Yes but in defence they would say most if not all these things would have happened in any case due to our own mismanagement. You might even get a judge with a sense of humour who might say the Bulls could have mitigated these losses by not playing so cr*p!

Presumably they will be taking it on as a no win no fee case then.

Just seen this on the Wakie board,what a sensible post.Well done that man.




As someone from the outside looking in my thoughts are that the Bulls have every right to seek action in the high court if correct procedures have not been followed. It may not suit the rest of us but they have rights under law.

In previous seasons where points have been deducted there has been no relegation so the worst that could happen is you miss out on the top eight. Do you really think other clubs would have just meekly accepted points deductions if there was a chance they may get relegated, I don't.

The other issue here is the Sky money, the rest of Super League was happy to take the Bulls cut and effectively put them points in arrears even before the season started. So before the points deduction they were not on a level playing field to every other team, remember it was the Bulls previous (discredited) board that accepted that scenario, not the new board and owners.

The easiest way out for everybody is to put back the structural changes by one season. A lot of people were against the changes anyway and it was pretty much forced through by the RFL, and only by some clubs refusing to vote (the reasons for that are very murky and have never been disclosed).

The whole thing is a mess and I put a massive part of that blame at the RFL's door. Everyone says they are not fit to run the game, especially some club owners so why is everyone quick to defend them.

For me we don't have a good track record with legal dealings! This also is too little too late! We should have put the effort into replacing the players we lost and give ourselves the best chance to get the points back on the pitch. From what I've seen there has been precious little squad rebuilding and this has been our biggest problem, ineffective squad coached by an inexperienced coaching team.....Put us out of our misery and get on with planning for next season.

Marc Green and you guys do right, somethings not right and the RFL are trying to sweep it away, hopefully a High court case will bring a few truths out into the open.
Good Luck !

Or they will lose the case putting back the finances further.

When it goes to court, it does not mean the Bulls will win.

Also they keep stating that they will appeal so long as it's in the clubs interest. Does this mean if it gets to the end of the year and the Bulls are still too many points adrift regardless of the outcome of the case, they will drop the case.

How will the courts view that??? Will the RFL be able to counter sue for a malicious case being raised?

It has a ring of other cases RL clubs have taken to court, convinced by lawyers who want to make money that they have a good case, but it then turns out not to be the case.

Marc Green and the club are right to take the action to court if they believe it stands a good chance of us winning. Just cos we lost a pretty high profile case once shouldn't mean that we never defend ourselves again.

If we did we might as well just announce out loud that anyone can just shaft us and we'll just smile and take it... I don't think so.

I'd rather go down thinking we'd tried everything in our power than wonder what if???

Edited for accuracy

Richard Cramer said on radio Leeds that he thought we had a decent case and in his opinion we would be most likely to win if it went to the high court.

Getting more interesting by the day this scenario don't you all think

Excuse me but this is all tosh. As just one example, Cougars were deducted 9 points for going into administration, found it a bit much too overcome and got relegated to championship 1.

So don't you think that there should be a set rule - not this one rule for one and one rule for others as it appears. Different clubs get different rulings.

Yeah, I'm aware of this now. I actually posted the comment you quoted before Blake did the interview - so I was just going on the current championship quota.
Despite the quota being raised, I'm still expecting most - if not all - of our overseas players to leave if/when we're relegated.

to be fare i think we are doomed to relegation weather we get the points back or not , i just hope the chairman is not throwing good money after bad that could go to better the club.

Guess that most on here would say yes to all that. We've all read or heard bits and have opinions on everything, but it's the club/Marc Green who has had the legal advice so it's in his hands. We'll just have to hope for the best.

It may be that its not the points that are the issue?

It may be that the RFL have far more to hide than we know about and its their shortcomings that may come out in the wash.

Bear in mind - Nigel Wood only got the top job by waiting for a better man to move on - there was no interview process - he simply took control.

Bear in mind - when you are a useless oaf, the best way to ensure you look good is to employ more useless oafs below you. That way - you look even better when you come back from another job you managed to slide into.

I hope this appeal is about how the RFL behave and the rift between the RFL and SL clubs - and I am assuming most of the owners/chairmen are unhappy with how the game is being run.

Of course, I may be miles off the marc, but we won't know until the case is heard.

I have accepted we are relegated and have no expectations regards points being given back - or that those points will make any difference.

On a negative note - we have been here before

I seem to remember CC was very confident about heading to court over .... can't speak



This time, I hope the risk assessment has been comprehensive and thorough.

Will we ever get back to just talking about the game of rugby with this club? All the shenanigans (right back to Harrisgate) are very tiresome and it's beginning to make following the Bulls a real toil.

I think the fans have accepted that we're going down and are keen to see us regroup quickly and fight back where it matters - on the field. This points thing is a major distraction.

Quit it Mr Green and focus your attention on the team. Lay all this shíte to rest.

People seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the High Court can overturn the sporting sanction of deducting 6 points. They can not do that, they have no jurisdiction to do that - they are only able to rule on points of law.

As I understand it, this action is to try and win the right to have the appeal against the points deduction heard. The independent panel didn't even consider the Bulls' appeal as they found that it had no merit and didn't meet the threshold of evidence and failed to offer any substantive grounds for an appeal. It wasn't so much that they rejected the appeal, more that they refused to even consider it in the first place. This is what Green wants, the right to have the appeal heard and considered.

Any court action is not an appeal against the points deduction in itself, it is an attempt to force the panel to consider the appeal.

Governing bodies still have to act within the law, though.

The other problem is the one about the law being an ass, which means you can't be certain what any particular judge [or jury is going to find on any given day. It may be objective in its terms but it is very subjective in the way it is applied. Take the Harris case, in which our well respected, legally astute, experienced contract law specialist chairman's firm apparently got it so, so wrong.

Now, I'm no legal expert, but it may be that most others in his position would have thought exactly the same as him [I find it pretty much impossible to believe he just buggered on without consulting othersand it may well have been a perverse way for the judge to look at it, but his early judgement caused us to fold, despite the club being sure we were in the right. Let's hope history isn't going to repeat itself.

Yes they do, but when you become a member club of the RFL you sign a contract of membership which binds you to abide by the articles and operational rules of the organisation. Remember, the RFL is not an autonomous organisation, it is a collective of member clubs.

So, having agreed to abide by those conditions of membership (which include the acceptance of the decisions made by any panel, tribunal or committee) and if the documented processes have been followed, then unless the conditions of membership are unlawful then how could a court overturn them ?

Also, who exactly are the club taking action against ? The RFL or the independent panel ? It was not the RFL who refused to even consider the club's appeal.

Marc Green on twitter:

So we have a legal case to test your assumptions, which you have no real idea whether there is substance to your claim? That's very generous of the Bulls to fund that bit of expensive market research.

I applaud Marc Green on his stance and he is going up in my opinion.

Its a shame the High Court can only rule on whether our appeal should be heard and not be able to do a transparent root and branch investigation into the roles each person played in bringing us to this point.

Although I never liked the look of OK I do think we have a good owner in Marc Green. Time will tell.

Its frustrating and tiresome for fans to have to keep dealing with off field issues but its clear to me the RFL had a good sized hand in our current position and they should be held accountable.

What if you finish more than 6 points a drift of Wakey? Wont the club of wasted tens of thousands they could be using for squad development for 2015?

Problem is we're just fans Derwent, and have no actual knowledge of what is going on, hence threads like this, we're flapping around in the dark and trying to make some sense out of it all.

Articles of association do indeed bind member clubs, they usually, along with the right to make certain actions, also confer some responsibilities onto the ruling body, even if something no more arduous than acting within their own articles. This I suspect, but clearly as a fan, don't know, may well be where this is leading.

Incidentally, you say the RFL didn't rule out the Bulls' appeal, but someone set the parameters for the appeal, parameters which, it would appear, were so restrictive that Green has decided court is the only option. I'm pretty sure the independent committee didn't set their own rules of engagement. Ultimately, if you decide the battle field, you have a very strong chance of winning.