Maybe about the same time YOU did, given how few of your own posts have much to do with what happens on the field?

I probably have more experience and expertise in the financial/legals arena than the majority who post on these forums - which, given it is what I have done for a living for the last 40 years, I really ought to have? Which is why I tend to post on matters where I think I can add something to the debate.

I assuredly have LESS experience and expertise in the game itself than the large majority who post on these forums. Which is why, in game-related matters, I am more than happy to read and learn from those who are better-qualified to add to the debate.

In any case, I was absent from these forums from early April till late November, so that did sort of restrict opportunities for discussing games...

hth.

It was till 1996.

Now now Billy......everything is going to be OK at the Bulls from now on



































(again)

I thought the whole point was that nothing will be OK at the Bulls from now on.

In truth it is only the internet that has brought the information and discussion to the fore, 20 years ago fans just didnt discuss anything other than players and matches

great innit

That really IS rather good!! So I'll echo the

and raise you a

Yep 20 years ago, it would have been an expensive phone call at best, more likely an air mail letter between us, would have made your ' discussions ' with smokey a lot slower than now

I resemble that remark. My excuse is that hardly any games in SL or the Championship these days warrant much attention or debate due to being rendered structurally meaningless. Hopefully, things are about to change with the end of licensed mediocrity and the re-introduction of P&R. The next 5 years or so is the last chance saloon for the game at a full-time professional level IMO.


Fair enough. It just seems like all those problems, machinations and ruses being played out at boardroom level at Bradford are like catnip to you, and even more appealing than something as beautiful as [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trqg66GNNSoTHIS[/url.

It's not me who needs luck, CHUCK!!

I don't have the numbers and the detailed knowledge that you so clearly have. I am going purely on instinct but as I said I know what I believe, I know what you think, the 2 are not going to meet so I'm done with the discussion.
I have no more comments to make on the situation at Bradford until we see what the RFL decide to do.

I'll leave you and Smokey to snuggle back up together in your big blanket of oblivion.

'i dont know but it suits me to think it' Would have been a much shorter way of saying it.

Maybe but apart from not being what he said we're all trying hard not to patronise you.

He pretty much did"[i I don't have the numbers and the detailed knowledge that you so clearly have. I am going purely on instinct but as I said I know what I believe[/i"

For the avoidance of doubt. No im not.

Im saying the situations are different and as such there is no need to assume that the resolutions would need to be the same. Wakefield obviously could and have put together a plan where they can honour their debts and continue to trade. There is no need to assume that had Bradford followed the same plan, we wouldn’t still be in this position, especially considering that the main issue the Admin has resolved is the ownership issue, which no amount of squad cutting would have resolved.

thats ridiculous, even prior to this issue Bradfords squad was thought of as one of those at most risk of relegation, this is now a big expensive team of superstars on massive wages?

The situations are structurally different, but the principle is the same; and whilst I agree that there was no *need* to assume that Bradford could scrap their way out of the situation they once again find themselves in, there was equally no *need* to assume that Wakefield could either; yet on the face of it, one club was deemed expendable enough to take the risk of making that assumption, whilst the other one is apparently to be protected at all costs.

This could go on forever couldn't it?

Are you basing that on the quite possibly entirely fictional threat of relegation? The threat the RFL apparently made but no one can prove?

Just like Smokey, are you saying that the threat was never made and that the Wakefield Chairman was telling lies at a public forum ?

So you are saying that Bradford's squad of the last 2 seasons has been mickey poor and that none of their squad could have been replaced by a cheaper option, really ??

Of course a team that performs less well on the field of play will attract fewer spectators but, unless you are Man City or, maybe even Huddersfield, you have to be able to service the cost of said squad, which Bradford clearly couldn't.

So their choice is 2 fold, cut their cloth according to what they can afford or, gamble further with expensive contracts in the hope that it will all come good









Let's all bow to Smokey, the accountant. We are truly in awe of your knowledge and wisdom

But this is the point I am making about choosing to see a double standard. I think we all agree that the discussions Wakefield and the RFL had were far more detailed than the simple statement which is being used as a stick to beat the bulls with. I have no doubt that the RFL wouldn’t give anywhere near the unequivocal statement being used here, and if they did even come close to giving any kind of firm, never mind hard ‘threat’ of relegation it will have come with a huge amount of information. Information we aren’t privy to in either Wakefields nor Bradfords case.

It may very well be that Wakefield approached the RFL or discussed with the RFL a specific plan of how they were to go into admin and come out, the RFL they say ‘if you do it that way, you will start in C1’ that is the way Michael Carter felt was the only way of entering and exiting Admin for Wakefield, ergo Wakefield go in to Admin they start in C1. Bradford have an entirely different plan of how to go in and come out of Admin which far more acceptable, ergo Bradford go into admin doesn’t mean they start in C1. That’s not a double standard, it simply addressing a situation on its merits.

Over the last two years, Bradford have earned a grand total of 4 more points than Wakefield (1 last year, 3 the year before but Bradford were deducted 6). You are asking us to believe that one of these squads was hugely over-funded, and one cut to the bone. Yet the difference in points earned over 54 matches, with a possible 108 points earned, is a grand total of 4 points.

You are nearly there.
In respect of what each club could afford, both squads (despite their lowly league ranking) were over funded.
Neither club could afford what they were paying out in player contracts and both got to the edge of the proverbial cliff.
One of them jumped and the other, saw sense and came away from the edge.

Btw, what do you think each clubs spending was on player contracts, compared to the rest of SL ?

And we are just back to the naïve assumption that the only reason a club goes bust is it spends too much on players

Smokey can speak for himself. I am saying that I believe the threat was never made and that the chairman may have misunderstood the situation and conveyed that misunderstanding at a public forum.

I sincerely do not believe the chairman of Wakefield has lied at any point. But I genuinely don't believe they were told they would be relegated if they went into administration. However, if the RFL or anyone else can prove otherwise I will happily hold me hand up and apologise.