It's a squad game though mate nowadays and things like injuries....loss of form etc will play a part....

There was 2 changes from Catalans to London and then 3 changes from London to St Helens, so not really a settled 17......Siejka arriving was probably the thing that threw the biggest spanner in the works so I believe I was justified in pointing to late arrivals......a fair amount of the tinkering has obviously been to accomodate Harry into the side....

The time to judge on decisions/selections like that though wasn't after 6 or 7 rounds and after a few heavy defeats.....or after Siejka had played a couple of games......it was at the business end of the season.....I wonder in say another 6 or 7 games time how many people will be happy and applauding what Siejka is doing on the field? For that to bear fruit it did cost the team without a doubt.....Agar was in a no win situation with that though because earlier in the season when fans were talking of tinkering with the side and trying new things out they were saying do it against the top teams....well we did that against Leeds twice and Huddersfield.....then with the couple of weeks break all that will have played a part in the win at Hull.....ideally all that could have been done in pre-season.....and if it had, then maybe I would feel more of the criticism may have been a bit more justified.....

Is this the Bradford thread or the "SNIPE AT OTHER POSTERS" THREAD.

Sorry mate, my fault......got a bit distracted there....I will say no more

Wouldnt have a problem Bradford getting 2 points back if they have satisfied a few debts here and there.....just hope any possible deduction doesn't have any bearing on who gets relegated.....

I've said on another thread, as things stand now, if we win four more games between now and the end of the season then Bradford will need to win 50% of their remaining games to go above us.

Getting two or more points back is vital to them or they're down, if they do get points back then our game at Odsal takes on epic proportions

Independent panel giving the verdict I wonder who is on that panel and if it will be announced who sits on that panel ?.

There's a difference?

Ok, Upthecats and others....
No problem with what you are saying but it's on the wrong thread. Leave this one to discussing the Bradford points. We have 20 others about Agar and if you need to chat by all means PM each other.

I'll clean up any follow ups when I'm back on laptop.

I see no reason why they should get points back; their claim of 'force majeure' is insulting and derisory and it should be treated as such.

However, I have no faith that the independent panel is actually independent; in the same way that the 'independent' accountancy firm who made financial assessments of clubs during the last round of licencing, these things can be foregone conclusions, if the body convening the panel makes clear what outcome it wants.

Bren - that's why I wonder if the names of those on the panel will be made public knowledge.Just so we all know its above board

Unforeseeable - Only to the blind bats who were running Bradford at that time - to the rest of the Rugby League world then it was fairly obvious.

Unavoidable - Only if you make no effort to reduce the playing budget knowing full well that it is far above what you can afford to pay.


If that's the grounds of appeal they should be laughed out of the hearing!!

It would be nice at the end of the season to be in a position where we didn't need to worry about Bradford and their points..

I haven't read in depth the appeal or RFL policy to know all the ins and outs to give an informed opinion about whether Bradford should get any or all the points back. Fairness, honesty and transparency is all I want..

To be honest there were pages of upset posters saying how corrupt the RFL was before the decision was made. This gives rise to it all again.
I'm happy with how it was handled first time so lets see if it stays that way.

But it won't help Bradford if it isn't independent of the RFL. Think of the effect of on Bradford of having those six points deducted, in terms of how they presented as a business opportunity and how the players felt about staying, as well as general morale and paying customers through the gates. It wrecked their season.

So how could it possibly do the RFL any good to have any points returned, as it says "you got it wrong and ruined Bradford"?

If it was handled properly the first time around, then how can they justify an appeal ?

The RFL management team clearly has no capacity for forward thinking; hence they are perpetually beset by the unintended consequences of their actions. Bradford are a case in point - many could argue that the RFL's cack-handed attempts to save them has actually made their situation much worse.

I think this one is about appeasing those people who believe that 6 points is too harsh, whilst maintaining the illusion of having followed due process.