If my post was directed at you specifically I would have quoted you. It was aimed at all Bulls fans. All impartial observers have been aware for a long time that the whole charade is a scam dreamed up by Caisely & the RFL to hand him the club on a platter at no cost.

I will be going to Galpharm/John Smith Stadium to SUPPORT my team. End of.

User banned. Next?

You'd call a boycott over something so trivial?
Maybe the Giants need the money themselves? Maybe they are more reticent of passing money into a black hole than the other clubs? Maybe since then the situation has shifted and now such acts are no longer warranted?

Moreover, can the Bradford Bulls really afford to alienate any chairmen of their fellow SL clubs - when SLE is offering to save the Bulls where no one else (realistically) would do?

Rugby League isnt such a big sport it can fight amongst itself, and Bradford clearly not such a big club it can afford to alienate the fans of clubs nearest to them.

Just to confirm i was not suggesting Huddersfield give us money -not at all what widnes, leeds and warrington did was hugely generous and massively appreciated but not taken for granted. If the normal thing for all clubs is to send tickets across with an early purchase price and club recieves 10% for selling these tickets as commision this is not the same as us demanding gate money? I was unaware the rfl had asked not to send tickets over as opposed to huddersfield refusing to sell tickets, but that was not the only point of my post - there were two other things i mentioned.

1. we could stay away from a club that is being hinted at wanting rid of us and put the money towards paying off a debt.

2. we could utilise the obvious lack of say between 2-3k travelling support to show what would be missed when we are out of super league because lets be honest certain teams offer little in terms of away support and three thousand concessions is better than the likes of catalan and london bring (understandably).

Admittedly my post was rash but it had been brought up by a poster on another topic and I wanted to see what feelings were.

I saw 2 possibilities for them not selling tickets through the Bulls.
1 - They had been advised by the RFL not to so as to avoid giving more money to the administrator prior to any SLE take over, which seems a sensible move and in that situation I can't see any Bulls fan having a problem with that.
2 - The other option was that this was a way of the Giants expressing their unhappyness with the takeover. Given they voted for this maybe they should have objected then and issued a press statement explaining their position. In the absence of that it just looks like giving us a kick when we're down.

Of course you introduced another option that the Giants are struggling a bit and need the money themselves

Or option 3.

Boss eyed and bitter bulls fans need a new scapegoat...

Nah we've got Caisley, Hood, Bennett and the RFL already. The list is full so you don't qualify this time. Please feel free to reapply later.

Lets keep powder dry till something formal is said on this, eh? All hearsay right now.

That doesn't even make sense as a response to

Wouldn't the ten percent on sales made now just go to the administrator? Where as once the deal with SLE has been done the 10% would go back to the club?

It's make sense to do it that way.

Still that won't get any bites off wound up Baracuda Eagles fans.

Sorry Child of Northern should have looked up the page.

Since I actually bothered to look it up now, it can only be either with the approval of the RFL or the Bulls didn't request any tickets. Operational rules A3:24 a and b require up to 10% of the ticket to be made available at the request of the away club and A3:24 d sets out the penalties applied if the home club fail to provide tickets.