Fine with me - so long as the new owner is a new owner and not a new owner via a different company name only or some other technicality.

After all, there is no point punishing innocent fans or a club for a decision taken by someone who no longer works there. Heck, it seems that the fans of some clubs have already been put through the wringer.

The RFL will make their decision on how many points the Bulls will lose after their first three games.

If they beat Wakey and London they will get 4 points deducted. If they lose then there will be no deduction.

They will wabnt to keep the Bulls in SL. London are gone so they will do what they have to do to get rid of Wakey or Cas.

What you can guarantee is the RFL will not make any decision UNTIL they know how it will affect the teams they want in SL.

***** not bothered about a bit of tinkering before the new rule is finalised. Make it 4 points back, ie 2 points net penalty if all creditors are paid off if you like. Or something like Saint Simon suggests. So long as everybody knows what the rule is in advance.

More importantly, glad to see you've now seen and understood the principle that it's the Club being punished (for the reasons I set out on the previous page) and not an entity owning a Club - whether an old one or a new one.

Some clubs get good owners. Some clubs get not so good owners. That's just good or tough luck for supporters. Like life.

Put your straw man away. Show me where I have " seen and understood"? Because I remain unmoved about how the totally and and utterly illogical and counterproductive it is to punsih the next owners, not the ones who caused it.

And so, in your revised example, that means four points is now worth ££1.2m of creditors, or £300k a point. A bit better, but again would you pay off those creditors in hard cash, or take the four point deduction and spend the £1.2m on a stonking great team?

Bulls did the crime, Bulls do the time.

The name of the owner is irrelevant.

Or do you think it's ok and worthy of reward, to run a business in such a way?

It's an extreme example, but if you steal a loaf of bread - does your entire family go to prison?

The "crime" was committed by those who are no longer in charge of the club, what good does that do?

It doesn't act as a deterrent as there are no penalties for the offending party. It doesn't punish them as they have no interest, but rather innocent bystanders are punished for the actions of another.

It's the [uClub[/u being punished. Not the entity who owned it either before or after. New owners will know what they are buying. Nobody's forcing them to buy.

What on Earth are you on about?

Bulls is a business and has to be held accountable for its own actions.

Who is in charge at any given point is irrelevant.

These are rules of Law, not the RFL.

In other words the time for the crime is relevant because of how the business is run, but what is absolutely not relevant is who is running the business now or who was running the business then.

I like you. You're the only person making any kind of sense.

FMD, that is brilliant..no, really.

Looks like Bulls will win the Carvell case after all...

I am sure that if Carvell has broken his contract illegally, then Bulls will get an outcome in the courts.

Why are you so sure he wasn't entitled to refuse to be TUPEd?

I don't know by the way, just intrigued by your certainty.