What does it say? I'm intrigued as to what "all" is and how me engaging in banter on a website says it. I see from your other 74 posts that you seem quite preoccupied with my opinions.....maybe you will share your thoughts with us all.

I think the RFL need to step in and put a deadline on this deal or its just going to keep dragging out. one party wants to take the club over and the 2nd party wants to be reimbursed for taking out loans.

Well, I'd say that it says you're deliberately posting negative and inflammatory comments, not to add to any ongoing debate, but rather to simply provoke a reaction to stoke your own ego. Or to simplify that, you're a self confessed troll and no one should listen to anything you have to say because of that

Given the RFL have just mediated between the parties and the planned buyers are, for now, back at the helm I'd give it a bit more time to resolve the finer points.

I must say that I was a little surprised how quickly there [iappeared [/ito be a positive response once Ralph Rimmer had banged the naughty boys' heads together.

He's quite nifty when it comes to kickboxing!

So what now, is Omar still seeking legal action? Are things back to how they were before the announcement on Xmas eve?

Negative comments are ten a penny here and they only inflame because you know they are true! I have no ego to stoke by the way. Your indignation at anything you see as anti-bulls is indicative of the problems faced by RL. It's always club over the good of the game.....

That maybe true of others, but your "You keep biting" post suggests YOUR comments are not about the good of the game or any of the higher ideals you clam but instead are made to score cheap points against the Bradford club and it's fans.

Why would someone "biting" at one of your posts be cause for comment unless you WERE posting purely to be negative and provoke that reaction for your own amusement rather than bringing anything constructive to a debate?

You're a troll, pure and simple.

And as for you posting something true? Given the amount of stuff you make up and call true, then when you actually post something true that is cause for celebration.

Nibble nibble.....you really can't help yourself can you!

Gutterfax needing some attention again? You would think with all the money he tells us he earns and all the text messages he gets from super important people in his super important job in NZ he might have something better to do than mock Bradford fans because their club is struggling,

Well you certainly can't. Troll

Hello Pot....have you met Kettle



Troll eh?
I have never felt the need to call another poster a name because I have been shown my point of view is incorrect but I have freely admitted when I have been wrong.

The same can't be said for you or Smokey TA

yes, and a busted one aswell, hence you needing to go on to the total rl forum aswell to make the exact same posts, because you simply weren't getting enough attention on here.

Exact same eh? In which threads? Barnet or London's future expansion?
This is a thread about the favouritism shown to Bradford bulls by the RFL but rather than discuss it, some posters would rather muddy the waters because they worship Nigel and the iconic bulls

Exactly.

The perceived favouritism shown to Bradford. But as there hasn't been a club in the same position Bradford has been in, it's hard to actually justify the claim that the Bulls are getting preferential treatment. But please Gutterfax, give us examples of where the Bulls have been on the receiving end of something no other RL club have had from the RFL.

Possibly a substancial loan made to them with no genuine collateral?

Anything to prove no other club has been on the receiving end of similar loans?

No , but no proof they have either

The Bradford loan, we know about, to automatically assume others have had similar substancial amounts loaned without any proof is crazy

are you 5 years old?
The defence of "they did it first" is something I expect from Junior school Kids. You are in denial to the extent you should seek medical help if you think the amount of assistance dealt out to the Bradford Bulls since the start of the 2012 season isn't a clear example of favouritism.
I care not if the Failed Crusaders from Wales were bailed out to the tune of millions....it's not relevant in a thread about the 2006 World Club Champions and how the RFL has bent over backwards in supporting them, to the extent that if the Bulls go tits up now, then the RFL will have a whopping great white elephant in the shape of a leasehold on a property that would do well to see 5k crowds in the lower divisions.
I have suspicions as to the actual amount of money given to the London Broncos by the RFL on an annual basis, but that too has no place in this particular debate.
Neither does the atrocious treatment of Wakefield, who found themselves having to cut their cloth and sell players to ensure they survived, whilst Bradford Bulls shamelessly shook a bucket and begged for support from anyone who would listen.

Most SL clubs are run appallingly, of that there is no doubt, but currently, Bradford get the full attention of their LANDLORDS whilst other clubs get the occasional visit from Blake Solly.

BTW, I will continue to post comments about summer concerts as a cornerstone of the Bradford Bulls v.6 (or is it v.7) business plans, because it shows how out of his depth Whitcut was in planning them and how out of his depth Moore is for supporting them! Call it what you want, it is still true!

But the only reason Bradford's came to light is because they weren't in a position to pay it back. To assume Bradford are the only club to get a loan of this type is foolhardy. Also [url=http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rfl-loan-to-stave-off-wind-up-order-949559Bradford aren't the only club to have had a loan from the RFL[/url

Correct, which is why I stated ' genuine collateral ' , keep proving my point if you like

Anyone know how much the RFL loan to Wakefield is and what it is secured against?

continuing to point at other clubs will not detract or distract us from the topic under discussion. HTH



Bradford Bulls, with a perfectly acceptable seasons average of 8,500 managed to find themselves absolutely in the ter by August 2013....12 months after OK rode in on his white Charger and 18 months after the RFL played musical chairs with loans, cash advances and ground leases and let's not forget the all important half a million bucket shake!

In August 2013 OK apparently injected either cash, or access to cash worth 900k.....but not 4 months later, there is no money available and 2014 will be run on a shoestring, but still, rather than do the decent thing and cut their cloth accordingly, they are looking for ways to have their cake and eat it.

I suspect that 400k is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to shortfalls in funding for the coming season....they started 2013 with a clean bill of health yet were close to 7 figures in a whole 6 months later and with no change in attitude other than making hard working club staff redundant rather than shedding players, I can see little change in the prognosis for 2015 and beyond!

Not surprised that sponsors are still on board though.....Bradford Bulls haven't had these column inches for close to 8 years now

How is what I said a defence of "they did it first"? You said there's favouritism towards Bradford, I asked you to proved evidence to back this up. You haven't, instead prefer to go down the personal attack rather than back up your comments, in typical troll fashion.



So, another club who had similar problems to Bradford and who WERE shown favouritism from the RFL aren't relevant to this? Really? No, you don't care about that as it undermines any point you're trying to make about Bradford getting preferential treatment. But again, you go about favouritism to Bradford and yet consistently ignore requests to justify this. As for the leasehold on a prime piece of real estate on the end of the M62? Yeah, the RFL will have a real problem shifting it if the Bulls fold entirely.





Ah, so London, another SL club for whom the words "preferential treatment" could be applied, getting money of the RFL has no baring on Bradford getting money off the RFL. No, I can see why you'd want to ignore that as again, it weakens your trolling, I mean argument.

As for Wakefield, they sold players, yes. Bradford are very naughty for not selling any players. I mean they could get money for players like Whitehead and Bateman if they sold them to other SL clubs. Oh wait, they did. And I believe Wakefield too had collections when they were in financial trouble.



Now, you're actually saying something I agree with. SL clubs ARE run appallingly, which is another reason Bradford have been put behind the 8 ball in terms of central funding as other clubs were more than willing to divvy up Bradford's share of Sky money. But then you go on to argue against one of your own points, saying the RFL as the Bulls landlord take more attention in how Bradford is run, not that there's anything to justify or even back up that point, other than the RFL steeping in to mediate between the BOD and the chief shareholder as they clearly do not want their plans for the 2014 SL thrown into chaos by a club self-destructing.



Right, so you say Bradford should cut their cloth accordingly, but then think that mocking them for then doing that isn't trolling?

Odsal is a dump and a massive drain on the clubs resources. It gets used barely 20 times a year but needs constant upkeep to keep it in a state fit for purpose. Last year, for example there was the best part of 2 months where the Bulls had no home game, therefore no real income. But you feel that a club that then tries to improve it's income streams by staging things like concerts and getting some use out of the stadium that's burning up the clubs money is a BAD thing? Really?

Yes, I'll admit that the concert put on wasn't successful, but to slag the club off for even trying it? That's just foolish.

But anyway, lets see if we can't check off your points

Bradford have gotten, in your opinion, favourable treatment from the RFL, but you refuse to acknowledge or even discuss OTHER clubs, including your own, who have clearly been given just if not more favourable treatment.

Bradford get money off the RFL, but you refuse to acknowledge or even discuss OTHER clubs, including your own, who have or might likely be getting money off the RFL.

Bradford should cut their cloth accordingly and should be forced to sell players, ignoring facts again there as Bradford HAVE sold players, who are arguably two of their best home grown prospects. You also mock the club for attempting to improve it's income streams.

I think that about covers your bias and willfully ignorant points.