What's number of fans or wether the Giants will be e again got to do with the practice of winding a company up to avoid certain responsibilities?

Maybe you trying to deflect away from what the RL Bulls really are, you might not like it but heyho its history and you gonna have to live with it.

The Giants were called every name under the sun for signing Kopczak a player who had been messed around and kept in the dark about his future, the Bulls have signed Sidlow from a club in a very simular position to the RL Bulls were in but that's all ok.

Bulls fans seem to think its ok on this occasion but reckon its a bit of double standards if you want to hear the truth.

Well they say it takes one to know one and after reading what you've posted it's clear you certainly know a lot about bollox.

The Bulls have done nothing wrong in signing Sidlow. If you feel they have then please, explain what they've done wrong and why it is wrong for them to have done it?

TBH, the rest of the league have moved on from Bradford's administration and recovery. Clearly you are dragging it up again to try and deflect attention away from the lack of morality shown by the Giants in the signing of Kopczak.

The unmitigated bollox is entirely yours. The present owners had absolutely zero connection with the previous club. Nor did the previous owners wind the club up, the administrators were called in by the interim management appointed by disgruntled shareholders who ousted the old management. Apart from that 100% of your post is garbage ratio, bob on.


If you could post that again in English, maybe we'll have a go

a few facts flyingprop. ownership of assets: OK Bulls paid for those assets. Whether you like the amount is irrelevant, that was the going price in an open market. That included the players contracts. Thats why the fee for Koppy was paid to the new company, not the administrator.

Koppy and SidlowThe big difference, well documented above and elsewhere, is that Salford and OKBulls discussed Sidlows transfer many weeks ago. It was not a question of the Bulls, hearing of Salfords loan being rejected by the council approaching Sidlow direct as you seem to imply. I am not one of the bulls fans that has condemned Huddersfield as I dont know the sequence of events, if Koppy was minded to go then thats best as we want players that give 120% for our team not ones that would sulk in the corner.

I have not heard any of the Salford management say anything bad about this deal or criticise the Bulls for "tapping up". In their position they would surely have said something if they thought any rivals had acted inappropriately and were suspected of trying to take advantage of their financial plight.
I have not heard that the RFL have decided to investigate either because a club has complained about an inappropriate approach or ,in the absence of a complaint, they felt something untoward had taken place.
I have not heard any of Sidlow's former teammates criticise his or his agent's actions.
So are there any similarities between CK and Sidlow? Tenuous at best-- the words straws and clutching come to mind

All this from the fan of a club which asset stripped the Sheffield Eagles (we'll rename the new club by taking 'Hudders' from Huddersfield and the 'field' from Sheffield and play the games at......Huddersfield) and now feels he has the moral high ground because we've taken on a single player from a club!! You couldn't make it up!

"Maybe you trying to deflect away from what the RL Giants really are, you might not like it but heyho its history and you gonna have to live with it."

There were actually rumours that it was to be a straight swap for Platt. But Salford's situation has meant they're unable to sign players so that part of the deal fell through.

In fact, didn't Sidlow or someone reporting the transfer say that Salford had said to Sidlow "If they offer you a deal you're happy with you can go with our blessings"?