The suggestion isn't that there is favouritism, it's that having related people as key decision makers at competing clubs doesn't necessarily mean there is a conflict of interest. Nobody's accusing anybody of anything.

Which is my point, there isn't any back hand dealing or favouritism between the Hetherington's so why should we assume any different with the Koukash family? If they're genuinely looking to finance two or more rugby league clubs then I think we should be welcoming them with open arms.

True, its certainly interesting times.

Quite what your issue is with us on this i am not sure, i hope you get a wealthy backer...Hell i hope we do too.
All we expect is a level playing field and clearly defined guidelines that are visible and fair to all.
lets be fair its not that long ago that you agreed a hush hush £700k loan from the rfl that i'm pretty sure would have been given to all clubs in those circumstances.
Hopefully the RFL have learned from their mistakes.

The key word is genuine and that is something that has to be proved not assumed.
I think a cautious welcome with clearly defined guidelines is more apt than an open armed welcome.

Except that the specific question that was raised was in relation to different examples of conflict of interest, and I brought up another one that was more closely analogous to the proposed situation. Therefore, respectfully, it is not even slightly irrelevant to the larger matter of conflicts of interest. The extent to which something is about you is the irrelevant point.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

Not a problem with bradford having coolcash on board but if it was shown that there was a definite conflict and proved to send a team down do to match fixing then the two teams of the owner would get relegated in stead. We can't afford to loose money from the sport as theres not much out there willing to help

The point I replied to from bully boxer was specifically about Wakefield and Leeds via the hetheringtons.
I'm not quite sure what you are "on about"?

What I am on about is conflicts of interest, as is staggeringly obvious to even the hardest of understanding and most wilful of the obtuse.

taking your anomalous response to a largely hypothetical and theoretical point, relating to conflict of interest define as "Conflict of interest is a situation when one has competing interests or loyalties in a given situation. A conflict of interest can exist in several kinds of situations and are often bias when dealing with an issue due to other personal interests"

The fact that two parties with clear family and financial interests in common would undoubtedly in the courts be considered a clear potential conflict of interest.

Given that the RFL have demonstrated that they have a strong financial interest in keeping the dulls afloat I am sure that if the only game in town then any rational decision process will be thrown out to protect the leagues own interests

On the subject of joint interests and votes at the RFL it sure did Sheffield and Gateshead a lot of good having the hetheringtons voting on their behalf

Discuss the topic by all means.

Troll and/or make childish remarks and I/we will remove posting rights, its that simple.