No-one is justifying anything.

I also wouldn’t put much trust in a rumour that Wakefield were told they would be relegated if they went in to admin, nor would I pay much attention to those trying to paint a picture of hypocrisy between what Wakefield were rumoured to be told would happen in their circumstance, and what may or may not happen with Bradford.

It is your choice how it appears, you are choosing to see ‘favourites’ and you are choosing to see teams being treated differently. You have chosen to believe that Wakefields situation is exactly the same as Bradfords, you have chosen to believe that Bradford are a ‘favourite’ and you are choosing to fit everything around that because it suits you and feeds in to your belief that poor little Wakefield are hard done by. Its nonsense, its typical Rugby League chip on shoulder nonsense.

What utter cods wallop!

No one choosing how this appears, it is what it is and recent actions and decisions by the Bulls and the RFL are what they are. You can choose to ignore it if you want and others can choose not to ignore it but you can't change what's happened and whats happening now.

Wakefields communications with the RFL aren't public knowledge but I highly doubt that the Chairman of Wakefield Trinity would make the statement he did regarding being told we'd be relegated if entering Administration if it hadn't happened. Equally, had he spoken out of turn or lied then I'm pretty sure someone from the RFL would have publicly refuted his claims.

The chairman of WTW gets no benefit from presenting the RFL or Bradford in a fair light, he gets no benefit from presenting Wakefield as a party treated fairly. There is a big difference between the RFL saying ‘go in to admin and you will be relegated’ and ‘go in to admin and you are risking relegation, and an even bigger difference to ‘go in to admin and if you don’t come out of it properly we may not be able to keep you in SL’. All three can be paraphrased as ‘The RFL threatened to relegate us if we went in to Admin’ which as a statement panders to the chip on shoulder brigade who choose to ignore their clubs failings and the help their club receive, and choose to highlight other clubs failings and the help other clubs receive.

Oh dear

You're right of course, as you always are (or at least think you are anyway).

I'm choosing to see favourites because I'm not blind.

Did the RFL issue a hands-off notice to other clubs when Wakefield went into administration because if they did I must have missed it.
Did the RFL issue a hands-off notice to other clubs when Bradford went into administration (last time, not this) therefore protecting their playing squad.

Did the RFL "secretly" loan money to Bradford only to have to disclose some cock and bull story when found out and try and justify it by claiming that they had bought Bradford's lease to protect them from predatory developers? Who were these developers? And how exactly could they have done anything with Odsal when Bradford had a lease allowing them to play there for the next however many years?


Bradford have now twice in 2 years been into admin and written off substantial debts whilst retaining a squad they could not afford to pay without making any significant effort to trim that squad. They knew their funding was being halved yet made no effort to reduce the cost of their playing squad accordingly.



You can choose to believe that the RFL don't show favouritism if you want but I suspect that you're in a very small minority.

There is a difference between all 3 of those statements yes. However, the statement that our chairman made was long before any sniff of the latest Bull** drifting out of Odsal, and it was that we had been told that if we went into admin we would have to start again in Championship1. That to me is quite specific, it's not a "we may not be able to keep you in SL" or a "you're risking relegation".

I assume that you know better as always and that you were party to the actual discussion that went on.

So the RFL made a statement that was so ambiguous and loose in its message yet the Wakefield club didn't enter Administration and chose to sack almost 30 staff and decimate their Super League squad just in case!

Methinks the RFL message was delivered loud and clear and free from any possibility of misinterpretation hence the drastic actions taken by Wakefield.

Talk about seeing what you want to see.

Many teams will visit you with a team they cannot afford throughout the year, not just Bradford. If we wanted to have some kind of system which checked a clubs viability and sustainability before allowing them in to SL, then I would be fine with that ( I think a club which has just very nearly gone busts, and has just seen a huge rise in costs for maintaining the stadium with a big loss of capacity might not be on the most solid of ground there, but that’s by the by). But we don’t, we have seen people argue for years that what happens on the pitch is the only important thing. So fine, lets see what happens on the pitch.

Hull KR admit that their current spending on the first team squad isn’t sustainable, they hope it will trigger growth but it isn’t sustainable now, do we dock them points?

And surely considering Bradford have already gone bust, the problem isnt what they are spending now, but what they have already spent.

Nowt like changing the argument to cover one rear end

No they won't, many teams will come with a team they might be struggling to afford but they'll find a way or more importantly they'll find a way that doesn't contravene RFL laws, bring the game into disrepute or avoid their responsibilities to the tax man and various suppliers.

If by chance some other club does fall into Administration then they should be punished just like Celtic Crusaders, Wakefield and Bradford.

You’re right, of course Smokey, however, many clubs have a money man who is prepared to pick up the tab year on year, whereas Bradford just seem to bring in the administrators.

You are choosing to see favourites because it suits you.

Was the decision on who was sold and kept at Wakefield made by the RFL or Wakefields administrators? Was it pre-season when a squad could be rebuilt, or was it mid-season when it would have affected the wider competition.

Did Wakefield have a stadium which a similar loan could be secured or had their stadium at that point already been used to secure a loan and been forfeited to the BoI? Was this really such a good deal for Bradford? Considering that the loan they got ended up costing them their asset and two years Sky Payments?

You get to the crux of it here, you want Bradford to suffer, you want to see their fans suffer you want them to be punished not in the interests of fairness but for one reason and one reason only, you think it makes your club less likely to be relegated.

I certainly believe I would be in the minority of saying the RFL don’t show favouritism, but Im also very confident that if you asked all the fans who do believe that the RFL show favouritism we would find that the vast majority believed their club was one of the clubs who weren’t a ‘favourite’ and their rivals were a club who were a favourite. Strange coincidence that, its almost like its just a self-serving circular argument .

And many take out loans to cover it, something Bradford will find it much harder to do now, which will limit the amount they can pay, which will limit the players the attract which will limit Bradford on the pitch. If the only thing that matters is whats happening on the pitch, the punishment is built in.