Personally I dont give a flying bass what happens to the bradford team.
It would be nice if the environment of the spors management created a level and equitable scenario, in which we (trinity) could perform... but it doesnt, so I am not going to get too upset about it all... hopefully Trinity will be strong enough to play well and competitively against the other teams.. and they gain respect both on and off the field for the work done at the club.

I have no evidence (other than hearsay) that the RL official(l) actually threatened us with expulsion last year... but it would not, in any way, suprise me.

I have met a couple of the current regime and one in particular, when he came to coach youngsters we were working with in a (then)non rl area.. we had new kids and their parents.

I was stunned at the arrogance and aggressive attitude applied in this situation, He was clearly full of self importance and demonstrated a particularly unpleasant nature.

I was very suprised to see him elevate through club management and into the governing body. his macho style is incongruent with modern business requirements.

It may be that such a threat was made... but done without due consideration and authority.

Khan and his team made the sky cut offer. Staggeringly inept but no less true.

The RFL are a sport governing body and not a property development company. The decision to pump a small fortune into some clubs and not others without ever bothering to consult SL clubs or the RFL council is a disgrace.

At a time when millions of pounds were lost in sport England funding for the failure to hit targets Wood etal were busy playing monopoly with the game's money.

And a site with planning permission for housing and an owner who is wiling to sell no less. Strange eh?

It is hardly a surprise that the Bulls apologists are bleating to all and sundry about how they are really the victims in all this, their delusions of grandeur know no bounds. Apparently according to one to some superleague NEEDS Bradford. Err no it doesn't, not anymore than it needs any other club. And then we have the ones who claim they know all the facts and are putting people right yet they admit to having no inside knowledge of the dealings so know no more than what has been put in the press. Other than the hearsay that they have adopted as it fits their argument obviously. I'd say you couldn't make it up, but obviously some can and do.

Now we have the 'well should wakefield have their tv money taken then' line. The rules on administration were tightened AFTER ourselves and Crusaders went into admin so the rules and precedent for that action wasn't there at the time. It can't be done retrospectively. The Bulls board agreed to the deal in order to keep their SL place, so Bulls fans quit with the poor tale. They should have cut your cloth to suit, if you had then you wouldn't have had to take the admin route again. But they carried on regardless.

And in this latest case rules are rules, and as a second admin in such a short space of time due to financial mismanagement they should lose points at the very least, simple as that. Anything less just is not acceptable to any club outside Bradford. And it shouldn't be acceptable at Redhall either.

Indeed. As Giant Dee has so rightly pointed out in his post, referring to the climate of fear that relgation has caused. It was wholly foreseeable too that it would turn clubs and fans desperate - and fighting each other for their own survival.

Its like the two guys in the forest, see a big, angry, hungry grizzly bear bearing down on them. One guy immediately takes off his heavy walking boots, and puts on his trainers. His mate says "what are you doing that for? you can't outrun a grizzly bear!" First guy says "I know. I don't NEED to outrun the grizzly bear. I just need to outrun YOU".

As for your question - they are damnned whatever they do. In this, as in so many other things. As I said earlier, quite how you try and come up with some clear, hard and fast rules that can be applied to any permutation of causes, faults and events I really don't know. I am so glad its not down to me to resolve it!

It's the same problem with criminal sentencing, isn't it? Taking the extreme example, there is a dead body lying on the floor. Look at the range of possible causes, circumstances, mitigating factors - and punishments. They lay down ssentencing guidlines to try and bring some consistency and order and transparency to the process - they take account of all those factors - but that leads to a wide range of possible sentences, and the inevitable outcry from the e.g. Mail, or other sides of the political spectrum, if the sentence looks to them to be too light/severe/whatever.

Similarly here, should it be a fixed poenalty regardless of circumstances? SHould it vary by amount of loss to creditors? By whether HMRC are paid? By whether its a new board trying to sort it or an existing one trying to pull a fast one? By whether it is a first offence? By whether they have sought help and tried their best to avoid the crash, or just been reckless? or self-interested? In a situation where, right now, any painful sanction could send the club into relegation and (hitherto, at least) potential oblivion? I really don't know. If I was judge and jury, all I could do would be to form a subjective view - that would vary from ciurcumstance to circumstance - that leant very heavily on the extent to which the club and its owner/s had tried to avoid the situation - genuinely avoid - and how much they were to blame. But that is an unsatisfactory answer, and I realise that. I do not have a better one though.

Going forward, it LOOKS like thge new league structure and financing of it means that relegation is not that likely to lead to oblivion. Provided people act responsibly. Indeed, that seems to be one of the big plusses being advanced for the new arrangements. Once we get to that situation, I suspect that a standard, much heavier points penalty would be seen as much more acceptable than it is today?

Its a shame that a number of people on here seem unprepared to enter into reasoned debate. If you do not agree with what I say, argue your point and knock mine down by strength of argument? If you do that, and I can see I am wrong, I'll say so. Always have, and always will. You learn things that way. But just resorting to derision, and "I don't care what you think, I know what I think and I'm right" is no debate; and you learn nothing that way.

You would help your cause if you didn't make a habit of commenting on the worthiness of the people you are arguing with, based on whether they agree with you or not; it's unnecessary and appears pompous.

Personally, I think you love your club so much that you're unable to see any viewpoint other than one that is Bradford-centric; in reality, this is a simple issue - your club has experienced an insolvency event and both the rules and the precedent call for a 6 point penalty, which can be reduced later if creditors are properly dealt with. If anything other than that happens, it represents an injustice to those clubs to whom the rules were properly applied. This is compounded by the literal bucketloads of help your club has already received, both from the governing body bailing you out with secret loans and dishonest stadium deals, and from the wider RL community, who chucked money in only to see it disappear down a black hole.

It's been aready mentioned else where, it seems that the SL money reduction came about because of the anger from other SL club chairmen about the RFL helping Bradford out and not being open & honest about the situation.

You also owed more money as a club and correct me if I'm wrong, OK didn't pay that many of the old creditors when he took over.I wonder if it's a percentage of your overall debt being paid by the new company that gets the points removed. When we was given 4 points it was because the new owner had paid quite a number of creditors and contined to work with many of them.

Do you think that because this is the second time you've been down this road. it should be taken into consideration when the RFL make their call about whatever punishment ? Even paying off most of the ceditors it must have a bearing.

Has he gone yet?

Thats another injustice that you've pointed out. That 78k yearly rent is more than half what we pay to rent BV. Yet Odsal is by far a bigger wealth generator, double the capacity (quadruple at the moment) and double the size corporate facilities. I'm no expert but I know enough to know that the rent is not marked to market.

If such a purchase is good business for the RFL why did they not purchase BV as an on going investment? You see the double standards been applied?

Nah mate. Straw man again. You know full well I am not commenting on anyone's "worthiness". I am expressing my disappointment at the loud voices who will not debate, will not consider anyone else's POV, support their POV with opinion or misinformation rather than back it up with actual facts, and go [iad hominem[/i and resort to derision when the other guy won't just roll over and accept they are 100% right but tries reasoned argument. As we can see immediately above.

Don't worry TRB, I've gone now. Waste of time attempting reasoned debate on here, as always, but I thought it might be worth another shot nevertheless.

The recent health and safety closures prove it's not in as good a state, thus a bigger risk investment? Given odsal has "double to corporate facility's and wealth generator" Bv doesn't fit the rfls portfolio criteria? Or, you know, Wakefield didn't offer to sell it to them?

Yes I'm sure that the offer was on the table but Ted Richardson turned it down and was happy for it to get repossessed by the Bank of Ireland.

What property holding portfolio are the RFL in the market for? What profits is the odsal lease generating for the RFL other than the 78?K a year. How much are you getting for the Refs taking up residency?