Will it be Greens money he's spending, or will it be a case of using Bradford's SL funding if they're successful their in appeal and in retaining their place or just putting the club into admistration if they're not to avoid paying the legal bills.

Interesting that so far 2 other club chairmen (Koukash and Hudgell) have offered their opinion, and both, er, support Green in the action he is taking.

Koukash shouldn't be taken serious on issues like this,the guy is just a divisive character now.
I dont think Hudgell has much time for the bulls, i think he just want to know the part the RFL have played in this sorry mess

I'm guessing they see it as a way of making knock off Nigel squirm. If the outcome means Wood slings his hook I'm all for this appeal to the appeal.

Why would a successful appeal against a decision made by a panel comprising two partners from Pinsent Masons and an insolvency expert have any effect on Nigel Wood?

We could have the scenario of the Bulls being successful in there appeal get the 6 points back and win a few games at the expense of Salford. Then up steps the Doctor with his money and drags the RFL to court to appeal against the successful appeal.....farce.

What if they lose again?

Another appeal, then another...

It's a rerun of the Abu Quatada saga!

Because this mess has the RFL's finger prints all over it. I'm hoping the higher up it goes the more we'll get to know about all the shady goings on at Odsal over the past three years.

I'm sure I heard on Radio Leeds the other night, Marc Green say something like this is to get six points back but reset the process.

In this sense, the process could restart again and Bulls get six points back only to lose points again down the line.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p020tjmz 13:50 in "For a short period, we will get our points back. Whether we keep them is a different argument because the process then starts again."

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p020tjmz 13:50 in "For a short period, we will get our points back. Whether we keep them is a different argument because the process then starts again."

What are the grounds for the appeal? Any different to the last one?

Green's a fool. Spend your money on the lame-duck club you bought, not dragging it's barely breathing body through the mire.

If Bradford feel that the punishment is unjust or incorrectly applied (and they have every right to feel that way), then they are within their rights to challenge that through whatever legal processes are availabe to do that.

Plenty of people argued that Leeds should have never taken to Bradford to court over the Iesytn Harris saga "because they already had Danny McGuire" and because "the RFL found nothing wrong with the contract". Of course, it later transpired that Leeds were absolutely right to pursue the action that they did.

Well they could certainly stop them playing at Odsal as the RFL own the lease.

Have the RFL or the panel that considered the first appeal gone outside their remit or applied a penalty that is not in the rules?

If not I'm struggling to see how the High Court could overturn the decision effectively adjudicating on a private clubs' membership rules. If the penalty could be seen as unreasonable, maybe, but if its within the rules laid down by the RFL that member clubs effectively sign up to (say 2-8 points deduction for going into admin), how could it be considered unreasonable?

If they're arguing that the proper process wasn't followed and that it could start the whole thing off again, then Bradford are dafter than I thought.

"Sorry we didn't follow the proper process, here's your points back. Now we have followed it, we're taking them off you again."

"Very kind. All sorted and happy now"

People seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the High Court can overturn the sporting sanction of deducting 6 points. They can not do that, they have no jurisdiction to do that - they are only able to rule on points of law.

As I understand it, this action is to try and win the right to have the appeal against the points deduction heard. The independent panel didn't even consider the Bulls' appeal as they found that it had no merit and didn't meet the threshold of evidence and failed to offer any substantive grounds for an appeal. It wasn't so much that they rejected the appeal, more that they refused to even consider it in the first place. This is what Green wants, the right to have the appeal heard and considered.

Any court action is not an appeal against the points deduction in itself, it is an attempt to force the panel to consider the appeal against the points deduction.