I'm amazed you have looked so in depth in to it, what you can't explain is the smoke screen that the RFL has helped the bulls at this hard time.

I'm becoming very bitter at what we have had to put up with while us being in SL some of this self inflicted by our club and its making me feel like jacking it in my self, we have set rules and its just being twisted and bent to suit.

my natural survival is wanting other clubs to go bust so we are still around, this was a family game enjoyed by all, not any more

I haven't looked that deeply into it. Just trying to read between the lines from the Bulls board.

I'm fighting hard not to be bitter, and I too thought "that's it", but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt at the moment.

I do think it is potentially different to the Richardson situation, as we chose to go into admin. I get the impression the RFL were partly behind it to bring everything to a head. They had an owner who no longer wanted to run the club. If the RFL did it, they can't deduct the points.

Which means the rfl should have kept the hell out of it. As a governing body they have to be seen as independent. One of those 'epic fails' again.

From what I understand, the above is the most accurate assessment of the situation on this thread. The club have stated that they intend to honour the existing creditors, unless that doesn't happen I agree, why should the club be docked points?

reading on the bulls board is going to be biased so you would see a different view of it, I've always said if you tell people enough times they then start to believe its where confidence is built

if the RFL doesn't take the appropriate action them selves its going to leave a sour taste on many fans

I agree that it creates the impression of bias. My starting position is that the RFL want to do the best for the game and the clubs, even though it sometimes looks different. I just get the impression that they were caught between a rock and a hard place.

The choice they may have had is:
1. Allow a club to enter the season with an owner who doesn't want to run it; or
2. Engineer a situation where they can have someone running the club who does want to run it, but take the flak for apparent bias.

Option 2 is probably the preferable option. But if they engineered it, how can they penalise for it?

I don't think we would have had the same amount of intervention, and that is the galling thing, but that doesn't mean they did the wrong thing with the Bulls. Should they let an owner run the Bulls to non-existence mid-season just to keep us happy?

Just think at the business end of the yr and we're relegate due to dulls avoiding pts reduction or they ain't sold players 'again! So have the same players as last 2yrs and we've more or less lost a full team in that time. It don't arf leave a nasty taste

Its the point about selling players I'm more interested in. Have they received financial help that isn't available to other troubled clubs? That's where the unfairness is, if there is any, particularly as they are adding to the squad.

No they haven't; they've said that they will 'work with creditors' or some similarly mealy-mouthed double-talk that infers for the terminally hard of thinking that they'll pay up when really, it means nothing of the sort.

Just as happened to us, there should be a 6 pt deduction, reduced to 4 if creditors are paid; it's in the rules and there is a precedent. If the RFL allow the Bulls to go unpunished and they avoid the drop because of it, they put themselves in an impossible position. Again.

Bit more here... www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _from_RFL/

Bit more here... www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _from_RFL/

Quote ="Bully_Boxer"Bit more here... www.thetelegraphandargus./sport/ ... _from_RFL/'" That makes a few things clearer. As I read it, the RFL could see the club being torn apart and supported the best option to keep it going. Sounds like they tried to help resolve between the two parties but it wasn't working. They also make the point that they are discussing points deduction. Doesn't say they are not getting one. I can see them negotiating a smaller one after they sort creditors. That is in the rules so ok by me if that's what they agree. For all the RFL get some stick, they have a responsibility to help clubs in trouble. If they just let clubs slip away they are not doing the game any good at all.

Quote ="Bully_Boxer"Bit more here... www.thetelegraphandargus./sport/ ... _from_RFL/'" That makes a few things clearer. As I read it, the RFL could see the club being torn apart and supported the best option to keep it going. Sounds like they tried to help resolve between the two parties but it wasn't working. They also make the point that they are discussing points deduction. Doesn't say they are not getting one. I can see them negotiating a smaller one after they sort creditors. That is in the rules so ok by me if that's what they agree. For all the RFL get some stick, they have a responsibility to help clubs in trouble. If they just let clubs slip away they are not doing the game any good at all.

When Andrew Glover was willing to take over Wakefield it was while we were awaiting ratification, (wasn't it over the Magic week-end that year) that we lost most of our players . How can these people be running the club without the approval of the RFL.

Still no mention of the winding up petition from HMRC. Also Blake Solly's statement flies in the face of the retracted statement we saw earlier on this thread. Much like the iconic Odsal explanation, it still leaves questions unanswered.

The Bulls and the RFL tried pulling the wool over the RL public's eyes with their actions over buying Odsal. Are they trying to do the same again? Like I said before, I'm not bothered if the Bulls suffer a points deduction or not. If fact I'd rather Trinity survive by getting more wins than the bottom two. What gets me is the points deduction apparently wasn't even an option for this club. It was a case of administration and you're out.

Sorry it's more the principle of the matter than the actual numbers. I,m struggling to accept what's happening at Bradford considering everything we have had to deal with and especially in the last few months. The frivolity of some of the Bulls fans on their forum over the matter is sickening.

Spin/Smoke & Mirrors.
No mention of the HMRC winding up order which has nothing to do with the £150k loan/debenture issue that the RFL/new BOD say was the reason for Admin, total bock & collocks

I say this cautiously but I think we now have the right guys in charge to take the club forward positively. I have heard from several reliable sources within the club that these guys are determined to run the club properly. They're prepared to say no to the coaching staff if the funds aren't there. Perhaps more importantly they can now begin rebuilding the relationships with potential sponsors/suppliers that were badly damaged by the previous regimes incompetence.

I can't say I'm proud of how the club I support has been run in the recent past but I do finally feel confident that we have the guys in place to put a few of those wrongs.. right. As the RFL have stated, the question of points deduction will depend on the details regarding payment to existing creditors. If the Bulls do honours these, what advantage has been gained other than sorting out the mess regarding ownership of the club?

The advantage is you have been allowed to enter Admin and sort yourselves out. This was not an option for us with Michael Carter…….

Working with creditors doesn't sound much like honouring existing debt to me. More so the club may offer to pay so many pence in the pound. I guess time will tell but I don't ever expect to find out whether the debts were honoured in full or not.

Those details are yet to be revealed but given the implications of not honouring those creditors and the 6 points deduction that would come into effect it would be an almighty gamble given the importance of this season and our top flight status.

So did we - except our 'right guy' wasn't afforded the luxury of taking the club into admin and clearing all the liabilities; instead, he had to slash and burn the playing squad and make most of the backroom and admin staff redundant.

It seems to me that the RFL are moving heaven and earth to allow the Bulls to be competitive this season, whereas we were left with no choice but to cut our cloth very modestly; do you think that's fair at the start of the season that sees the return of P&R?

This.

Was your new guy in dispute with the current owner?

Quote ="Bully_Boxer"Was your new guy in dispute with the current owner?'" Who cares? The insolvency rules are there and you should have a points deduction for going into administration end of..you've managed to keep most of your key players plus signing decent ones like Carvell, Ferguson and Mexico whilst still appearing to have huge debts not paying creditors. No doubt you'll now probably stay in Super League for next season whilst Wakefield Trinity Wildcats are likely to now struggle with a bargain basement squad due to having to sell Tim Smith, Paul Aiton, Kyle Amor, Justin Poore, Ben Cockayne etc.. I'd like to know how much Bulls spend up to the salary cap compared to Trinity? www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6411845 At worst, the club could forfeit their membership of the RFL and Super League but another points deduction appears the likely outcome.

Quote ="Bully_Boxer"Was your new guy in dispute with the current owner?'" Who cares? The insolvency rules are there and you should have a points deduction for going into administration end of..you've managed to keep most of your key players plus signing decent ones like Carvell, Ferguson and Mexico whilst still appearing to have huge debts not paying creditors. No doubt you'll now probably stay in Super League for next season whilst Wakefield Trinity Wildcats are likely to now struggle with a bargain basement squad due to having to sell Tim Smith, Paul Aiton, Kyle Amor, Justin Poore, Ben Cockayne etc.. I'd like to know how much Bulls spend up to the salary cap compared to Trinity? www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6411845 At worst, the club could forfeit their membership of the RFL and Super League but another points deduction appears the likely outcome.

Quote ="asmadasa"Who cares? The insolvency rules are there and you should have a points deduction for going into administration end of..you've managed to keep most of your key players plus signing decent ones like Carvell, Ferguson and Mexico whilst still appearing to have huge debts not paying creditors. No doubt you'll now probably stay in Super League for next season whilst Wakefield Trinity Wildcats are likely to now struggle with a bargain basement squad due to having to sell Tim Smith, Paul Aiton, Kyle Amor, Justin Poore, Ben Cockayne etc.. I'd like to know how much Bulls spend up to the salary cap compared to Trinity? www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6411845 At worst, the club could forfeit their membership of the RFL and Super League but another points deduction appears the likely outcome.'" But if the club do agree to honour the debts to the creditors, you would have no problem with no points being deducted? We haven't signed Mark Mexico, unless you know something I don't.

Quote ="asmadasa"Who cares? The insolvency rules are there and you should have a points deduction for going into administration end of..you've managed to keep most of your key players plus signing decent ones like Carvell, Ferguson and Mexico whilst still appearing to have huge debts not paying creditors. No doubt you'll now probably stay in Super League for next season whilst Wakefield Trinity Wildcats are likely to now struggle with a bargain basement squad due to having to sell Tim Smith, Paul Aiton, Kyle Amor, Justin Poore, Ben Cockayne etc.. I'd like to know how much Bulls spend up to the salary cap compared to Trinity? www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6411845 At worst, the club could forfeit their membership of the RFL and Super League but another points deduction appears the likely outcome.'" But if the club do agree to honour the debts to the creditors, you would have no problem with no points being deducted? We haven't signed Mark Mexico, unless you know something I don't.

6 points should be deducted; reduced to 4 if creditors are *paid* as opposed to 'worked with.'

Given that it's in the rules and there is a precedent set, you would have no problem with that?