This will happen in this/my reality - I know that will gripe with a lot of people and I understand their frustrations.

I have no proof but the RFL have been hand in hand with the current Bulls owners in orchestrating this.... I suspect that Mr Khan will disappear quietly into the night once Mr Sutcliffe's role starts getting investigated....

I sincerely hope that the Bulls pay their debts (legit ones) and move forward and become a powerhouse once again

I see the letter did not also ask why one club that entered administration had £2/3m of its Sky money confiscated for each of two years (and don't anyone trot out the twaddle about it was "volunteered"icon_wink.gif - AND shared out amongst the other clubs - whereas another club did not?

Very surprised that, in the interests of clarity, that question was not also asked? Since its consequences were far more severe than any points deduction.

Hopefully, in any reply, the RFL will also address THAT point, and explain why one club was treated far more favourably?

Precisely Adey, in the interests of a level playing field relegation should have been deferred until we had full sky money, presumably all these egalitarians are all lobbying their own clubs the RFL and Superleague to either pay us the £600k this year or defer relegation to next year or is that another of FAs parallel universes?

For one fleeting moment when reading the fisticuffs on this thread one could almost feel sorry for the RFL.

Half the teams in your premier competition in financial difficulties, bloody minded and parochial chairman and fans to deal with, being asked to deal with a stream of emergency situations with awkward dodgy characters. Where would you draw the line?

So I assume that seeing as the Sky money was confiscated from the OKBulls that the new Bulls will get it back?

Or will they confiscate the other half?

So you will be handing back half your Sky money for this season and last then?

Or maybe not that equally eh?

We are all equal, just some more equal than others.

Treated equally so Wakefield supporters trust et al will be asking their own club to return their share of the Sky money given up by the Bulls. They will of course do this to support equality? I think not.

Someone at the RFL told me that they do now recognise that the same rules should apply to everyone.

So, they have decided to relegate the Bulls at the end of 2014 regardless (it being too late to do it now without screwing up the whole season).

And, to maintain equality of treatment and punishment - which Wakey so adamantly demanded - to withhold 50% of Wakefield's 2014 Sky money, to divvy up round the rest of the clubs. AND to send them a bill for the 50% that should have been deducted last season. Meaning they get no Sky money at all for 2014.

The RFL are apparently going to congratulate Wakey for the very high moral position they took on this issue, setting an example to us all of selflessness and sacrifice in the interests of fairness. Despite people urging them to be careful what they wished for. They HAVE asked the club how they propose to fill the financial hole this will now create, but assume the club must have thought of that before opening Pandora's Box so do not envisage any problems.

Oh, and - in an unrelated announcement - the RFL confirmed that if any other clubs go into administration this year due to income shortfall or whatever (and having Sky money stopped will not count in mitigation, as Wakey pointed out to the RFL re the Bulls, so setting the precedent) then they go down at the end of the season too.

I think we have misjudged our Wakefield friends, guys? They were prepared to bring upon themselves the same consequences as they wished upon the Bulls, to ensure that everyone was treated equally.

Meanwhile, the chairmen of London and Cas and Widnes are to throw a big party, to celebrate Wakefield's noble gesture that has saved their own clubs from the spectre of relegation. They are calling it the "be careful what you wish for bash". All wakefield fans are invited.

Now the precedent has been set, can Bullbuilder now write to the RFL asking for confirmation on whether Wakefield were ever threatened with relegation or whether they completely made it up for reasons best known to themselves?

Your argument about the Sky money would have course have some merit if Wakfield had gone into administration, which they haven't, and so I'm curious as to why Wakefield would suffer a sanction for sound financial management.

If, of course, they had gone bang, and it was the price for staying in the top flight, I'm sure they would have accepted it with good grace and ensured they didn't go bang again, bearing in mind the consequences.

Wait ...

Let me get this straight; your remark is meant to imply that the s=#FFFFFF.h=#FFFFFF.i=#FFFFFF.t=#FFFFFF.e I referred to was "discussion". And pertinent to the forum".



Please stop now ... my sides are splitting.





If you have seen the responses to your post, you will note everyone can see how disingenuous that letter is.





You mean "may" as in "Not a feckin snowball's chance in hell"? That sort of "may"? Amongst certain Wakey fans, even a carefully targeted thermonuclear device would struggle to do that, I'm afraid.

LAST time's administration.

You went, paid off a few of your creditors (how much did HMRC etc get...?) and got 4 pts. And 100% Sky money.

Bulls went, paid off no creditors, and got 6 pts. And 50% Sky money.

Bulls go for a second time - RFL agrees with Wakey, automatic relegation.

Wakey, now having lost their Sky money, go for a second time.

RFL agrees with Wakey - automatic relegation.

Jubilation on the terraces of london, Cas and Widnes (as a minimum) that two of their perceived relegation rivals have so spectacularly been blown up in a cycle of Mutually Assured Destruction ("MAD"icon_wink.gif.

Good arrows, guys. And, this time, maybe not even Hope will be what remains in Pandora's box.

Any idea if we can get hold of one of those on eBay?

we could at least give it a shot...

If the RFL feels it is disingenuous, they will say so, and point out why it is so.

I agree that not everyone will feel it is a dead issue, and that is their right, but if there is no explanation or response, you can hardly complain if peoples' opinions become entrenched.

On the threat of relegation point, the best case scenario for me is for the RFL to tactfully say "Erm...well no we didn't ever say Wakey would be relegated but we understand why that misapprehension may have arisen". That saves Wakey chairman's face and shuts off a primary route to biggotry for some of the hillbillies.

To be fair, I think the letter is doing nothing more than seeking clarification why there is an apparent difference in treatment, and I don't think is asking for relegation. I don't think the people involved want the Bulls relegated, and that is not the aim of the letter. They just want transparency and equal treatment to all the clubs, and I suspect is using the letter to make that point.

I don't want the Bulls relegated. The people behind the Supporters Trust are decent, intelligent reasonable people. I haven't seen a single post from those concerned that suggests the Bulls should be relegated.

I think the letter is more about the way the RFL treats clubs differently, and this is more than just the Bulls, than it is about the Bulls.

So did they forget to include the page where they asked about the confiscation of Sky money, and divvying it up amongst the rest of the clubs? A 100%-related point where equal transparency is required?

That has no relevance. The issues raised in the letter deal with two seemingly identical scenarios occurring in the same off-season.

Wakefield's Sky money wasn't confiscated in 2011, but then again the issues over loans from the RFL and the ground ownership were different. I could prattle on about how Bradford were treated differently, but I won't, because the letter deals purely with the identical scenarios occurring in the same time-frame.

Will they? Which RFL? The one that runs the game, you mean? That one? If so, then I wouldn't hold my breath. We are still waiting for them to point out why, alone amongst clubs, the Bulls had a year's Sky distribution docked despite there being no provision for this in the rules.



First, in the relevant cases, they already ARE entrenched. No additional entrenchment is required.

Second, I don't complain, I just provide correction / derision in appropriate measure.

Except it does not.

Wakey's "issue" followed on from a previous administration. 4pts and no confiscation.

Bulls's "issue" follows on from a previous administration. 6pts and £ 1 1/3m confiscation.

The scenarios are far from identical. Which is why the letter is so disingenuous.

You are right to raise the ground ownership issue though. Quite a few people at the time were convinced that the lease had had to be sold to the RFL at an undervalue, given the respective bargaining positions of the RFL and the Bulls, and (it was alleged) the naivity or worse of the the-Chairman. Indeed, a former Chairman went on record saying precisely that, and that the RFL now had a handy asset yielding a decent return at a bargain price. I was never as sold on that argument as were some others, but now you have brought it up it IS generous of you to highlight another example of where maybe one club was disadvantaged because of the distressed state it found itself in.

Look, I KNOW the guys on your Supporters' Trust are decent. I helped some of them when it was set up. But I think they have taken a very unwise step here, and certainly in blasting it all over the media. As a minimum, they have backed the RFL into a corner, in public which is never a good idea. And they have risked opening cans of worms - maybe affecting also their own club - that maybe would really have been better left unopened.

Surely mid-table mediocrity rivals? We aspire.

I think its a genuine shame that supporters are having to argue and counter these matters.
I am fairly certain the game has been bent far longer than i have been watching it, but the fact that we are all over this instead of who has the best team etc only goes to show what a colossal bunch of pratts are running the game.
Honesty, clarity, fairness and openness would negate all the rumour and conjecture.
I'm an idiot and i can see that, why cantt/won't they!!

If they had not brought in two-down at the end of this season, the various protaganists would be far less desperate.

Yet another example of the law of unexpected consequences.

Bulls go into this season ALREADY severely disadvantaged compared with every other club. For something the fault of an earlier board and set of shareholders two years ago. And, in the current mess in good part because of being likewise disadvantaged last year. In a relegation year, how would you expect Bulls fans to feel about that?

I don't think the game is bent at all. It annoys be greatly when people make stupid, throwaway comments to try & ingratiate themselves. We have had some good administrators & some mediocre ones, same as all sports. What the RFL have to do is to try & balance the demands of powerful & rich chairmen with the sustainability of a precariously balanced game. Bradford is worth saving due to potential of the club. Your team, & my team, are probably expendable; one not both, due to the proximity. But there is no-one in the championship, at the moment, who are any better. Halifax used to be, maybe could be. Relegation might add some end of season excitement but it will lead to more financial disaster. SL needs Bradford, it doesn't need more than one of the 5 towns. Get used to it.

I dont think any rational fan would suggest you arent, but that is aver different matter to the rock and hard place ultimatum Wakefield were given for attempting to do what effectively the Bulls have done.
The sadness (and you can take it as ingracious if you choose) is that supporters of a sport are falling out about the failings of administrators be that the rfl or club chairmen, but thats the divide and conquer attitude that prevails in modern day RL sadly.