Is this something you have knowledge on, because I've not seen any information released, or just something you're assuming?

So increasing the chance of relegation and a big drop in revenue, sponsorship, and attendance does not affect the price. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Richard Lewis is a vastly superior administrator to Nigel Wood, one was a man prepared to be dynamic and put his head above the parapet, one is desperately scuttling back just claiming it's not my fault guv.

no which is why I said "he seems".

based on the 6 points not being reduced to 4 as with previous cases where creditors have been paid and also on the lack of any statement suggesting that some creditors have been paid, making it a fair and logical assumption.

I'm of the opinion that if Mr Khan chose to run the Bulls by running up debt to him, then that's his choice and any loss to himself is down to his actions. Any other creditors (HMRC, Bradford Council, suppliers) haven't made that choice.
I'm agree he doesn't deserve being vilified for making mistakes.

So you agree, he bought ' sold as seen ' knowing full well the consequences, now he wants a warranty?

Ding a ling, you're right it has.

Is it fair that Wakefield should suffer a loss of revenue, sponsorship and attendance because of Marc Greens inability to read what it said on the tin when he bought his bargain bucket Bulls club?

The uncertainty created by this ridiculous Force Majeure appeal has had a detrimental affect on a club which has done all it can to behave ethically in the face of much the same issues as the Bulls.

Yes Mr Lewis brought the hugelly successful Celtic Crusaders to SL, well done Richard

Not seen any business plan of Marc Greens so I can't assume he has or hasn't settled with any creditors.

Apparently the Moore/Watt/Calvert plan offered to repay all trade creditors (what was a trade creditors was never publicly defined) over 5 years but the RFL didn't believe the numbers so applied the 6 point deduction.

Your sudden concern for the welfare of the creditors is somewhat ironic, because the increased chance of relegation, drop in revenue, sponsorship and all could be lessened if efforts were made to reduce the penalty by doing what? Go on, guess. That's right, repay the creditors.

But then we end up at, "but he isn't obliged to", and we end up where we started.

If the appeal is based on "these are the efforts made so far, and here is a ring fenced sum to do more, if our survival is made more certain, and we promise to pay", I've no issue with it, as it then boils down to a simple reconsideration. I haven't seen a single post or article or press release that suggests this.

The Bulls could have had 3 more sets of owners over 5 years, not surprising it wwsnt accepted really