If the RFL needed to do something that you agreed with, but they needed to amend some rules, or make treat something differently to do so, would you rather they did the thing you agreed with, or stuck to the rules as they were, treated everybody the same?

Exactly.
But although there was some ribbing about it there was no where near the amount of knicker twisting as there seems to be now.

so we are a divided and factured sport then?

well yeah there are divisions in the sport, always has been and always will, its how a pyramid structure works, you have a top division, a second division, a third division, and so on.

There isnt a great fracture in the sport, simply some misplaced enmity. But it is sensible that SL does what is best for SL and the championships do what is best for the championships, it simply wouldnt work any other way.

In part. The connection appeared to be a chairman who blew away all that he had accomplished by:

1. Trying to get one over on Leeds, possibly in revenge for Ellisgate (but who knows?)
2. Trying to compete financially against certain other clubs who (unlike his) had wealthy owners to bankroll them (or other advantages his lacked).

And failing on both counts.

Whilst one hopes the demise has been temporary (and recent months have seen indications that it might just be), I doubt Bulls will be able to compete at the highest level ever again without finding a sugar daddy of our own.

if a club gets its self in trouble i would expect the rfl to give all the verbal,moral and maybe even legal help it can but i wouldn't expect it to change the rules.it doesn't matter if its leigh,leeds or wrexham.

thats not the question i asked, would you do what was in the best interests of the game or what was in the rules?

I agree to a certain extent....but the RFL should do what is best for the whole game, do they do that?

but are we a divided sport? if so is it not time for SLE to lift the bridge and just say,your holding us back,it serves no purpose in SLE continuing to be members of the rfl?

sticking by the rules you set your self is what seperates the men from the boys.

really, many would argue that blindly sticking by the rules is cowardly, that it is the mark of a true man to be able stand up, be counted and follow their convictions.

no, as i said, there is some misplaced emnity in the game, but nothing that wont dissipate in a period of stability (lets not forget franchising was a huge revolution for the game, only 12 years after the advent of SL, this is a particularly changing time for the game).

And what benefit would there be to anyone for SL to leave the RFL?

The RFL try, if they started demanding SL is run in a different way to how SL chairmen wish we will see a very fractured game.

I agree the SL chairpersons to a degree run SL but its still a little like having the lunatics taking over the asyulm.

i'll bet your one of those who allow there kids to run around in restaurant annoying everyone whilst proclaiming its ok we dont live by rules.

or are you someone who believes rules are ther to be broken regardless of the consequences.