All very true re. our abject performances against the Bulls.
Nevertheless ,'fair play', 'all clubs receiving consistent punishments' should be adhered to.
If not ,dangerous precedents will be set, and future sanctions against clubs entering 'admin.' will be worthless.

I don't disagree with you - but I don't think they wont get something back, especially as they've been given more time to prove their case!

I just don't buy the pre-determined decision. I cannot see how it benefits the RFL to:
1. be shown to have got it wrong
2. be shown to have a toothless tiger in relation to penalties for administration.

If there was going to be a whitewash, it would have happened at the start.

I have been involved in plenty of cases where those with no case are given every opportunity to prove their case, so that there can be no accusations of not being given a fair hearing when the decision goes against them. The objectors to Newmarket show that. I wouldn't read too much into that. In fact, I read the opposite into it.

I can see that as a possibility - interesting!

What I dont understand is surely there were extensive written representations made before hand for the panel to consider? You don't just rock up on the day with a massive bundle of evidence for consideration (not saying they did). If this evidence wasn't considered beforehand then in reality how on earth would they have been able to make a decision on the day which seemed to be suggested initially? It was going to require a significant length of time all along surely? If it was considered then they would have known that certain areas needed further explanation and again would have known this wouldnt have happened on the day.
I agree, I don't see a delay as being relevant at all

Most articles I read suggested that an announcement on the day was unlikely.

Despite the double negative I was under the impression it was 6 or nothing because they are arguing that administration was forced on them by the actions of others which were outside their control. They are not offering to make any payments to the creditors therefore, it is not the 6point penalty that is in dispute but the implementation of it.

Yes that's my understanding of it as well. However, I suppose the panel could decide that a third of what happened was outside of their control and give them 2 points back etc.

I concur; I deal with employment matters all the time and though it galls me, I'm often required to provide claimants with documentation relating to their employment that they should have copies of themselves - I find myself providing them with the material they need to build their case against me.

It is important however to be seen to have given the claimant every opportunity to be dealt with fairly.

I was firmly in the "it's a fix" camp, but Slugger makes a persuasive argument; the more I think about it, the fewer advantages I can see for the RFL to fix the outcome to get Bradford some points back - if there is a fix, it's more likely to be in the other direction.

The more I think about this appeal the more I believe its all or nothing.

If Bradford win their appeal and prove they were forced into admin then how can they have any points removed? If on the other hand they were in a position that they couldn't avoid going into admin regardless of the grounds of appeal then its 6 points. I cannot see any halfway house as no creditors have been paid and that might be part of the Bradford case.

So I expect Bradford to get all 6 back or they will not get any back. Just my thoughts but JW has the opportunity to do it on the pitch and not rely on judicial processes.

I tend to read into it that the appeals panel have asked Bradford for more information to support their appeal, as they haven't given enough to persuade them at this moment in time. And if they haven't put it in in the first place, I can't see them any now.