I agree we need to draw a line under it and move forward - but the RFL screwed us good and proper and I think we should find a fitting way to let them know its all behind us now.

We could all have the same print put on the back of our shirts; some options but feel free to add your own;

1. RFL WTF?
2. RFL FU
3. FU RFL
4. RFL=JOKE
5. RFL non-professionals (maybe that would be expensive with all those letters)

So where in the rule book does it say that we should be deducted 12 points? Has anyone found the rule yet?

[url=http://media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Insolvency%20Policy_final%20PDF.pdf6.2 - Dated 2015?[/url

yes that's the 12 point deduction that applied to the old club that was liquidated. Now explain why it was applied to new club which applied to join the RFL and was forced to enter in the championship with the points deduction and negligible central funding as opposed to league 1 with no sanctions where it should have entered. RFL wants to claim we're a new club on one hand when it suits them but apply sanctions as if we're the old club on the other hand. Case of having their cake and eating it too ( so suit big Nige down to the ground

).

This is an interesting example of what has been mentioned about Gledhill twisting things actually.

In response to him tweeting:


a Jason Priestley responded with:


Mick quoted that question and answered with


Tonight, a Halifax fan questioned him over it and asked Aaron Bower and Michael Carter if this was correct. Mick then back tracked, saying that those four key areas were actually related to central funding, not licensing and that he never said it was licensing related. Even though he clearly did. Then he got on with deleting a lot of the tweets where he had clearly misled people. And then blocked the fan that had proved he was talking crap.

Full of it and dangerous when naive people consider him a reliable source.

I wonder whether Wood and Rimmer have ever been to a Tribunal. I have, many times, and it can be a quite uncomfortable experience.

I find Rimmer's 'moral compass' comment frankly laughable. If an employee has been denied benefits to which his contract entitles him, there is absolutely no immorality in pursuing the employer who has broken the contract. Quite the reverse, in fact. The Tribunal will not concern itself with moral issues , only the legalities will matter.

The claimants will be represented by a barrister, possibly more than one, and the contradictions so apparent in the RFL's case will quickly be used to embarrass and discredit them. The only outcome I can foresee is significant costs and loss of credibility for the sport's governing body. I'd love to watch it, seeing those two squirm and bulls***t under oath would be well worth paying for.

But, assuming they are receiving some kind of legal advice themselves, it seems certain they will avoid this by agreeing a settlement, the terms of which will be confidential. Disappointing, but I can't see it going any other way

On the subject of the court case, I think we can all now clearly see what the argument is. The simple fact that by starting the club in the Championship and on -12 points, it completely contradicts the idea this is a new club/entity. It's hard to see how this won't end in the claimants winning either by settlement or court case. I now just hope from a purely selfish POV that this doesn't cripple the club again and that the RFL or one of the others being sued are the ones that end up paying most of the money out.

Don't forget your own Club are also one of the defendants. Could end up being pretty embarrassing for them too if it does actually get to a tribunal. As the old saying goes caveat emptor.

As the RFL is a member organisation, it could be argued that all 42 clubs are defendants.

No backtracking at all.

I can't be held responsible if Halifax supporters possess an inability to listen.

Ralph Rimmer quite clearly says (3.55 mins in) that it is for all clubs - Super League down.

It's quite dangerous to note your pathetic obsession with me. Have you tried professional help?

It's you with the inability to listen.

The question asked to you was in relation to licensing. You answered with those 4 criteria. When questioned on that, you said it was actually about central funding and you never said it was about licensing, which was a blatant lie. When questioned on that, you deleted all the tweets knowing you were wrong.

I saw the full conversation before you deleted it. You can't lie about it to me.


I'll give you chance to clarify. Are those 4 criteria actually about central funding and nothing to do with licensing? And if that's the case, why did you originally respond with that answer when asked what the criteria for licensing was? I'm more than happy for you to explain.

If you have listened to what actually Ralph Rimmer said last night then you will know the answer that the criteria is indeed from Super League downwards.

I couldn't care less what the Halifax trolls I've blocked are saying. They had three opportunities to listen to what was said and yet they still came back with nonsense.

No doubt they'll appear on here again.

Didn't answer the questions. I'll ask again.

Are you saying that those 4 criteria are actually about central funding and nothing to do with licensing? And if that's the case, why did you originally respond with that answer when asked what the criteria for licensing was? I'm more than happy for you to explain.

To clarify, I'm not asking what Ralph Rimmer is saying. I'm asking what YOU are saying. Call this an olive branch. Explain it to me so that it makes sense (without lies) and I'll happily shut up about it.

This

It’s hard to see how anyone other than the RFL is liable in that case then. This was their choice and no one else’s.

So did none ask Rimmer why a new Bulls club had to start in the championship? Toronto didn’t.

Well said.

Yes, it followed my first question. His response was that due to the timing being so close to the start of the season it was unfair to ask a Champ 1 club who had geared up to that league being asked to move up. Season tickets had been sold, squads assembled and budgeted etc etc blah blah blah.

Said it wasn't just his and Nigel Wood's decision but was agreed by the rest of the clubs.

This was one of many contradicting statements throughout the night. One minute its the rule book, next when the rule book is not followed its the clubs, then a minute late he's back on the 10,000 page dossier that apparently states how all this is correct and just.

Only problem with his original statement that it was unfair is that from recollection there were several clubs that came out and said they would step up to Championship if asked. Seems they didn't and chose the "dropped a b*llock" option.

The only thing I can think of is if Chalmers and/or Lowe knew about the whole situation and deliberately waited until the old club was liquidated before starting a "new" club, instead of just taking over the old one, knowing they would be preferred bidders. Because it benefitted them in not having to take over expensive contracts that would have been protected by TUPE.

Pure speculation, none of that is fact whatsoever. But it's the only way I can think the current club could be successfully sued as part of this.

Yeah, agree. It suggests a very strong dislike of those involved or, considering that some of our own players are involved, a dislike of the organisers who set it up. There is no 'loyalty' though, it's all bottom line and some of the less well off complainants probably wouldn't take much convincing. When your family is involved and your job prospects pretty low I guess, you're half-way there. Then there's an appearance of the usual selfishness and greed, which have always been a part of life but which the 21st century seems to have elevated to the norm. Well, that's my old timer's moaning over..

I could be wrong but I heard they put a bid in but it was turned down

Another version of the RR 'moral compass'. Why pay up loyal members of staff when I can just wait 'til the club is liquidated and set the back on cheap.

They did put a bid in but it was turned down by the administrator

The 10000 pages is to try to prove (smokescreen) that every decision they made wasn't influenced by the conflict of interest they had due to Odsal. And also to try to cover themselves when they deviated from the rulebook (made stuff up). If it does get in front of a judge though, how many of those pages will mysteriously fall in the shredder?

They really do make it up as they go along.
So all new teams must start in the lowest league, unless you are the Bulls?

I don’t know how he could stand there and say all this. Does he actually believe they followed this mysterious “rule book”?

I’m intrigued to know where in the rules it says that new teams should maybe not start in bottom depending on the whim of the RFL or whether they have a Summer Bash to sell tickets for.
It will be in a hastily written appendix that they will be staining with tea right now to make it look like it’s always been there...

Bunch of clowns.