Wonder if that's because he's realised peeing off a lot of his potential voters after his role in OK regime meant he had no chance of being re-elected?.

He has a fairly healthy majority of just over 4,900. I wouldn't have thought that was under threat.

I doubt that. I imagine that Rolf Harris could win for Labour.

However, the more pertinent point here might revolve around revelations surrounding the OK case. I'm not saying there is anything involving Sutcliffe, but you can bet your bottom dollar that someone in the party would know if there was and the hierarchy would have something to say.

The vast majority of his voters will not attend Bulls matches nor have more than a passing interest in the politics of the Bulls. Their interest will be proportional to Bulls' success.

He was I believe an official director - so would have legal responsibilities re corporate governance, keeping proper accounts, wrongful trading etc.

... as in theory so does every director of every company. I totally fail to see the link between this truism and an MP mot standing for re-election.

This would be a good time to urge everyone to be careful about alleging anything untoward.

It would indeed, and whilst I'm as fscked off as anyone else about the way OKB colapsed in a heap, I see no reason at all for any such serious allegations as the sort of thing being darkly hinted at - all the more so against a director who everyone knows was not running the show.

I hold no brief whatsoever for GS but let's have a bit of right.

I agree with all of that. Things worked out badly but I personally have nothing against GS and I find the way people are seeking to portray him a little suprising. Perhaps it is simply the case that people collectively think the worst of politicians.

Unless some posts have been deleted, I can't see anything being hinted at, darkly or otherwise.

It isn't just within this thread. He has cropped up in any number of different posts. Whilst it often isn't an out and out allegation, the undercurrent appears gently hostile.

It does, and in a similar way to some of the veiled racism against OK (eg "he should have stuck to making chapatis", a popular refrain from our erstwhile resident poet.

Of course I do at this point need to disclose the competing interest that I AM Gerry Suttcliffe, and so's my wife.

Fair enough, although he is a politician and there is an overwhelming current of outright hostility to that sort throughout the whole country at the moment.

Exactly. I'm chalking it down to that as much as anything the poor sod has actually done to our club.

Not particularly fussed by this announcement.

For one, I don't live in his constituency, and two I cannot stand Labour!!!

Apart from that, he conspired in something that is so muddied that no one actually knows if he did anything right or wrong.

We have just three questions to work out who he votes for.

Erm...do you want to leave the European Union?

Vote UKIP

Does are you an old Etonian or like to be spanked by persons wearing German military uniforms count as one question?

Well plenty of us did do exactly that. And you should definately consider doing it again if you agree with their varied policies. For example voting against or publicly opposed to:

1. updated rules on cab design and safety, which would make it easier for the drivers of lorries to spot pedestrians and cyclists
2. requirements that MEPs who draft legislation should publish which lobbyists they have met and their influence on the legislation.
3. greater protections for holidaymakers buying package holidays.
4. legislation to tackle money laundering

I am of course entirely neutral.

Ukip dear god that's a worse decision than half of gales kicking choices.

No thanks I don't buy their populist bullcrap.

Nor sure that selling off the NHS and an equalised tax payment [you pay exactly the same as a millionaire is [iexactly[/i what I'd call populist but those are two gems from their last manifesto.

The reasons for Mr Sutcliffe deciding to step down are of course open to conjecture.

It may be interesting if Bulls fans were to learn that Mr Sutcliffe invested no money into OK Bulls. His intention was to never invest, even though he was the honorary chairman, public spokesperson and a director. Omar Khan apart, not one director of OK Bulls invested in the company. His preferred option was to negotiate a loan from Bradford Council in order to help fund OK Bulls. People can make their own minds up as to why he was unwilling to invest his own money, but felt it appropriate to secure public funds from colleagues in the Labour controlled local authority.

It may interest fans to know that, even though a sale had not been rubber stamped, Mr Sutcliffe claims Omar Khan asked him and his fellow directors to stand down from OK Bulls. This they all did at the same time. An en masse resignation of directors is highly unusual prior to a sale being completed.

It may be a coincidence that all of those directors were/still are all former Bradford Labour councillors, group leaders, campaign & office managers and funders.

It may also interest fans to know that Mr Sutcliffe expected the RFL to pay the outstanding HMRC account that was generated in his time as a director. It may also interest fans to know that OK Bulls defaulted on the loan from Bradford Council whilst he and all the other directors were still on the board.

They all resigned in the knowledge that this loan was in default and that there was an outstanding six figure HMRC debt.

The demise of OK Bulls is entirely the responsibility of the directors who were in control.

Those elements of the above post that are factual are unlikely to be of much interest to Bulls fans, to be honest, because they already know them?

Those elements in the above post that are either not factual, or are not in the public domain, I suggest risk you and/or the site being exposed to an action for defamation, if they cannot be proven? Even if there are readers who may well have very considerable empathy with the allegations being made.

Regarding the final paragraph, I would love to hear the sworn testimony of those who know where the bodies are buried...and have the documentation to demonstrate what the role of the RFL may or may not have been in this debacle. But, maybe, this will prove to be one ship that never docks?

But, as I have previously stated, I wonder if Sutcliffe's position as a consequence of all this may have become untenable?