When my club, Widnes, went into administration and Steve O'Connor took over, not only did we not get the 9 points back we were deducted but we were denied a place in SL as well.

Cant see any difference between what happened to Widnes and what has happened at Bradford.

For that reason I'm siding with Wakefield.

I fail to see why it's become a Bradford v Wakey thing, the RFL have rules, Bradford broke them and suffered the penalty. The new owners bought the club (on the cheap it has to be said) in FULL knowledge of the points deduction. I really can't see their angle, other than, "we are the 5th biggest club and you'd better not punish us".

Sorry to say this, as I quite liked Bradford's embracing of the new SLE era, but, big clubs come and go, just ask Swinton's fans. The RFL appears to have realised that 'massaging' a league to suit investors is actually BAD for the sport, hence London will not be saved from relegation and Bradford will not be given any points back.

Did you think what happened to Widnes was wrong? Two wrongs don't make a right do they

No what happened to us, regarding the points deduction, was totally right. We were, at the time of going into administration, badly managed and something had to give when we failed to gain promotion.

The fact that we were punished with a 9 point deduction, then punished again by not getting a franchise, was wrong. We had a new owner in Steve O'Connor and was it fair on him to have to pick up the pieces from somebody else's mess? No.

O'Connor took the decision on the chin, abided by the rules and got on with turning the clubs fortunes around. He didn't start crying in the papers and to the RFL about it, he had a vision of what he wanted to achieve at Widnes and gladly, for all the long suffering Vikings fans, he is slowly but surely doing that.

Should Bradford not have the points deduction overturned and be relegated then the only ones to blame are the previous owners. At least if they do go down they know there is a chance in twelve months time to regain their SL position, whereas Widnes had to wait three years for that opportunity.

As you say Smokey, two wrongs don't make a right, but also two identical wrongs should receive identical punishments.

you can't argue that two wrongs dont make a right, but then also argue BRadford should be punished wrongly because Widnes were.

Widnes werent denied promotion because of their administration, they were allowed to apply, did, failed, and then regrouped and got it right. And good on them for it.

I don't think you read my post, I didn't argue two wrongs dont make a right, I agreed with you.

I didn't say Widnes were wrongly punished with a points deduction, it was the correct decision and Widnes abided by it.

In Bradford's case it is also the correct decision, they should also abide by it.

It's not rocket surgery.

Why is it the right decision? What did Steve O'connor do to deserve a points deduction?

Rocket 'surgery'???

It is the right decision because it is in the operational rules.

Steve O'Connor didn't do anything to deserve a points deduction, but he did know there was one imposed/pending when he took over the club, he had the choice to walk away from it if he wasn't happy with it but he stuck by the club.

Thisand this
are mutually exclusive.

Smokey, I don't think you personally are able to distinguish between the business and the owner.

In any business a prospective new owner should be aware of everything that is going on within that business, if you are not happy then don't buy in.

The business was penalised,the prospective owner knew this but still bought in, is it right for him to then turn round and complain about something he already knew about before investing?

I dont think knowing about it is really a justification for it. It doesnt mean it is a good or right decision simply because it was known about.

As you say, if they know about it they could not invest. But why dont we want them to invest? Why are we making a struggling club LESS attractive?

As with Widnes, it matters not who owned Bulls, yesterday, today or tomorrow.

The club were punished under their membership of the Rugby Football League, not Khan, not Green, the club.

As much as you don't like FA, it's a fact.

If your assertion was correct, Bulls wouldn't be appealing the punishment, they would be legally challenging the RFLs right to impose such a sanction, which they aren't.

the reason they arent legally challenging the decision of the RFL is that any club which legally challenges the RFL immediately surrenders its membership of the RFL and its right and ability to participate in RFL competitions.