Your understanding is wrong...unless you can link or post the actual RFL Bye-Law of course...

I can quote Wakefield, Crusaders and Bradford as 3 clubs who have all been subject to that sanction and in Wakefields case the subsequent reduction to 4pts

Can you quote me recent cases where a SL team has entered Administration and hasn't been subjected the that sanction.

So you cannot or are unwilling to, quote the relevant RFL Bye-Law which will back up both yours and Wooden Stands assertion of an automatic penalty....
Circles again bud.

Seeya.

FFS!
You're in denial!

Show us where it says any of this in the Operational Rules?

I do not for one second believe those of the Wakey creditors who were paid off were paid "immediately".

My understanding, btw, was that it was that it was a relatively small proportion of the total value who WERE paid, but that was only third-hand hence me asking - again - for the actual numbers - and, now, dates of payment - that so many seem to be so sure of? I really WOULD like to know.

You just can't seem to grasp that you are demanding different treatment for the Bulls now than was the case for Wakey. Or, at the very best, you totally lack ANY of the necessary information required for ANY of us to make a more informed judgment.

No.

You are making statements that you cannot substantiate.

See my last post!

Nah, Yorkshire...

Which statement, the one where the last 3 clubs to enter administration were deducted 6pts or the one where I state that a precedent has been set?

On second thoughts, don't bother. . . Bradford haven't really been in Adminstration, they don't have any creditors in fact their still World Club Champions and SL Grand Final winners..wake up fella!

Can you quote me how much of the creditors each one of those clubs' new owners paid off? For Bulls it was zero. How much for the others, please? 1%? 5%? 10%? 50%? We know it was not 100%.

If you think it should be 6pts administration, reduced to 4pts if creditors paid off, what % of creditors should that be? if owner A pays off 1% of the creditors, owner B pays off 10%, and owner C pays 100% off why should owner C receive no additional mitigation for that than diod owner A? If he does NOT receive any mitigation, why the fekk would he pay off more creditors than the bare minimum? indeed, why would he pay any off at ALL? For the sake of 2 points, keep the cash in your pocket and spend it on players!

Why can you not see your logic is false, and makes no sense?

As Adeybull has suggested....you are making claims you cannot substantiate. First you say six points then say well, it could be 4...And you demand the RFL do this without even bothering to find out whether the sanction is appropiate and fair.