www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-6203970 The article is a little short on detail, but I assume that this is very recent. I also don't know any background details, assume we have paid up outstanding monies owed.

www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/ ... -1-6203970 The article is a little short on detail, but I assume that this is very recent. I also don't know any background details, assume we have paid up outstanding monies owed.

You clearly haven't read the article then as it says "the petition was brought during the summer, when the club faced a string of financial problems after its main sponsor Eric France went bust, leaving a six-figure hole in the Wildcats’ finances" and goes on "at the time, former Wildcats chairman Andrew Glover said the petition, which came about due to a legal battle with a supplier, would be paid before any action was taken against the Super League club".

So, rather than taking the positive view that this is drawing a line under the matter you decided it would be a good idea to suggest that things were looking grim!

TBH your original post shows that you weren't thinking at all.

There's nothing wrong with the Express publishing a story that is good news for the club, just as I wouldn't have a problem if they printed a story that was bad news for the club (and for the record, I'm not aware of any that is about to be published!)

Any reasonable person reading the article would see it's being published for positive reasons, yet you've chosen to start a thread about it that is - at best - deliberately ignoring the detail and context of the article.

What a condescending prat you are!

So why have the express run this story today?

exactly what I thought when I read it and what phe was asking in the first place? Seems a strange story when it makes out it was all sorted in the summer...

Why have they posted it? Because the petition has finally been dismissed and is therefore good news for the club. Even though the bill was paid a few months ago, the petition still needed to be formally dismissed by the court to draw a line under the matter.

HTH

I think you have jumped the gun a bit here, there is nothing suggesting any sort of negativity in OP's post, I read it as pretty neutral. There was no reason to have a go at him like you did imo.

Can we now close this thread

I'm with you on this one, don't think the OP posted anything untoward.

I thought it sounded pretty neutral too.
Reporting on what W.E. had printed and concluding with the assumption debts had been settled.

I'm thinking opening poster has a right to request that.