Is this in public domain ie where can I read up on this.

Do we get the cash when we come out of Admin?

Wakey have effectively signed Scruton similar to a loan. They have given him a one year contract - 25 games actually. It seems to me they have taken him just for this year to help them stay safe then decide what to do with him - just like a loan. If we get sorted out, why can't we bring him back as his agent will be talking to people in the summer ready for next year.

If we get sorted out just bring him back anyway - contracts don't seem to be worth a light these days. It's just too easy; have a word with the agent let him do the grubbing around and throwing a few figures in the air, when he's unsettled they'll have little choice but to let him go. Simples.

Same with Sammut i suppose

It also might be worth pointing out that that the same bar-stewards are paying the wages of all of the players (not sold) at the Bulls this month so perhaps som e good grace is in order.
I'm not the biggest fan of the baffoons at Red Hall but from what i can see they could have not bothered to do that and leave it to the administrator to settle?
I'm trying to look from an objective POV to see if the RFL are being good or bad towards the Bulls and i honestly can't make up my mind, at times they have gone out of their way to support the Bulls over the last couple of years, and on others (more recently) they seem to be unfairly hamstringing the club in regards to re-righting the ship so to speak in particular.
I dont know if this is because they are a reactionary group, often without a clue and making it up on the hoof, one mistake after another and the latter always calling into question the former or whether this is an attempt at either even handedness or righting the former wrongs, as i said i really can't fathom it.
The management of the game from the top right down (minusing a couple of clubs) is a pantomime anyway, i am just having trouble making up my mind as to whether this is a pantomime of its own or just a scene from the RFLs grand production.
I feel for the fans.

Are RFL pay their wages?? or using this £300k?? I believe the monthly wage bill was approximately £200k before Sammut, Carvell, Scruton left... suppose you can add Winterstien and Heath maybe even Bateman to that?? would say the RFL have a good couple of months wages from there...

Sounds crazy I know... BUT we have learnt anything is possible!

Of that there is little doubt!!

The RFL do not like the Bulls, they a desperate to see them relegated and finally playing as part timers. Bulls in name but not in stature. All the time saying "it's not us", "we're doing the best for the club" etc. etc.. The RFL used the Hood loan/lease fiasco to start driving in the first nails, selling to OK - more nails, letting other clubs tap up players, the list is endless.

:7stxkut7

[i:7stxkut7They[/ihave to pay out to Moore et al. It would serve them right.

Couldn't agree more Bulliac

Please can the people suggesting RFL are paying the clubs wages provide evidence of this?

I have asked that on more than one occasion and I'm still waiting on any proof

Is it even legal?

But they know it as fact cos they heard it from a man down the pub, who heard it from their uncle friends cousins roommate who is one of heads at the RFL, make of that what you will.

99% of what has gone on between the Bulls owners (various) and the RFL has gone un written over the last few years, either initially or until something else has led for a need for it to be disclosed.
I can asure you it is true, and it was not a knock at the Bulls or strangely (for me) a knock at the RFL, just a bit of reality.

"just cause you feel it doesn't mean it's there" - Thom Yorke

"if you believe there is a man in the moon" Michael Stipe.

"oompah! oompah! stick it up yer jumper!" - unknown.

I can't top that!!

"If a picture paints a thousand words then why can't I paint you" - who loves ya baby

could it just be the rfl cannot give the same amount of protection to clubs that thay had been doing for the last few years simply because we now have relegation

Its a valid point but i guess the arguament would be that they should never have given anyone protection in the first place.
The more the fish struggles on the line the more the sediment murkies the water.

Who has been protected?

I suppose from a franchise point of view, all 14 clubs have been protected but I suspect you mean more than that?

I would guess it could be argued that Crusaders, Bulls, London, Salford, Hull KR have all received some help from the RFL at some point over the last few years. Even our own chairman has said that the RFL have supported us massively in our bid to stay out of administration this year.
I guess it comes down to your interpretation of the word.
To suggest that in a P adn R season it is more important that the RFL is less helpful is hypocritical though, as they should play a straight bat all the time, maybe then they would be less likely to make themselves look like bungling fools?

But how can they play with a straight bat when they are happily letting one of the clubs have half the Sky money,think it's more bent than straight