Have you seen the Upfront part in this weeks League Express,inside the front page. Looks like we have the paper on our side to get the ludicrous decision regarding the Sky money overturned. Lets hope Omar along with the paper keep on with this until somebody sees sense(although RFL or SLE and sense don't often go in the same sentence).

Wonder how much of the 900k Omar has just put in,would of been needed if we wasn't getting robbed in the first place

Yes I saw that; can only help our cause I would think. Can RFL also get on with sorting out the lies that Huddersfield told their tribunal re Kopout and get more cash pushed our way from Giants pockets.

I think thats why OK had to arrange the extra finance facility to fill the hole left by the reduction in Sky Money.
Just loosing half our Sky allowance for two years has put us at a huge disadvantage, so its frigthening to contemplate the state the game as a whole would be in the without Sky deal

Isn't Ralph Rimmer simultaneously a Chief Operating Officer at the RFL and Managing Director of the Giants stadium as well as being a former director at Huddersfield Giants?

One could be forgiven for thinking that we might not get too sympathetic an ear given the obvious conflict of interest.

I didn't know that Bullseye,just makes it stink even more

I did think incest was illegal in this country?

A limited gene pool would explain a lot of the RFL's actions

Rimer also is, indirectly, a shareholder in the Giants via a shareholding held by a company of which he is a director.

Didn't know he was a shareholder but not surprised. He obviously should play no part in deciding what should happen in the Kopout case then. He's got a clear conflict of interest.

On the subject of League Express it's good to see them give the club's stance some backing. Even if I could understand the halving of our funding it's even harder to come up with a defence for the other clubs just sharing our share amongst themselves and keeping the same arrangement despite the threat of relegation now being imposed.

Obviously the need was to strengthen the rest at the sole expense of the one.SL for the majority of clubs is not at its financial strongest I shouldn't think at this moment.Rather try to save the league at the risk of losing one?

I don't think it's as obvious as you state. Sharing our money between the clubs would give each one about £46k each. That's not going to make any real difference or "save the league" as you said.

Some clubs, like Leeds said they disagreed with the policy to share the money between clubs and that if we weren't getting the money it should go into junior development or something like that.

It sends the message to anyone looking to pick up the pieces of a club that “you’re on your own” and not content with providing no help we will actively take away your fair share of money and share it amongst ourselves putting you at an even greater disadvantage. Then a year later we’ll vote to move the goalposts on franchises and make your club now the most vulnerable to relegation and financial oblivion.

This is sure to get the investors rolling into Rugby League

So it wasn't right to punish a club for being run poorly and getting a £1m payout for your ground from the RFL? I think you've been well supported to keep the club afloat, just as my club were in the dark days, so to complain about having money taken off you doesn't seem right. Would you rather not have a ground to play at, or a team at all for that matter?

I think you are missing the point Scadge..

its not the fact the money has been taken away... its the fact its being shared between the other clubs!!

Talk about not knowing any facts before you put your size 10s in

Difference between the Bulls and your club is we didn't merge with anybody to get money to keep us going and then go it alone

And when you say punish a club, who exactly deserves to be punished?

The players? The fans? Omar Khan?

Also, it's not just having it halved that is the worst thing, why should every other club benefit from our 'punishment'. This is something Omar and GS never agreed to when they accepted the half sky money.

As I understand it the majority of clubs in SL are operating at a loss and the shortfall bankrolled by an individual (or group), wouldn't the cash be going directly into their pockets offsetting the amount needed to subsidise those clubs.

1. Who are you punishing? The blokes that ran the club into the ground are gone and got away scot free. Why punish the bloke who comes in and picks up the pieces? He had nothing to do with the mess before. Why punish the players and supporters? Is it their fault?

2. We don't owe the RFL any money. Whatever the deal was over the lease on the ground it has resulted in the current owners not owning the lease and the RFL getting an asset for which they were paid in full.
The whole shambles didn't put us off going into administration and the RFL have got an asset. I'd say they did better out of it than the Bulls have.

My Problem with all this is (apologies if anyone else has brought this up) is that , yes omar and gerry agreed to the two reductions in sky money to save the club.I don't think they were aware at the time that the second reduction would coincide with being in the same season as all the proposed changes.This is, I feel, the unfair element of all this.

Does anyone know who actually wrote the article in the League Express? Was it Sadler?

I think thats spot on. They grundgingly agreed to the loss of money (the other option being oblivion) whilst we were under the licencing arrangements, whereby as long as we could prove we were stabilising/developing the club it didnt matter too much where we finished in the league, we'd have aa good a chance as anyone else to gain a continuing licence, so if we were in the bottom two due to cutting our squad due to less money then that was an issue we could deal with over the short term and explain to the licencing commitee.

Now however, the goalposts have moved, and the second year of our punishment coincides with two spaces opening up on the trapdoor out of super league, but we're having to play to different rules than everyone else. Nice.

If they want to hold back one more season of half the sky money, well fine that was the deal, but why not defer that punishment to the 2015 or 2016 season which would be much less critical in terms of our future? Or at the very least dont give everyone else a foot up with our punishment money at the same time, put it into grass roots development or pay off some of the debts of the old company with it.

Ralph Rimmer????

Some people really are this thick aren't they?



What exactly has that got to do with this thread? I can't see anyone complaining about the points deduction on here can you?

In fact this actually encourages it tbh.



We didn't. They bought the ground and currently charge the bulls rent it.



The old club was this one has been hampered from day 1 by the other clubs



To compare taking the assets of one club and rebranding them as your own is not the same as buying and trying to turn round a failing sports club.



What a bizarre and unrelated thing to say.

He quit the stadium and Giants roles in Oct 2010 to take the RFL role.

Did he sell his shares in Hudders too?

Clubs run poorly should be punished, however i see your point about the wrong administration being punished. The problem is the same as in football. In any other walk of life, running a company into the ground and causing other loss of earnings etc would result in prossecution against those running the business. I don't see why this shouldn't happen in sport too.

I accept i just commented on this and didn't explain myself very well. What i was trying to get accross is that if i were you guys i would just be happy to have a team to watch after it could have all gone wrong.

Hands up for putting it accross in a moronic way!