I bet he didn't pay to get in.

No point in slamming them with a higher penalty to be honest - what would be the point? (apart from discouraging other clubs from recklessness but really, would that bother careless Chairmen who would be out on their ar5e anyway?)


Got to get this saga over with - hopefully by the end of August this will be done and dusted and the game can remove this stigma from the media spotlight. Certainly have to go into 2013 with a bit more positivity, especially with the World Cup looming.

Bradford was always going to get a bigger points deduction that in previous years because in July 2011 the RFL warned all SuperLeague teams that stiffer measures were going to be used for financial failings. Its still undecided (ie...it depends on what have be horsewrangled between ABC&RFL) whether the measures imposed on Bradford will be even tougher still.

Bradford get 3 wins and it scarcely makes any difference whatsoever to them. A points deduction at this stage is not a fitting punishment. Can't say I understand why Crusaders ended up with a smaller punishment than Bradford considering they ended up being liquidated.

Just out of interest, how do you propose the RFL punish a club which doesn't exist?
Crusaders were docked points for them going into administration in Nov 2010 not for them eventually folding. As had been mentioned loads and loads of times it's because Crusaders and Wakefield took on part of the debt.

You probably don't know that because you're ignoring the reason given. That being that both Crusaders and Wakefield were in a position to clear at least some of the previous debts. Bradford are currently without the financial structure to do that so have been given the maximum penalty.