if we were to get Elima, Whitehead, and Bateman, Tickle must be going, how can we have that many backrowers? Or Tickle into front row?
I think having Bateman, Whitehead, Elima, Kent, Pitts, Westerman, Ellis, Tickle and Aspinwall(staying?) is too many first team backrowers
FWIW I don't think we'd sign those three anyways, maybe one of them.

Completely agree. The whole thing stinks

Tickle dosnt want to play front row

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... RPvSiXTSEQ Surely if this guy can get a visa... Rangi will have no problems!!!

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... RPvSiXTSEQ Surely if this guy can get a visa... Rangi will have no problems!!!

He won't need a visa, he is from the EU.

Ah... My bad ;-s

Pitts was brought in to at in the front row, although I can't see him playing there unless he does some massive bulking up. Aspinwall can also play in the front row, and plays well there. Same for Elima playing prop is not a problem for him.

Under which rule?

Ridiculous comment. Points deduction is set in stone, not just in SL but other sports i.e football as well.

Bulls entered administration through mis-management by the previous owners and they have had their punishment in the form of 6 points deducted.

What I don't agree with is the support that they have been given by the RFL / Sky to stay afloat until a new buyer was eventually found. They should have been forced into selling some of their assets (players) instead of being provided with handouts, this unfair advantage means that Wakey / HKR may miss out on a play off spot, which Bradford should not be in a position to be challanging for (unless they could have done it after selling several star players)

Any club entering administration should have their license revoked.

that's not a rule, that's an opinion - and also something which is not practised in even mainstream sports

I never said it was, thanks.

A ridiculous opinion at that.

you said it in reply to Kosh asking "under which rule?"

james

Sorry, I should have explained it better.

IMO, any club entering administration should have their license revoked.

Bradford knew what was coming and they should have cut their cloth accordingly, they didn't. They overspent to try and compete, then they've been held up by the governing body until new owners are found and nobody (potentially) faces any punishment for it, except their creditors.
Why should people like Pearson & Hudgell underwrite debts while they try to make their clubs sustainable when they see this going on?

I'd hoped they'd survive and it appears they have, but I don't see why they should keep their license when financial prudence is an important factor in the whole system.

Even after it's been explained, it's still a ridiculous opinion.

Is that your argument against?

Completely agree

No.

It's such a poor and ignorant 'argument' that, quite frankly, isn't worthly of debate.

Ridiculous.

bradford should have to give us bateman and whitehead to punish them

Was told earlier that Hull have made a move for Sammut from Bradford.

Ah right, so you have no argument then? That's fine, I wasn't expecting you to be capable.

Sounds about right.

So to recap, your predictions are Tom Briscoe to Leeds and Jarrod Sammut to Hull FC?