As if any of that had remotely occurred to you!

So the current lot have no morals and have gone into administration not because they had to but to spite a creditor? Deserve considerably more than the probable 6pts deductions coming their way. And what you apologists seem to have forgotten is that without OK riding to the rescue the Bulls would have been long gone. I'm afraid I've lost all sympathy for their plight and won't be shedding any tears when they go pop again in a few months time.

Is that the best you can manage. I should not expect more from someone who thinks we can post links for things people hear! Ho hum.

Meanwhile the 'temporary directors' - is this their 2nd or 3rd time in charge since September? - sign player contracts while creditors are left on hold...twas ever thus.

Which bit of "the creditor initiated the administration" do you not understand?





Seems unlikely that there will be any points deduction. I don't personally see any justification for one.


"Apologist"? Hardly. And as I have repeatedly said, in various threads, over a long time, that for keeping the club alive I personally will always be grateful to OK, it is inexplicable that you choose to aim that comment in my direction.


I'm sure we're all really upset at that. However I do note that (like all over-opinionated loudmouths) you either can't or don't want to make the distinction between those running a club, and the more important people namely the club's fans, who are neither complicit in any of the shenanigans nor have any power to direct the fate of the rugby team they support.

So just to be clear, when you were remarking about the directors being "sure they could pay 100% of the creditors", this was actually just something that you made up, based on nothing. I.e., trolling.

As I of course assumed, as it's what you do, if poorly.

I was going to say "Heard", my arrse. Except I can't completely rule out that you did hear it, from the the voices in your head.

Oh dear FA I wrote "[uIf[/u the current directors are sure they can pay creditors 100% " YOU even quote me as such.

This has been shortened to exclude the if. How convenient.

fell free to change the meaning of what I write so that you can try and score some points inside your head. You do so love to tilt at windmills.



So keep up your anal retentive posting, very amusing.

sadly while bulls apologists like you prattle away. Many small firms - often supporters of the club - have been stuffed by various bulls regimes.

Stop picking on the All New Bulls, they haven't done anything wrong, it's clearly not their fault.
Just leave them alone to carry on with their business.

How predictable, trying to re-write your own history. Trouble is you aren't smart enough to wing it. What you wrote was:

It is a rhetorical question. that is, it clearly presupposes its own answer. Your clear proposition was that the current directors are a bad lot because despite being sure they can pay 100%, they choose to go into admin, so they don't have to, whilst still being able to sign up new contracts. You of course know that is the meaning of your words. Your attempt at fudge is pathetic.

Indeed, you went on to claim that you had "heard" this to be the case. You couldn't post a link, because people can't post links for something they heard.


I do try to amuse as well as inform. Shame you can't do either.


On what basis do you claim I am a "bulls apologist"?


Indeed, but where were we discussing earlier regimes, and if we were, please point out a single quote where I was remotely an apologist for such things happening?
But I forgot; you never have anything to back up your ignorant dross.

are you angry that Michael Carter and Co havent reimbursed Andrew Glover? Would you be criticising Michael Carter and Co and demanding they are punished if Andrew Glover were to call in directors loans?

Did you criticise Andrew Glover at the time he took over for Wakefield for choosing to pay off some of WTW ceditors, but giving nothing to Ted Richardson?

As the current business is a continuation of the Business Andrew Glover set up, im sure you are furious with Michael Carter for turning down huge sums for the transfer of Danny Kirmond + all the signings they have made when that money could have gone to gone to Ted Richardson, who like Omar Kahn los the money he put in. Im guessing you and the supporters trust at Wakefield are applying pressure to Michael Carter as a director of the company which brought WTW out of Admin to make sure Ted Richardson is fully reimbursed for his losses?

FWIW, I'm not comfortable with any business failing as there is always a cost to somebody and I've been on the receiving end of some personal cr@p from companies going under and not getting paid so, I'm sorry Smokey but, you are totally out of order to criticise my personal thoughts or morals.

This thread is not about what Wakefield (or any other SL club) have done in the past, it's about the Bulls.

First of all they banged on about new owners and no points deduction, this comment since retracted and following this,
they feel as though they should carry on regardless.
I think your memory is good enough to know that Wakefield have been docked points twice for their financial failings and rightly so.
I have stated previously that I have no problem with ANY club getting relegated for going into admin and it wasn't too long that we were hearing that Featherstone were put on standby for just such a circumstance, although this has gone very quiet.
So please, spare me the lecture about insolvency and it's consequences as I have enough personal experience to know how it can affect people, do you ?

Im not criticising your morals regarding insolvency. That’s a huge leap you have made. Im simply highlighting a hypocrisy in the attitude towards Omar Kahn and the general Wakefield attitude toward Ted Richardson.

Insolvency is a cost of doing business, it happens, it isn’t pleasant but the insolvency process is there for a reason. Its there because to it is not immoral to fail, it is there because businesses do fail, sometimes good businesses fail, sometimes good people fail. It is there to give people a chance to rescue businesses, to save jobs. That’s why what happened at Bradford is legally allowed to happen.

And to answer your question, yes, I do know from personal experience how it effects people, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. Which is why I want Bradford to have the best opportunity, in the best environment possible to recover, so players, coaches, and all the tertiary staff members don’t get put through it again, the previous punishments to Bradford were a big factor in the 2nd admin, why would we want another punishment to increase the chance of a 3rd?

You might be better off trying to convince the Wakey lot of that, you know, the ones who have gone so far as to write a letter to the RFL pointing selectively to Wakey events of the past and demanding retribution be visited on the Bulls precisely because of that.

Its actually doing a pretty good impression then of being a thread about blatant hypocrisy. From some quarters. As Smokey has demonstrated so conclusively.

Thanks Adey, must have missed that bit.

Are you alluding to the two occasions when Wakefield had problems and were docked points or, to the Glover loan, which he has agreed not to call in (so it's still a loan)
I know that all fans are a little myopic but, this is becoming known as "bullseye".
It only sees what it wants to and has no regard for anything from the past, quite similar to Bullmania

So you are fine with Andrew Glover losing out but not Omar Kahn?

Smokey hasn't yet gotten over the demise of the Crusaders franchise. The episode still haunts him emotionally. He's still ed over Wakefield still being in Super League, hence his current pro-Bulls(hit) agenda.

You know when someone has lost the debate when they are reduced to citing poor old Smokey in support of their own failed arguments.

You know when you have lost the argument when you have no answer to what the other guy said.

Then you roll out the straw men, seek to change the argument to something else, and go [iad hominem[/i. And hope folk don't wise up to what you are doing.

[url=http://viewtopic.php?p=17706642&tsmp=1392313507#p17706642Nope. It just speaks volumes about you[/url

And QED.

It appears someone has swallowed a booklet on logical fallacies in an attempt to impress. Beats having to watch the Bradford Bulls I suppose. But then again, so does serially going into administration.

Frightfully good of you old boy, reinforcing my QED like that in case anyone missed it the first time round. But you really did not need to go to the trouble - your first attempt was ample demonstration.

[uTranslation[/u: [url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quod_erat_demonstrandumSo there, nyer, nyer, nyer[/url

What a guy - prepared to selflessly dig your hole even deeper, in the interests of ensuring no-one is in any doubt about the point having been proven. I fear I may have misjudged you, in the light of these acts of self-humiliation just to help any remaining slower readers catch up.

It matters not, whether you or I are fine with it.

Glover is content not to call his loan in...yet.

Khan wants his money back now.

The end.

In my opinion the sympathy wagon has just about rolled out of town for the Bulls.

the whole sorry state of affairs has just about reached the proportions of a West End farce

What next.. A vicar cones out of the bathroom with his trousers around his ankles? Clutching his aunts inheritance and wanting to buy Khans share of the business only to find he has sold the debt to a group of cockney repo men...

Meanwhile, a fat executive and his vicious henchman is busy painting the barriers at Odsal ready fir the estate agents valuation visit... Ideal first tine buyer opportunity! Iconic and rural... With sweeping views across...

The bit I am waiting for is when all the players come on stage, hold hands and bow... Thus accepting the plaudits of a fine comedic performance...