All valid points (I DID say the devil would be in the detail...!)

The benefit to the affected clubs would be use of the cash for a few days. If teh amount is material, charge interest at a commercial rate.

Fine with the RFL charging clubs a fee as well for things like this. Quite proper they should do so.

The benefit to the RFL and the other clubs is that it would stop the ones with problems causing problems for the other clubs and the wider game, and getting them tarnished with the same brush.

You'd only make a club avail itself of this arrangement if it defaulted on payment. Any club that has paid on time for 12 months would either not be required to sign up to, or would be allowed to drop out of the process.

When the new Sky money kicks in, clubs that have been on their uppers OUGHT to be better placed financially. So that would surely be a good time to bring in a whole raft of governance changes?

Of course not - I'm mild mannered and sweetness & light when it comes to lending money!

The point I'm repeatedly trying to make is why should failing, poorly run RL businesses expect to be treated differently to any other failing business? If a business in trouble goes to its bank for finance to save it, the terms will be a lot tougher than if the business were blooming and the finance was for expansion.

It just strikes me that the kind of things being proposed here are soft options and invitations to behave irresponsibly.

This is the reason why it should be set in stone and have already been decided. Any decision made after game shave been played looks like it has been influenced by the results of those games, even if it hasn't.

Difficult in this case as ownership is still not sorted but the conspiracy theorists (myself included at times) will always see it the way you have described.

Totally agree with you Fordy.
The later that any decision is made (regarding any points deduction), the more angry some fans will become.
ie, if the Bulls have a poor start to the campaign and then get points deducted, it could be an early end to their season.
However, if they get a decent start and don't receive any deduction, some of the lower teams will cry foul.
It's certainly a mess which hopefully will become a whole lot clearer after the "trial" has finished.

A spelling mistake is a weak target to highlight unless is is the context if the word being misspelt that is being highlighted and not just the grammatical error itself.

BTW.....bono has nothing on me.......but I'd take being compared to him any day over being seen as Adeybulls bitch

Whilst I think you and Durham are crediting the RFL with too much thought going into the process (I dont suspect that is whats happening-more to do with dealing with the ownership debacle before the points debacle I suspect), its hard to argue that that is exactly what it will look like to many, including me. I also agree it should have been set and dealt with in the operational rules, but thats easier to say than to do, as 70 odd pages on here will testify to

A fake paddy with a massive ego and delusions of grandeur, who ceased to say anything of relevance years ago? I can see why you see Bono as a kindred spirit

The troll really is a total kn0b, isn't it? There are plenty of typos in what I post, because I type so fast being limited on time, and usually on a desktop with no fancy predictive text in the operating system to pick them up. Whoopie-do.

Says it all about the troll that it has gone orgasmic over a single letter typo. That no-one else gives a stuff about. If little things please little minds, how small does this suggest its own mind is?

I thought it might be worth noting the distinction between "Debate" and "Derision", before it wakes up and resumes vomiting over the forum, since it clearly has no understanding of it:

To Debate: to discuss a subject in a formal way.

To Deride: to laugh at someone or something in a way that shows you think they are stupid or of no value.

Since it found my previous observation about the use of derision amusing enough to wet itself over it, I'll give it another one:

Resorting to derision is the last refuge of those who cannot win a debate using facts, reasoning and logic.


btw, errors that I can see straight off in its last vomiting:

You do waffle don't you?
As I said, picking up on spelling errors and grammatical mistakes is weak........UNLESS the context of the error highlights the idiocy of its poster.
If you're going to call someone incompetent........can I suggest you don't spell it incompetant ...........

Well, if nothing else, you seem to have at least given up your habit of making up facts and figures to back up your trolling

But lets say he makes up..............20% of his facts, then he knows from what Ian Lenegan told him in a top secret..............

Text message that he wasnt supposed to tell anyone about............that 50% of

.............Text messages were owned by Omar Kahn..............That means only 2k attended................

but 1billion watched the RU game between the Auckland plastic Paddys and the London Pretentious.

That means Bradford owe .......£100billion and are going bust, London are rubbish because they dont do CRM, He is going to do a..................mail merge

earns 2trillion Kiwi dollars a day and is quite an important.................

person

His figures may be 25% but its the RFL's fault because they..................didnt tell him months in........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................advance

I'm flattered......I really am.
By the way, Ian Lenegan thinks you're a c0ck!

You actually expect anyone to believe your incredibly lame proposition that a person spelling one word "...ant" instead of "...ent" "highlights their idiocy"? It actually highlights nothing. It is one wrong letter, in one word. You were being anal in picking up on it, and you now know it.

"Highlighting idiocy", my arrse. If you actually considered that one wrong letter in one word could somehow "highlight idiocy", now THAT would be idiotic, certainly.

Is that really the best you can do when you suddenly realize you've been made a fool of? Oh dear.

WOW.....another one. I have almost as many followers on here than Bradford have had owners of late.......

WOW, two super important people having a conversation about me, YOU AND IAN LENEGAN.

I've made it mum, I've finally made it

Gus MacKay just texted me. Him and Bono agree with Ian Lenegan!

Hey if we can get David Cameron and Justin Beiber to agree, i think there might be some sort of Sainthood for me.

don't you have to be dead to become a saint?

Right I'm not going to read how far this slanging match goes back, but stop it. You can disagree with someone without the name calling and hair pulling. I would have thought grown men and women had moved beyond this.

I'm not overly bothered if you are making a point and disagreeing, but when a post just becomes a comment about someone rather than what they have said we are heading down the slippery slope.

Given this thread is 77 pages long I can understand why the name calling has started, because no one has anything new to say. Everyone has stated their positions over and over and over. So it turns to tackling the man rather than the ball (to steal a phrase).

Keep on thread or lock the thread.

More akin to a dad not paying the rent and the whole family getting evicted

Not sure if it's still relevant, but I've finally found evidence that the maximal punishment the bulls can get is a 6 point deduction - oddly whilst I was having a look at the policy review again!



Sorry this was so late!

Not too late at all. Very interesting, in fact.

Where is that from? EDIT - sorry, you said. When WAS the review?

The use of the word "maximum", and that "board discretion to reduce this penalty" was available "on application from a club" is especially interesting.

The retention of the word "maximum" suggests that "board discretion" might still apply in some form?

I note also the retention of "insolvency event". Not just "administration". As I have regularly pointed out, administration is not the only "insolvency event". So is a CVA, for example.

Once the new structure and Sky money package is in place, relegation should not lead to oblivion for clubs without a rich owner. So a much higher penalty could more safely be implemented.

I still feel strongly though that the pain should fall mainly on the owners on whose watch it happens. And have previously proposed how it could be effected. Someone - it might have been the reasonable and responsible Slugger McBatt? - pointed out that if the new owners were the same as the previous owners, they SHOULD suffer. He was dead right, of course.

Well put. Bulls can't expect to get off scot free just because the owners have moved on. It's the business that has gone into admin, not the owners.

Not being bitter or celebrating the points deduction btw but rules is rules.

More akin to dad not paying the rent, and gets evicted, and next tenant has to pay twice the rent to punish him for what the previous tenant did?

But at least most of the talk tonight has been about on the park, not off it. And, if you look at the postings of Wakefield supporters on various threads, you'll see how - once we get back to what happens on tne park not off it - as RL fans they don't come much better?

Btw... that put-down you did on your forum of that "Bruce Forsyth" kn0bhead was chuffing brilliant. That troll has been a cñut across several forums, including ours. I hope you don't mind if I nick that for future use?