Shhhh! You'll give away the grand plan!

Plus you'll have Bradford fans believing its all a scheme secretly run by Gary Hetherington.

If SKY want to run SL , let them and the clubs sort it out , why do they need another organisation to get in the way , which they then both overule ?

Sky is the main player - without it there wouldn't much, if any full time pro RL in the UK

it must have a big say in what goes on ?

In that case , give it to them

Do you have any examples of this?

I'd suggest the Bronco's financial issue of 2005 and the W1g4n salary cap issue of 2006

they already have it

who wanted the Monday Night RL for example ?

or, who decided that the Catalans v Saints game be played on a friday evening ?

not the clubs...

Then you would have such a lack of understanding of both issues as to border on the ridiculous.

The RFL/Clubs broke no rules in either situation.

In fact, both situations were situations where the rules which had been voted on by the SL clubs didn’t cover the actual situations which happened.

In Wigans case nobody ‘over-ruled’ the rule makers, according to the rules there should have been no punishment whatsoever to Wigan, the RFL in fact did the opposite of what you are accusing them of when they, rather than fudge the rules to protect SL clubs, over-stepped the rules to punish the SL club.

In London’s case there were no rules of anybody to ‘over-rule’ that was the problem, the rules didn’t take in to account somebody doing what London did, hence the case being referred to the SL clubs so they could decide how to proceed.

You're are just making things up to do what you love to do and have a pop at the RFL

In both cases then it shows that the people setting the rules were basically clueless , or very trusting , then again having dealt with the RFL on salary cap rules , it doesn't surprise me one bit

Or that thy aren’t so naïve as to pretend that every single issue can be legislated for, especially for issues as complex as the SC and administration, and that some times issues need to be judged on their own merits and those clamouring for some moronic set of proscribed rules which would try 9and ultimately fail) to cover all possible eventualities can just be ignored.

You mean like the granting dispensation to HKR to enable them to deregister Michael Dobson?

Yes, like the RFL allowing HKA to have extra overseas players because of the shambles of their youth development.

An incident you were adamant was breaking the rules, yet you now claim these incidents under discussion aren't. You're arguing with your own arguments.

I agree it was wrong for the RFL to allow HKA to have dispensation to break the rules on the quota. Im not sure why you think that is relevant to either the London or Wigan situations which were totally different.

I was very much against the RFL covering for HKA’s shambles of a youth development by allowing them to fudge the rules and bring over and overpaid, overweight, overseas stiff.

I never said there were no examples of the RFL changing rules at the behest of the clubs, I simply asked for some, the two starbug supplied weren’t examples of it, this is. But it is a fairly isolated example and im pretty sure in complete contrast to the ‘favoured’ clubs conspiracy Starbug loves to forward.

Ok I'll explain it to you in simple terms, as your petty name calling and snide insults to my club seem to indicate a lack of intellect that will make this necessary.
HKR (note HKR not HKA, been watching the game long?) have a situation regarding the registering of a player that has to be judged on it's individual merit by the RFL, as stated within their rules, and because you personally don't like the decision they granted, you whinge and whine that we are breaking the rules, although by asking for them to give a ruling we are clearly abiding by the rules.
Now, about a year later you take offence at a poster commenting on the Bradford situation and ask for examples of clubs recieving favourable rulings from the RFL, two of which are given.
Because these don't suit your agenda you defend the RFL making individual rulings based on unique circumstances, surely the very thing which causeed you so much distress in HKRs situation.
I couldn't care less about the Wigan or London rulings, they are long gone, as is our saga with Mason and Dobson. While I have sympathy for the Bradford fans, it's not a concern to me as my team are already comfortably in the eight on merit, who knows Leeds might manage this themselves if they get their act together before the end of the season. However every now and then I read a post on here, usually involving your good self, that is so hypocritical I can't help but respond, even though it's obvious by the majority of your posst, this what you're after.

Bet the fans who dipped into their own pockets to give money to these fraudsters feel very silly now. I really feel for anyone who gave anything significant to this, you could tell at the time it wasn't a solution. I just hope they don't fleece anymore money out of anyone and that those businesses put under threat because of their mis-management manage to find a way through this.

That is a lovely line in hypocrisy right there.

So what you are saying is that you see some kind of conflict between my criticism of the RFL allowing HKA to break their own rules to employ an extra overseas player to cover for their lack of youth development and my being in favour of the RFL not having overly prescriptive rules on complex issues like clubs going into administration and the SC? Really? Because that would be an impressive level of nonsense.

BTW i didnt ask for examples of clubs getting 'favourable' rulings from the RFL, i asked for examples of the RFL breaking the rules voted upon by the SL clubs for the benefit of an SL club. I also never said i agreed with the decisions simply that they werent examples of the RFL breaking the rules voted upon by the SL clubs for the benefit of the SL clubs, because they arent.

OK let's try and get to point another way. If no rules were broken in the London and Wigan cases, what rule did HKR break? a question if I recall correctly you couldn't really answer at the time.
The fact remains in you pick and choose your interpretation of rules to suit which ever soapbox you choose at any given time.
Wigan and London cases, no rules broken, this is ok as it suits your case. HKR, no rules broken, yet it doesn't suit your argument so this in your eyes is wrong.

Its not because it suits me that London didnt break the rules (the wigan situation is bit more complex than that, but that argument isnt really relevant because it still isnt an example of the RFL breaking rules voted upon by the SL clubs for the benefit of SL clubs. In fact the Wigan situation is about as close to the polar opposite of that as you can find) its because those rules didnt exist. There wasnt a rule or a punishment proscribed within the rules for what London did. That isnt the case because it suits me, it is the case because it is what happened.

That isnt the case in HKA's case, there the iss a rule, it did exist but the RFL gave dispensation for it not to be adhered to. I didnt agree with the RFL doing so. I dont dispute the rfl could, or that the rfl were allowed to, or that there was provision with the operational rules for the RFL to apply discretion (which is part of the rules the SL clubs have voted for, i.e the SL clubs have voted to allow the RFL to exercise discretion), just that it was wrong for them to cover for a supposed heartland club's lack of youth development by allowing them to employ extra overseas players.

Its not difficult to understand when you stop trying to draw ridiculous, none-existent parallels.

I see Smokey has shat on another thread. He is the Joey Barton of RLFANS

Whilstever you flatcap country bumpkins keep building these straw men, i'll keep knocking em down

Maybe in your mind Don Quixote, in the real world your just the irritating wasp thats had too much ripe fruit and wont get out your face when sat in the beer garden.

I dont know why you're getting all grumpy, its not my fault you invented some weird argument that drew ridiculous parallels and was clearly as irrelevant as it was nonsensical.

Aren't they all when they don't suit you?
The RFL are ok to use discretion so long as it meets with your approval right?

Im not sure how it isnt sinking in, but the difference between what happened with HKA and London/Wigan was that with HKA the RFL used their discretion to ignore a rule and benefit a club where as with London/Wigan the RFL used their discretion to invent a rule and punish a club. They are, as situations, polar opposites.

Thats the reason why London/Wigan is different from HKA. It is why your attempts to draw that parallel is so obviously nonsense.

As for 'meeting my approval' I can only repeat what I said to you before [iBTW i didnt ask for examples of clubs getting 'favourable' rulings from the RFL, i asked for examples of the RFL breaking the rules voted upon by the SL clubs for the benefit of an SL club. I also never said i agreed with the decisions simply that they werent examples of the RFL breaking the rules voted upon by the SL clubs for the benefit of the SL clubs, because they arent. [/i

Just to reiterate, so hopefully it will sink in. My point isnt that it is wrong for the RFL to use discretion, it isnt that the RFL havent ever used discretion, cant, shouldnt, wouldnt, or wont use discretion.

It is, very simply, that the RFL, rarely use their discretion, to break rules voted upon but the SL clubs, to benefit an SL club and that the RFL cannot legislate for all possible eventualities, especially in very complex cases like the SC and like administration, and so there will always be an element of discretion in those situations.

Why you thought that to be relevant to HKA or a good opportunity to remind us all of the massive clusterwhoopsie HKA made of the Willie Mason saga and the fact they needed dispensation for an overseas player (their 2nd btw) because they already had so many i dont know.