Lambs confirmed OK isn't involved in his bid on twitter. He's responded to quite a few people tonight so sounds like he's still in the running, says his bid hasn't changed with respect to points deduction either.

The depth of your rebuttal speaks volumes.

Aww, bless.

I'd have to second that, he seems to baulk at any decent line of questioning that might rub against his own views, no matter how reasoned.

can we get away from the argument " It must be true because the RFL say so". They have been lying and shown to be lying since they loaned Hood £700k on the QT. What is surprising me about this is why aren't all the other clubs saying that they have lost confidence in the people in charge of the RFL and must go. This whole sorry saga has now gone beyond the survival of us as a SL club. It's time the gravy train stopped and they were ejected (and by they I mean Wood, Solly, Rimmer et al)

They're all out tonight.

Oddly you can't actually say what question I "baulked at". Nor can your imaginary friend. Strange, that.

I think you answered your own question :/ no ones ruled out the possibility that the rfl is lying, however,given the info at hand, it's just as likely Moore and co are lying, and in fact, it's most probably be a case of both are (sort of) telling the truth.

Other clubs silence on the matter really is deafening I do agree, given how vocal McManus in particular (at least to us saints fans it seemed so!) was during the last administration. But, even so, they haven't lost confidence owing to their not being any sort of evidence (as yet) of them doing anything wrong ... (Even if it seems so with wonderful hindsight)

It seems that the question as to whether they were lying may be answered by 4:00 tomorrow when they will either withdraw their statement or a 'sue and be damned' .
With regards to there not being any evidence I would have thought issuing a SL licence to club that had to be bailed out with a secret loan 3 months later may not point to deliberate negligence or wrong doing but surely indicates complete incompetence.

He's simply and concisely presented the known facts in the face of repeated supposition. That's all.

Bit in the T&A saying we've received £250,000 of the £300,000 windfall of the new sky deal "signing on fee", this was in two installments and went towards paying the wages. RFL keeping back £50,000 until our mess is sorted. Each club due another £100,000 in July.

Haven't you got enough problems of your own?

Just putting aside the who said what and when arguments filling most of this thread it is worth considering the specific challenges any new owner of the club will face:
1) Due to our record over the last few years - 2 admins, our friends at HMRC would ( rightly from the point of view of taxpayers)

You're so fed up of who said what you decided not to tell us what HMRC would do?

Ups pressed the wrong button

Just putting aside the who said what and when arguments filling most of this thread it is worth considering the specific challenges any new owner of the club will face:
1) Due to our record over the last few years - 2 admins, our friends at HMRC would ( rightly from the point of view of taxpayers) demand a significant bond be deposited against any further defaults. This is not unusual though I have personally not seen HMRC ask for security over owners property.
2) Having to work on reduced Sky money, and having part of the new deals monies withheld at the moment.
3) In addition to funding the day to day running of the club being asked to at least consider paying off debts run up by previous owners.
4) On top of this events over recent years have seen the average gate ( and associated income) drop - though we still mange to get significantly more than several other SL clubs - and have a reasonable away following.
5) The Bulls brand is now tarnished by the financial problems for potential sponsors and backers.

So all in all any new owner is not starting with a clean sheet but one containing several large financial obligations and penalties no other SL club has to contend with. So it is hard for me to see how this could be made to work unless a new owner had significant money to put in just to stabilise the situation before they address the issue of funding the day to day running of the club.

We have seen great spirit from the coach and team, and have a significant hard core of loyal supporters but it will take a lot of co-ordinated cooperation, patience and cash to put the show back on a stable footing

Hard, if not impossible

The bit about the Sky windfall paying the wages has got to be wrong.Lots of Wakefield fans have got proof the RFL have been paying the wages for God knows how long

Of course it's wrong. Everyone knows that nobody at the Bulls have been paid this millennium

Kinleycat assured us that RFL were paying the wages.

Not that they were being paid with cash every club is entitled to.

It's a bit like when the monthly payments were given to the club a couple of weeks early when in Admin last time when we were getting special treament.

Rumour that Koulcash's brother wants to buy the bulls. in todays paper

Which paper?, could have been him who mentioned the name change just like Marwan

Actually it was in Mondays paper

Oh, that'll be the flatly denied and massively discussed already rumour then?

Yup, that's the one

Hmm interesting one FA. How come we did not get half the other clubs? You claimed it was the gospel truth ( in other words because you not the club or the rfl said so) that we only got half the distribution of other clubs for two years, so why are you not demanding that the club pays the excess receipt back. You should at least be consistent in your arguments, otherwise you are just proving Dboy absolutely right, that you are a troll on your own forum.

What did I do?!