Proof by ad absurdum I'm well aware, however the point was missed by the person I quoted, so I just pointed it out



If it is allowed using the doctors money, then the integrity is in question. If however mrs koukash has her own abilities, and finance, to run the club (and can prove that) then everything is fine, and accepting the bid should cause no problem. However, given the evidence i have seen (which I will fully admit is no where near enough to draw a conclusion on the matter) it's looking like the former rather than the latter...

I am confident that the RFL will be very grateful for the incisive, in-depth financial analysis and technical advice. And to think - there can be very few people with an in-depth knowledge of the bid, and intimate details of the Koukash family's finances - but whaddya know - they are all on here, and available for no fee!

I understand you want to save your club and if it was Salford I would feel exactly the same but come on the whole thing is a nonsense. Anyone who saw the Sky Sports News interview with the pair of them and thinks she's behind this and she's funding it herself are potty. The earlier poster who said the integrity of the competition would die with this deal is spot on.

Thank you for your input.

However I have no idea of the details of their bid, nor of their info as supplied to RFL. The RFL seem very picky if recent experience is anything to go by, and as for the administrator, I wouldn't worry your head as he will simply pick the best offer for creditors.

Whoever has the bid accepted has therefore jumped the hoops required and I did not read anywhere that the RFL felt that accepting any bid would kill the integrity of their competition so I presume that is not their view of whatever they have been presented with.

As for your patronising comment that you "understand we want to save our club" you are aiming your stream in the wrong direction - it wouldn't make a gnat's fart difference what we Bulls fans want, we have got used to the idea that something will be imposed and we have no say. So it isn't "a nonsense". It just is whatever it is.

I note with interest that you are confident Mrs Koukash is lying, that presumably thus false information re funding will of necessity be provided to deceive the gullible RFL, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is "potty". It is a brave position to adopt. As you are a Salford fan maybe you could run the point past Dr. Koukash just to be 100% sure you are right and that he is in fact trying to own a second club by improper means.

A lot of sad, bitter and jealous people on here.

It's not a conflict of interest for two different people to own two different clubs. It would be if they were the same person like Ian Lenagan or News Corp in Australia but they aren't.

If the bid is the best for the creditors it will be the administrator's favoured bid and if they can prove investment and a plan to take the club forward into the future then RFL should welcome it.

If you want to aim unfounded accusations and make predictions about the future based on ignorant small mindedness then so be it.

With the ability to read information that is not in the public domain, predict the future and with such knowledge on running sports clubs already handed out it's a shame some of the people on here don't run clubs. Rather than spending all day in here.

Laters losers!

You haven't seen any evidence you're just a gob e

Ha ha ha

You really think it's possible to own and run a sports club and not give a damn what happens to it and tell coaches and players to throw games and not only expect them to do it but also tell nobody about it and be able to pull the wool over the eyes of fans /press/sponsors/governing body/POLICE!



You must have a brain the size of a pea.

You're not even owned by a Koukash yet & you're already beginning to sound like a Salford fan.

I wasn't being patronising at all and do hope Bradford survive. I have no idea of the bid submitted or what criteria the RFL will use to assess whether the move should be blocked. I'm simply saying what is blatantly obvious from what we've seen so far.

Did you see the interview with the pair of them on Sky Sports News?

Ross, the t&a reporter has tweeted this morning that Mrs Koucash has already passed the RFL's fit and proper persons test.

True. But GH us the person who makes decisions at Leeds. Genuine question, how many decisions to Caddick make at the Leeds club? Seems to be GH who makes them all. Caddick wasn't even involved in the restructuring talks as far as I'm aware.

I don't get some fans, bradford could be saved, put in financial safety at last, debts cleared, Bad news out of the headlines yet still some fans aren't happy.

The same fans moaning about this ate the sane fans who moan how far in front the NRL ate to us. But won't the Melbourne Storm OWNED by the NRL for years (could be wrong but I'm sure this was the case)

2018 Koukash super league grand final: Salford v Bradford

The clash of the koukash cash.

It was, but if you didn't mean it to be, fair enough.


Yes, and I have also read the drivel which has come out all over these forums too, from people who similarly have no idea yet at the same time "know", "cos it's obvious innit". Maybe you should run off a copy and send it to the RFL, because it seems certain that they must somehow have completely missed this evidence.

What I have so far not seen explained is WHAT is so blatantly obvious. That Mrs. K. can't afford a rugby club? If so then she would just be the latest in a lengthening list; it didn't stop them. That she can't run a rugby club? What, as opposed to Whit? Do me a favour. That she "has none of her own money"? I must admit I am intrigued why she has clearly released full details of her finances and assets to so many on these forums, but I suspect that in the unlikely event that she divorced the good doctor in the morning, their lawyers may well take a different view.

You at least concede that you have no idea of the bid submitted or what criteria the RFL will use to assess whether the move should be blocked. Perhaps it will be blocked. Or perhaps it will not be the accepted bid. If it was, though, would you not concede that would have been by people who DO have full knowledge of the bid submitted (as opposed to your and my zero) and of the relevant criteria to assess whether the move should be blocked?

What is involved in the test?

Does Mrs Koukash have a track record of running successful businesses, or does that not matter?

it's just the kind of owner we want in RL, clubs funded, no debt and a possibility that as a whole we can move forward as a sport to compete against the southern hemisphere. Perhaps in the future it may even stop votes at the RFL of the tail wagging the dog

No idea im afraid, you'd have to ask the RFL. All I know is it is the same test applied to all prospective owners, which two our recent wide boys failed, and one other bidder has already passed, Mr Lamb - so it must be more than just checking for a pulse, I can only trust the people who have more access to the facts at hand than I do.

It's just weva ya luk well fit, innit

Or it could be

Of course the RFL have a better knowledge of any bid submitted but I'm happy to apply the duck test (if it looks like a duck etc) as at present we have nothing else. You can mock the 'it's obvious' line of reasoning and of course it's easy to deconstruct any argument based on this because of the limited information in the public domain at present but equally you appear to have a lot of faith in the rugby football league's ability to scrutinise the quality of prospective club owners. You certainly have more confidence in the RFL than I do.

The fit and proper test you have posted is a bit of a red herring in all this. It equates to not having been disqualified as a director, made bankrupt or convicted of a criminal offence as far as I can see. Doesn't really impact on the conflict of interest issue.

It seems to me at present the potential options are this:

1. Mandy Koukash has decided she wants to own a rugby league club and has the independent funds to finance the purchase and subsequent running of the club. If this is the case then fine the takeover should be approved. At present we have no obvious proof she has the funds but admittedly, equally, we have no proof she doesn't.

2. Marwan Koukash, for motives unclear, has decided he wants to buy Bradford and to avoid the obvious conflict of interest issue has used his wife to front the takeover whilst he will be the club's puppet master. In this case do you think the takeover should be blocked? I have seen some people suggest they are willing to overlook the fact that one man would control two clubs in the same competition as they think another financially stable club is the most important thing. That's a valid opinion but one I don't agree with.

At present, I'm happy to use my knowledge of Koukash as an unpredictable, attention seeking ego-maniac and yesterday's toe curling interview on sky sports news to form the opinion that option 2 is more likely. Others appear to be more open to the idea that the RFL will review all the evidence in front of them and come to the decision that is best for the sport. Only time will tell who is right - hopefully it works out for all involved.

He did say all his rejected ideas would eventually get voted in. I'd say owning several clubs would make that a certainty.

A) if all your doing is insulting me, then what's the point of posting

B) I've seen as much as anyone, I've watched the interviews, I've done some background reading, and formed an opinion. Whilst this may seem a terrible crime to you, it's what most people do. The ONLY business experience mrs koukash has is a failed hotel in Liverpool, which the doctor has basically written off - tell me, how is that a suitable foundation for someone owning Bradford?

C) since no one has answered the question yet, I'll ask it again - if Bradford (mrs koukash owned) goes on and flourishes, and stops Salford (the doctor owned) being successful, what is stopping the doc limiting the cash his wife spends until Bradford are squeezed out and Salford over take them? How is there not a conflict of interest when this is a viable option to the doc?

I've argued long and hard in defence of Bradford over the offseason and this is the thanks I get ...

Mrs. Koukash is a duck?






Confidence in the RFL? I think you forgot I'm a Bulls fan.

They seem a pretty ruthless bunch to me, though and most unlikely to be easy to "con" in the way you seem to think they are being.


"Red herring"? (a) someone (who couldn't be arrsed to look it up themselves) asked, so I simply posted it. (b) It is what it is, you pass it, or you don't. Fish don't enter into it.


What issue? If you know of a conflict against the Operational Rules then you should immediately phone the RFL and explain it if you think they are unaware. The only question I would ask - do you actually believe that where a bid from a Koukash is live, the RFL really hasn't noticed who it is, and really is not alive to any possible conflict issue? I mean, really?


Don't worry about that, nothing works out right for the Bulls so we don't expect this situation will end any different. Hope ... of course. I disagree that time will tell. We have lurched through about fifty consecutive disasters recently but have been told as little about what actually happened or why as has the average Azerbaijani goatherd.

Ok I'll chuck my 2p worth in.

To me it looks like there can be a danger of colussion (spelling).

However, this is the case and always has been the case in any family run business. The law can cover most aspects of life, but if I wish to buy something off ebay and I don't have the cash to win, who is to know if my wife gives me an interest free loan or gift.

I get why it makes people uncomfortable. But there is little the law can do regarding this. If Mr Koukash turns up at Bradford and starts telling them to drop certain games then fine someone can tape it. But within the confines of his own home he can do as he wishes.

I doubt Mrs Koukash is her own man so to speak, but really it's bleating about a situation no one can do much about.

All relationships are different some couples split everything, some keep finances separate and all the combinations inbetween. But this is something done verbally and internally within a relationship, very few couple actaully have documents to describe there financial goings on. (until divorce when the courts have to decided who owns what)

You can think it's great you can think she's a proxy owner. But there is little anyone can do to prove or legislate for it.

I think the above statement can be shortened!


It's not what you know(think), it's what you can prove.

You may know that someone is cheating, but unless you can prove it, it's just speculation.