Asim-- I think the statement about £1.5 million for the ground is a little bit more substantial than:
"they can leak little things out through certain people which pins the blame on the RFL "
All the RFL have to do is rebut the claim if it's not true--now it is in the open they are not prevented from doing so by any "commercial in confidence".
And I am not in the camp of those who you say are "happy to unquestionably go along with it ". I have plenty of questions but yes ,I am happy that one of the main players in the negotiations has made a statement about one of the key elements and alleged sticking points.
Still no comment from Solly or Wood let alone a rebuttal.
If either are on Boots n All tonight I just hope the interviewers ask the type of questions we are all asking and is not content with the type of managerial claptrap Mr Wood came out with last week regarding the Review paper.

There's a rumour on the corner, but it´s always been denied
Cause they don´t want you any wiser, you´re just toeing the party line

Look out for those who still want to hang on, look out for those who live in the past,
Get out and listen to the whisper, because the times are changing fast

From the west side to the east side, from the north side to the south
You´ll never get bad information, if you believe in the word of mouth

Lilly Livered RFL will only say the rest of the teams voted us out, they need to grow some and make fair and honest decisions for the right reasons even if they relegate us.

Or, you just might be totally wrong?

We'll just have to wait and see.

Did the other clubs get to vote on Wakefield's future? Or is this another new RFL initiative?

They've allowed a figure to become public with no information about how they intend to find the money or any detail regarding the timescale of making the payment. I don't think that can be regarded as being substantial at all.

Yeah, we'll have to wait and see, no doubt, but the distinct impression I have is that we're being pushed out of the back door, down the steps and into the street. With a modicum of goodwill on both sides this would have been sorted by now and if I'm honest I believe the RFL are dragging it out to ensure we complete the fixtures and will then deliver their already decided coupe de grâce.

Where the administrator and our biggest shareholder fit into all this I just don't know.

Rules have changed since then.

Thank flip something seems to be happening - if it's the worse let it be - everyone needs to move forward - but fingers crossed it's the right decision for RFL in the medium term - which imo is sell to one of parties which offer best return on lease sale and see Bulls retain current license and take their chance in 2 years time. I'm a Bulls supporter 1st, but an RFL supporter 2nd and although I couldn't follow anoher club would still follow the sport hence want to see the right decision for the game!

Personally think the RFL would only invite the clubs to a meeting if they were seeking approval to keep you in, as opposed for a vote on kicking you out.

Under a franchise system, the rules are laid out and the final decision lies with the RFL. The requests from the ABC are unreasonable given the rules and the comparison with teams that missed out on a franchise.

Hence I believe the RFL are prepared to concede to keep the Bulls alive, but need to consult other clubs first.

Why am I not surprised?

Is the answer, you are surprised, but no-one can tell because you have no eye brows?

Second bid by ABC rejected. RFL say they will not accept bids with strings attached. www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/25 ... ford-bulls

Second bid by ABC rejected. RFL say they will not accept bids with strings attached. www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/25 ... ford-bulls

I particularly like this bit:

"The ABC Consortium have also been informed that any unconditional offer would also have to be accompanied by a detailed business plan,"

How much detail is appropriate when there is no clue at all over which league they'll be playing in? Idiots.

This is new information. No business plan, no identity of directors and no proof of funding....

Hmmmm

Andy Wilson ‏@andywiz

not quite as dramatic as had been suggested re bulls today. no emergency meeting, just a rejection of the latest conditional abc offer.

Quote ="AaronBull"Second bid by ABC rejected. RFL say they will not accept bids with strings attached. www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/25 ... ford-bulls'" Wasn't 2 nd bid rejected on Monday? Sounds like a late press release rather than anything to do with today's meeting

Quote ="AaronBull"Second bid by ABC rejected. RFL say they will not accept bids with strings attached. www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/25 ... ford-bulls'" Wasn't 2 nd bid rejected on Monday? Sounds like a late press release rather than anything to do with today's meeting

I don't get why there is so much secrecy regarding the identities of the consortium. If its successful somebody is going to have to be a front for it, why not get it out in the open?

Funny old world, eh?

I suspect there will be plenty more yet to come out.

Because `C` will probably not want to be named at this stage.

I'm just glad the RFL have actually stated what the problems with this bid are, though no doubt some will still think it should be just waved through and isn't being because the RFL want us out.

Interesting. The supporters clubs in Scotland were handing in petitions basically telling their chairmen how they wanted the Rangers vote to go. Not been any sign of that here yet then?

Is it the old board? Or the old, old board.

They were both like that, too.

Regarding the licence - All the RFL have to do is follow their own operating guidelines on what to do in an administration event (Franchise licence review) and determine the final sanction in a timely (it's now been 5 weeks) manner.

On the Odsal lease - I was under the impression there was a buy-back clause in the new lease that Bradford took on from the RFL. Has administration voided this clause?

just what exactly have the rfl been considering then?

How can it take this long to reject an offer that has 2 conditions you wont accept. How can we even reconsider the 2nd one if it doesnt list major shareholders or have proof of where the funds will come from?? That should be the 1st question, and if its not answered reject it right away.