Technically it is though, as good as.

No it isn't.

You're wrong KC, it's the Bradford Bulls legal advisors making the judgement, that's their description of themselves not mine.

My take on it is that the RFL have instructed THEIR legal people as the independent panel.
They are very unlikely to throw mud at the people who employ them to do THEIR legal matters, that would open the flood gates.

Another point worth considering is that, as the Bulls have had right to appeal, equally so do all other SL clubs on this matter, and I'm fairly certain/hopeful that we would, based on MCs anger at this situation.
I'm cautiously optimistic.

Why would any other SL club be able to appeal a decision between Bulls vs RFL ?

I think a legal challenge would be your only option. Which is in violation of your membership requirements of the RFL. Very risky move I would think.

As members clubs of SL and the RFL if the RFL or SL are found to be in breach of their own rules i would guess that would give the member clubs to appeal that decision and similar historical ones.
IMO that is why this independant panel are the RFLs independant panel as they have too much credibility to lose.
I think the Bulls new owner knows this, but at least he is gaining some kudos with the fans for taking on the rfl.
Like i said I'm cautiously optimistic.

The administrator (David Wilson) requested the appeal. And his only remit is to maximise the return to creditors. The only reason I'm cautiously optimistic is that he is totally independent of the rfl but should have all the paper trail regarding events leading up to the administration.

Personally i don't think anyone has the full paper trail, again being totally honest i don't think there probably is one - it's not the RFLs M.O.
Has the new owner settled any of the creditors debt?

Nope - only his own, which I don't think counts

Moore/Calvert & Watt were going to settle all trade creditors, in full, over 5yrs though. But they walked when RFL gave them the 6 points. Which was strange, at the time.

Didnt the RFL ask MC & W to prove they had the funds to do this and they didn't?
So the new owner has come in settled his own debt, nobody else's and wants to start with no penalty?
That hardly seems fair.
Wasn't it the return of his £250k debenture that caused the admin in the end?
Sorry lots of questions, i should be on the independant panel LOL!!!

No. MC&W walked after the 6point penalty was imposed. The money was there. It was over 5yrs after all. They had been working closely with the RFL since Oct/Nov.

They had been confident of avoiding administration in December - as long as the ownership was resolved.

OK, its not how i recall it but i thats probably my confusion, i thought i read somewhere that they asked them to prove funds and they either didn't or couldn't.
It was though the case that MG calling in his £250k that caused the admin wasn't it, or is that something different?