It seems an obvious point, but the financial side of this thing is precisely about what happens on the pitch. Bradford will visit us in three weeks time with a squad they couldn't afford and can only continue to afford because they have adopted a legal mechanism that will result in potentially no sanction, even though the rules say they it should.

As for the Wakefield chairman presenting Bradford or the RFL in whatever light you think he has, the comment about what we were told by the RFL, that administration means relegation. was nothing to do with Bradford but at a fans forum some time ago when discussing the way forward when the change of chairman came about.

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.

Absolutely!

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.

That's because that is a truism, the vast majority of clubs can't be favourites and 2 or 3 are favourites, leaving 75-80% of clubs not being favourites (the big majority)

I wan't to see the governing body of the sport I love act with impartiality, integrity and consistency. I want them to do this in the interest of fairness and because I want my faith in the sport, which has been diminished by events over the last few years, to be restored.

I pity you that you judge people by such a low standard that your default is to accuse them of being so shallow, I wonder what sort of person you must be in the real world.

Be right back, going into administration as don't have enough money.

Be right back, not cutting cloth accordingly regarding the squad.

The bulls need to be held accountable.

They know that as long as their on field performance is in order, their off field dogs dinner is of little consequence as the RFL will find a way to make it work.

Bradford making a mess of thigns by virtue of on field performance would be the one thing the RFL couldn't squirm out of.

Hence no cloth cutting.

Wakefield fans should be screaming bloody murder.

Regardless now of the outcome of this entire saga the ''bulls brand'' has done untold damage to it's own reputation as an entity as well as that of the wider game. It's unlikely they will ever fully recover, and frankly, the sooner they a brushed under the carpet, the better.

are really expecting me to have sympathy for a company which could survive without reneging on its debts, surviving and not reneging on its debts? Im not sure why you think Wakefield have done a good thing here, they have done exactly what they are supposed to do, they tried to survive and have done so. Are you saying that Wakefield should have been allowed to go in to admin to avoid debts they could pay and that they deserve praise for not doing something which is essentially fraud?

Are you really accusing the Chairman of Wakefield Trinity of telling lies at the club meeting a few months ago.
There were several hundred people in the room that evening and it was clearly stated by MC that if Wakefield had gone into admin, that they would not be allowed to play in SL.
There wasn't any detail given about, if they pay this bill or that bill, it was a black and white statement.
So, please repeat the fact on here for all to see, that YOU believe he was not telling the truth.

You are questioning something that you clearly know nothing about but, please enlighten us further, it should be very interesting.

And if you speak to different fans of different clubs they will tell you other clubs are the favourites and theirs are hard done by.

that will never happen because you dont want accept your failure as your failure, you can only relate it to other clubs. You need to have the safety net of a conspiracy because the alternative, the truth just isnt acceptable to you. Its sad but not all that important

Individual club loyalty has nothing to do with it.

The RFL have bent over backwards for the bulls, unjustly.

In similiar circumstances their response to wakefield, essentially amounted to ''sort it out yourself or rot in hell''.

Let's not forgot wakefield are also an ''iconic'' rugby league club with a rich history. Just because bradford won a few titles in the last 2 decades.

The FRL can not govern this sport properly.

No im accusing him of phrasing things in a way which shows him and his club in the best light to his fans. Which is kind of what I would expect every Chairman of every club does every time.

I think it would be naïve to think that Michael Carter had a conversation with the RFL that consisted solely of one question and one unequivocal answer, if you think about it I don’t even think you would believe the conversation went ‘what happens if we go in to admin’ ‘you start again at C1’ and that’s it, done dusted, no further information sought or given.

No, I think he is saying that clubs who do what you term as "essentially fraud" should receive the sanction they are supposed to receive.

It doesn't matter how you dress it up, the company in charge of the Bulls owed Omar Khan a lot of money in perfectly legal loans. Now they don't. I wonder what term Omar Khan would use. But hey, by avoiding that debt, they don't have to decimate the playing squad and all on the pitch will be rosy and the RFL hang onto a sacred cow, or bull, or whatever.

I have loved rugby league all my life. Never followed a football team. It's only ever been about rugby league. Right now, I am struggling to love it.

So you are saying that the Bulls arent paying debts they had the money to pay and that they have debts they could have paid but had no intention of paying? We are moving on to some pretty serious allegations here.

Way to go changing the point again, it's a good tactic but only works if the person your in conversation with doesn't keep track and spot what you're doing.

My post was in response to you saying that the RFL statement could have had different meanings dependent upon your interpretation. I neither want, expect or need sympathy from anyone regards Wakefield Trinity's self made plight.

Zzzzzzzz

When your argument flounders, raise the libel flag. Given that the legal person you are accusing me of making accusations about, the company that used to run the Bulls, no longer exists, I guess I could pretty much say what I like.

In any event, all teams can repay debts. It's how they choose to do it that's the issue. For example, Bulls could have off-loaded all of their players, reduced their playing bill to nil, and then recruited academy players and Championship players who would play for next to nothing, which is what Wakefield pretty much did in 2011.

Wakefield couldn't pay their debts as things stood. They reduced their playing bill and other liabilities, as it was the only way to do so and stay in Super League. Did the same thing apply to the Bulls?

PS: I've been a lawyer for twenty years. I can handle myself. You need to stop frothing and concentrate; you're letting a queue build up in the drive-thru lane.

You're over-analysing this to justify making deliberately provocative statements like this one.

I haven't seen any Wakefield fans refusing to accept our own club's failure; that is well documented and there have been harsh consequences - our squad and non-playing staff have been decimated in a series of austerity measures worthy of George Osborne. There were few, if any, declarations of unfairness or chips on shoulder throughout that process - rather, a weary acceptance that if it gets the club back on a sound financial footing, so be it.

I really don't understand how anyone can deem it unreasonable for fans of one club to expect that rival clubs have the rules of the competition applied to them in equal measure, regardless of shenanigans about ownership and such. The fact that we're about to embark on a season that heralds the return of P&R is just grist to the mill in that regard; not only are Bradford potentially being handed an unfair advantage for the 2014 season, but it could have a profound and lasting effect for many seasons to come.

If you remove the need to categorise and polarise people, it's simple common sense; with everything that's at stake, the governing body need to apply the rules consistently and fairly, regardless of which club is involved.