing more than that.
It will please me no end to see the end of this nearly 400 page script and that the Bulls are operated solvently.
That the fans and club take the punishment for OK"s stupidity,the Bulls finish 3rd bottom.win the cup and rebuild slowly and solvently.

I shall keep guessing pal,I will get there eventually

Have you read this document folks the RFL policy review www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/29087/rfl ... umentation‎ 11 Oct 2013 - Makes all the stuff we have been talking about somewhat irrelevant to our future. One thing stands out from the poster who says the Bulls paid up to the salary cap which is £1.825 million. Maybe OK paid a lot of that in investment, if of course we believe him...doubtful in my opinion..the review is worth a read as we will be able to not understand the new structures for the League after we have finished???? I didn't so I must be Mr Thicko from Thicko land>

Have you read this document folks the RFL policy review www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/29087/rfl ... umentation‎ 11 Oct 2013 - Makes all the stuff we have been talking about somewhat irrelevant to our future. One thing stands out from the poster who says the Bulls paid up to the salary cap which is £1.825 million. Maybe OK paid a lot of that in investment, if of course we believe him...doubtful in my opinion..the review is worth a read as we will be able to not understand the new structures for the League after we have finished???? I didn't so I must be Mr Thicko from Thicko land>

Quote Rarebreed="Rarebreed"Have you read this document folks the RFL policy review www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/29 ... umentation‎ 11 Oct 2013 - Makes all the stuff we have been talking about somewhat irrelevant to our future. One thing stands out from the poster who says the Bulls paid up to the salary cap which is £1.825 million. Maybe OK paid a lot of that in investment, if of course we believe him...doubtful in my opinion..the review is worth a read as we will be able to not understand the new structures for the League after we have finished???? I didn't so I must be Mr Thicko from Thicko land>'" Good news there for Wakefield and London, the minimum stadium requirements (that neither team currently meet) are being binned.

Quote Rarebreed="Rarebreed"Have you read this document folks the RFL policy review www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/29 ... umentation‎ 11 Oct 2013 - Makes all the stuff we have been talking about somewhat irrelevant to our future. One thing stands out from the poster who says the Bulls paid up to the salary cap which is £1.825 million. Maybe OK paid a lot of that in investment, if of course we believe him...doubtful in my opinion..the review is worth a read as we will be able to not understand the new structures for the League after we have finished???? I didn't so I must be Mr Thicko from Thicko land>'" Good news there for Wakefield and London, the minimum stadium requirements (that neither team currently meet) are being binned.

Oh good that means wakefield no longer have to come out with that above moving into a new ground. Since they beat Fetherstone in that NFP final and insisted they were moving into a new ground they've had nearly as many fantasy land building projects as us.

I can see their chairman threatening to walk away now they don't have to move

Wrong. When? Can you refer us to a single link where OK Bulls Ltd were sanctioned?


I really don't mean to be rude, but if you cannot understand that I cannot be deemed to "continue" something that I had never previously started, then I can't explain it any better, but it is reasonably plain nevertheless, as long as you take the care and have the ability to understand my detailed explanation.

You are also (again) confusing the issue of owner with controlling person. The owner is the company which is sanctioned. The controlling person is nothing to do with sanctions, it is rather just a necessary mechanism so that you couldn't have Reggie Kray as the controlling person just by putting his interest in some other name. That's the sort of thing that is about, to avoid ways around the fit and proper test.

Yes, I did and am looking, and I cannot see where in the articles of association or the articles and memorandum of association it refers to holding an RFL share is a precondition of membership. Logic says it is the other way around, when the club is given membership they are then entitled to a share in the RFL. There is a reference to members sharing the profits of the RFL, and the share would be the means through which that could be done - amongst many other options.

The club is the Bradford Bulls, not OKB BB2104 or BBNL. It may be abstract, but not that difficult to understand: the member, controlling person and the club are not interchangeable. It is the club that is showing as having been deducted 6 points in the league table, not BBNL. All the other clubs in the league table have names like Wigan Warriors, etc, not the name of the vehicle through which the controlling person controls each club. If they were interchangeable, then in the definitions it would say Member: see club and controlling person. Club: see Member and controlling person. Controlling person: see Member and club. No, they are all separately defined. Because they are in the RFL regulations, all separate entities.

Yawn.

The semantics of slaughtering the constitution will not bring the bacon home.
Sorry points back.
Bacon home now certainly not an option.

Yawn.

The semantics of slaughtering the constitution will not bring the bacon home.
Sorry points back.
Bacon home now certainly not an option.