Talk about not knowing any facts before you put your size 10s in



Difference between the Bulls and your club is we didn't merge with anybody to get money to keep us going and then go it alone

And when you say punish a club, who exactly deserves to be punished?



The players? The fans? Omar Khan?



Also, it's not just having it halved that is the worst thing, why should every other club benefit from our 'punishment'. This is something Omar and GS never agreed to when they accepted the half sky money.

As I understand it the majority of clubs in SL are operating at a loss and the shortfall bankrolled by an individual (or group), wouldn't the cash be going directly into their pockets offsetting the amount needed to subsidise those clubs.

1. Who are you punishing? The blokes that ran the club into the ground are gone and got away scot free. Why punish the bloke who comes in and picks up the pieces? He had nothing to do with the mess before. Why punish the players and supporters? Is it their fault?



2. We don't owe the RFL any money. Whatever the deal was over the lease on the ground it has resulted in the current owners not owning the lease and the RFL getting an asset for which they were paid in full.

The whole shambles didn't put us off going into administration and the RFL have got an asset. I'd say they did better out of it than the Bulls have.

My Problem with all this is (apologies if anyone else has brought this up) is that , yes omar and gerry agreed to the two reductions in sky money to save the club.I don't think they were aware at the time that the second reduction would coincide with being in the same season as all the proposed changes.This is, I feel, the unfair element of all this.

Does anyone know who actually wrote the article in the League Express? Was it Sadler?

I think thats spot on. They grundgingly agreed to the loss of money (the other option being oblivion) whilst we were under the licencing arrangements, whereby as long as we could prove we were stabilising/developing the club it didnt matter too much where we finished in the league, we'd have aa good a chance as anyone else to gain a continuing licence, so if we were in the bottom two due to cutting our squad due to less money then that was an issue we could deal with over the short term and explain to the licencing commitee.



Now however, the goalposts have moved, and the second year of our punishment coincides with two spaces opening up on the trapdoor out of super league, but we're having to play to different rules than everyone else. Nice.



If they want to hold back one more season of half the sky money, well fine that was the deal, but why not defer that punishment to the 2015 or 2016 season which would be much less critical in terms of our future? Or at the very least dont give everyone else a foot up with our punishment money at the same time, put it into grass roots development or pay off some of the debts of the old company with it.

Ralph Rimmer????

Some people really are this thick aren't they?







What exactly has that got to do with this thread? I can't see anyone complaining about the points deduction on here can you?



In fact this actually encourages it tbh.







We didn't. They bought the ground and currently charge the bulls rent it.







The old club was this one has been hampered from day 1 by the other clubs







To compare taking the assets of one club and rebranding them as your own is not the same as buying and trying to turn round a failing sports club.







What a bizarre and unrelated thing to say.

He quit the stadium and Giants roles in Oct 2010 to take the RFL role.

Did he sell his shares in Hudders too?

Clubs run poorly should be punished, however i see your point about the wrong administration being punished. The problem is the same as in football. In any other walk of life, running a company into the ground and causing other loss of earnings etc would result in prossecution against those running the business. I don't see why this shouldn't happen in sport too.