Quote kinleycat="kinleycat"Still talking it up though:
"For the record, the original appeal against the points deduction was correct and amongst other factors, was as a result of the Rugby Football League’s policy and procedure being flawed.
"Following the hearing by the Sporting Sanction Appeal Panel, we felt the decision was legally incorrect and all the advice from our legal advisors confirmed "Regardless of who owned what and when, we are mindful of the strength of feeling in the rugby league community about us challenging the points deduction. However, we now feel it is time to move forward.
"More importantly, the board feel our supporters need closure on what has been, for them, a horrible part of the club’s history, allowing us all to focus on the future.
Like listening to a no hope heavyweight boxer pre match press conference.'"
This is the bit I can't understand.
On one hand it's about the points, then on the other it's about the procedures.
If the RFL 'advised' them to go into admin, they must not have walked them through the procedure, that if you do that, you get points deducted but maybe the RFL didn't think they had to after they had been in admin about 18 months previous and obviously thought they knew the repercussions?
Is this the reason why the Bulls went into admin for 5 mins before a buyer bought them and the 'tweet' about Bradford starting on zero points was posted then removed a few hours later and the buyer pulled out?
I will probably get corrected by the people in the know but I think League Dweeb got things pretty much in order.