Since a thread about this has many differing points of views, how about a poll just showing how many points Bradford should be docked at the end of the appeal.

I originally thought six was harsh in some senses so I'd say should be reduced to 4 on the proviso that if they fail again in the future they will a) be docked double or b) be ejected from Super League (on the proviso they may be there).

Don't forget that they already have previous for going into admin.....

I don’t know the operational rules, I could probably wade through a load of bumph, but I just don’t have the will.

Not only do I not know the rules, neither do I know the gory details of the whole sorry debacle. Sure I’ve seen a plethora of posts relating to the matter, but that’s only faceless people giving their take on the situation.

I’ll just leave it to the “Higher Powers” of Red Hall to sort it out, after all their getting paid top dollar to detangle the whole sorry scenario.

As a Wakefield fan I hope they get the full six points, only for the self-preservation of my club, but whatever happens, well, Que Sera Sera.

Frankly I miss the old days, you know the ones, you know, back in the day, when the only information available was in the paper or hearsay on match day, not from unidentifiable posters, many of whom appear to be un-hinged.

The question is stupid. If a team goes into administration, let´s imagine bacuse the HMRC are about to close it down, and then over the next year or two sort their finances out, so nobody loses a penny WHY should they face any points penalty at all?

I put the question in this way in the hope that our thicker contributors might at least consider that the simple act of being in administration is not, necessarly, such an evil thing that it requires huge punishment.

I would say that it isnñt the mere fact of admin, but what the RESULT is of the admin, that is the key question. The result in terms of who gets shafted, and to what degree.

As for the poll, as nobody has any idea how much (if anything) the new Bradford owners will pay off the old company´s debts, I would suggest nobody has enough information on which to base a logical opinion.

6.

Depends what the rules say and how much has been paid back??

I've not a clue how much has been repaid, I'd prefer a sliding scale. 0% repaid the full 6 points 3 points for 50%, anything over 90% repaid 0 points deducted.

But having hard and fast rules that we can all see clearly tends not to be the way.

If a player punches another player in the face, off the ball unexpectedly to take a player out, let's imagine it's because the player was losing, but after several months any injury and repercussion is gone, why should the player ever be banned at all?

I hope all would consider, smacking somebody in the face isn't necessarily an evil thing that requires a huge punishment

I would suggest that the player breaking the rules isn't in question at all, merely the RESULT of the player smacking him in the face, that is the key question. The result as in who gets shafted.

Going into admin is against the rules of the game. Even if the creditors get repaid, the negative press generated for the sport risks lost potential revenue elsewhere. When considering also the previous of the club in question, the maximum penalty should be upheld.

when does appeal get finalised?....as sept/end of season gets nearer

Didn't Widnes get a 9 point deduction, surely that should be there to vote for too?

I think that equates to the 6 for Bradford as the points system was different in the championship.

Well, this scenario doesn't match the Bulls situation does it?

They have done this twice in 2 years.

I have carefully considered your post and now believe that a 12 points deduction is more appropriate.

The points penalty cannot be increased, hence no option for more than 6.

I can live with whatever the RFL decide

BUT

if there is any change in the penalty i would want to know why as well as the exact details of what has changed.

It is a relagation year and it needs to be very very clear why something led to a change to the original decision

Yeah, I know, but having the facts of the situation highlighted by FA, it is clear that, as serial offenders, Bulls should be subject to a harsher penalty.

Maybe one day they will then learn to run a business in line with their income streams.