Which means the rfl should have kept the hell out of it. As a governing body they have to be seen as independent. One of those 'epic fails' again.

reading on the bulls board is going to be biased so you would see a different view of it, I've always said if you tell people enough times they then start to believe its where confidence is built

if the RFL doesn't take the appropriate action them selves its going to leave a sour taste on many fans

I agree that it creates the impression of bias. My starting position is that the RFL want to do the best for the game and the clubs, even though it sometimes looks different. I just get the impression that they were caught between a rock and a hard place.

The choice they may have had is:
1. Allow a club to enter the season with an owner who doesn't want to run it; or
2. Engineer a situation where they can have someone running the club who does want to run it, but take the flak for apparent bias.

Option 2 is probably the preferable option. But if they engineered it, how can they penalise for it?

I don't think we would have had the same amount of intervention, and that is the galling thing, but that doesn't mean they did the wrong thing with the Bulls. Should they let an owner run the Bulls to non-existence mid-season just to keep us happy?

Just think at the business end of the yr and we're relegate due to dulls avoiding pts reduction or they ain't sold players 'again! So have the same players as last 2yrs and we've more or less lost a full team in that time. It don't arf leave a nasty taste

No they haven't; they've said that they will 'work with creditors' or some similarly mealy-mouthed double-talk that infers for the terminally hard of thinking that they'll pay up when really, it means nothing of the sort.

Just as happened to us, there should be a 6 pt deduction, reduced to 4 if creditors are paid; it's in the rules and there is a precedent. If the RFL allow the Bulls to go unpunished and they avoid the drop because of it, they put themselves in an impossible position. Again.

Bit more here... www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _from_RFL/

Bit more here... www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _from_RFL/

When Andrew Glover was willing to take over Wakefield it was while we were awaiting ratification, (wasn't it over the Magic week-end that year) that we lost most of our players . How can these people be running the club without the approval of the RFL.

Still no mention of the winding up petition from HMRC. Also Blake Solly's statement flies in the face of the retracted statement we saw earlier on this thread. Much like the iconic Odsal explanation, it still leaves questions unanswered.

The Bulls and the RFL tried pulling the wool over the RL public's eyes with their actions over buying Odsal. Are they trying to do the same again? Like I said before, I'm not bothered if the Bulls suffer a points deduction or not. If fact I'd rather Trinity survive by getting more wins than the bottom two. What gets me is the points deduction apparently wasn't even an option for this club. It was a case of administration and you're out.

Sorry it's more the principle of the matter than the actual numbers. I,m struggling to accept what's happening at Bradford considering everything we have had to deal with and especially in the last few months. The frivolity of some of the Bulls fans on their forum over the matter is sickening.

Spin/Smoke & Mirrors.
No mention of the HMRC winding up order which has nothing to do with the £150k loan/debenture issue that the RFL/new BOD say was the reason for Admin, total bock & collocks