Let's just float another hypothetical scenario (and that is all it is, because I really have no idea what the hell is actually going on):

Let's say there WAS some new party, that approached the RFL with proposals such that they felt it was best all round to effectively stymie the BB2014 takeover? Lets say newnewnewnewco (I lose track of which iteration of Newco we are up to now) buys the club off the administrator, pumps in loads of money, and sorts the creditors out such that the RFL has no option but to rescind the points deduction? And then the revitalised club goes on to easily avoid relegation. And Wakey go down instead? Just a hypothetical scenario, since I'd expect squadrons of flying pigs to be seen doing areobatics over Odsal before that happened, as it looks right now. But let's just say?

What would some of our Wakey friends say then? Would they scream at the RFL for yet again intervening to prefer the Bulls? By effectively vetoing a done commercial deal so someone more able to save the club was able to step in? I suspect that, should such an unlikely set of circumstances come to pass, they would go totally apoplectic?

Personally, the priority for me is that SOMEONE takes over the club, with enough resources firstly to save it, and secondly to avoid relegation if at all possible since I believe relegation would kill it. Who that party might be is secondary, and I guess within reason is far less important?

It isn't "down to the administrator" though, is it ?

It is universally accepted that unsettled players are best 'let go', for obvious reasons, but this just means that other clubs/agents have a free hand to 'unsettle' players. Especially, given the governing body's inaction over the facts which came out of the Mason V Hudds case. It clearly shows the RFL seem to bother more over some rules than others.

And less than 2 weeks after that it was decided their offer to take control of the Bulls was the best one

So who's telling porkies???

What an utter shock. None of the other SL clubs need any money whatsoever to continue to trade, yet the Bulls do. That's remarkable. Why can't we just trade on zero income like you think everyone else does?

If any club was asked what money it needed to continue to trade, the figure would be similar. One major difference is they wouldn't need to factor in a) half the money other clubs get b) paying off the previous administration's debts/liabilities c) zero money in the bank from season ticket sales, to name but three. One thing each other club could factor in is a nice little extra being their slice of the Bulls' distribution.

The money you need to trade going forward is called "a budget". Neither you nor I have seen it so can't know the details but it is absolutely normal for SL clubs to ask for advances of money from the SL, the Bulls are absolutely not unique, it's normal, whereas the special circumstances why the new administration BB2014 had severely restricted immediate income are obvious and well documented.

The question isn't anyway what they asked for. The question is, what was the RFL's response? It clearly wasn't, "No, fukk off, not a penny" because if it had been then the would have quickly hit the fan. So I question why the RFL has chosen to make that comment 3 weeks later.

What I do know is that until very recently, the RFL were cool with all of this, and were friends with BB2014 and both were playing nicely. It seems to me 100% certain that something we don't (yet) know about has changed the game.

were the RFL just waiting to see how much new money BB2014 were going to bring to the table with new sponsors and directors investments before they did what they did...was the buyout solely relying on the RFL funds to continue..??

"Which again raises the question about as to why a six point penalty has been imposed now? The RFL are going to look utterly clueless it they end up reducing it after a different bid. Which makes me think they won't, so why would any new investor want to take it on? God only knows.
The whole thing seems to be managed by incompetents."

My point exactly debaser, if the new owners have the money in place to pay of a large portion of the debt, and the RFL say "well done but you are still getting the -6" what message does that send out and where would the incentive to pay of creditors be, if the rules they have set out means you get a reduced sentence for paying of creditors and debts then they MUST give back 2-4 of those deducted points.

Things seemed to change FA when Lambs consortium came out wishing to buy, when there was only one offer from BB2014 it was all fine and dandy but a southern businessman with possible contacts in the RFU (guessing as he did corporate for a union team or 2) seems to have turned the heads of the RFL but his model was offed in favour of BB2014 by the admin and since it does seem like they did not like that decision one bit, especially with the PR blaming BB2014 and trying to absolve themselves. IF correct MM, calvert et al have always been in talks with the RFL and i believe did everything they asked then to be slapped with "special measures" meaning we are the walking wounded killed off their risk v reward ratio and they told the RFL to stick it, maybe detremount to the Bulls but more damage has been done to the face of the RFL, and has shown them to be mostly incompetant and i think the game as a whole does require some new leadership from top to bottom.

wouldn't all that have been submitted in the financial forecast they must have sent to the RFL during one of their many meetings, seems odd that they would suddenly spring it on them when the takeover has been completed.

this is the RFL we are talking about.......

Was it? By who?

An interesting read FA, and one which should touch the spot with many RL fans, about their clubs and the game.
The likes of the antagonists, with their antagonistic nature shared with those posters who criticise and castigate anyone who is their superior in terms of the empathy they are prepared to show to their fellow supporters, no matter what problems they are facing. They will always be lurking under a stone somewhere to come out and dish up their brand of caustic wit, which as we know if it was "SH. T" they would certainly be full of it!

Thanks for a good read.

Please can we stay on topic. Attacks on other posters will just be deleted as they add nothing to the debate. If anyone's got a problem with that they can take it up with me via PM.

Thanks

Channeling ire. Now, there's a concept.

How do I channel ire at Caisley for signing Harris?

The thing is, though I have enough ire reserves to meet all my ire needs, both historical and present. If I did find a way to channel a proportion at Caisley, it would not leave me ire-deficient to deal with day-to-day requirements. So in my case at least, your suggestion is superfluous.

Shut up, or I may channel some ire at you

Well said. Bullseye and I want earnestly to be able to moderate this forum with fairness. But if our own fans are using inappropriate language and getting away with it, it sends entirely the wrong message to fans of other clubs about what is acceptable.

Bullseye and I are one. We are Borg.