I just don't buy the pre-determined decision. I cannot see how it benefits the RFL to:
1. be shown to have got it wrong
2. be shown to have a toothless tiger in relation to penalties for administration.

If there was going to be a whitewash, it would have happened at the start.

I have been involved in plenty of cases where those with no case are given every opportunity to prove their case, so that there can be no accusations of not being given a fair hearing when the decision goes against them. The objectors to Newmarket show that. I wouldn't read too much into that. In fact, I read the opposite into it.

I can see that as a possibility - interesting!

What I dont understand is surely there were extensive written representations made before hand for the panel to consider? You don't just rock up on the day with a massive bundle of evidence for consideration (not saying they did). If this evidence wasn't considered beforehand then in reality how on earth would they have been able to make a decision on the day which seemed to be suggested initially? It was going to require a significant length of time all along surely? If it was considered then they would have known that certain areas needed further explanation and again would have known this wouldnt have happened on the day.
I agree, I don't see a delay as being relevant at all

Most articles I read suggested that an announcement on the day was unlikely.

Despite the double negative I was under the impression it was 6 or nothing because they are arguing that administration was forced on them by the actions of others which were outside their control. They are not offering to make any payments to the creditors therefore, it is not the 6point penalty that is in dispute but the implementation of it.

Yes that's my understanding of it as well. However, I suppose the panel could decide that a third of what happened was outside of their control and give them 2 points back etc.

I concur; I deal with employment matters all the time and though it galls me, I'm often required to provide claimants with documentation relating to their employment that they should have copies of themselves - I find myself providing them with the material they need to build their case against me.

It is important however to be seen to have given the claimant every opportunity to be dealt with fairly.

I was firmly in the "it's a fix" camp, but Slugger makes a persuasive argument; the more I think about it, the fewer advantages I can see for the RFL to fix the outcome to get Bradford some points back - if there is a fix, it's more likely to be in the other direction.

The more I think about this appeal the more I believe its all or nothing.

If Bradford win their appeal and prove they were forced into admin then how can they have any points removed? If on the other hand they were in a position that they couldn't avoid going into admin regardless of the grounds of appeal then its 6 points. I cannot see any halfway house as no creditors have been paid and that might be part of the Bradford case.

So I expect Bradford to get all 6 back or they will not get any back. Just my thoughts but JW has the opportunity to do it on the pitch and not rely on judicial processes.

I tend to read into it that the appeals panel have asked Bradford for more information to support their appeal, as they haven't given enough to persuade them at this moment in time. And if they haven't put it in in the first place, I can't see them any now.

How long do we have to wait for the next hearing ?

My own thought is the RFL proffered admin as a way to get rid of the previous owner, however that is somewhat of a red herring with respect to the superseded HMRC winding up order facing OK Bulls at the same time. Chances are had the Bulls not gone into admin on the advice of the RFL they would still have had to consider it further down the line.

Still with how things have been portrayed the appeal with either be six points or nothing IMO.

@marcngreen: On the eve of finding out result of appeal, fingers crossed, whatever the outcome lets run together #COYB

I think the the rugby league are waiting to see how the season pans out,if we do well and are well clear they will give bulls 6 points back ,on the other hand if we struggle they would have to think hard about there decision,and would upset one of us,and then theres Salford to come into the equasion

It isn't the RFL making the decision though.

Technically it is though, as good as.

No it isn't.

You're wrong KC, it's the Bradford Bulls legal advisors making the judgement, that's their description of themselves not mine.

My take on it is that the RFL have instructed THEIR legal people as the independent panel.
They are very unlikely to throw mud at the people who employ them to do THEIR legal matters, that would open the flood gates.

Another point worth considering is that, as the Bulls have had right to appeal, equally so do all other SL clubs on this matter, and I'm fairly certain/hopeful that we would, based on MCs anger at this situation.
I'm cautiously optimistic.

Why would any other SL club be able to appeal a decision between Bulls vs RFL ?

I think a legal challenge would be your only option. Which is in violation of your membership requirements of the RFL. Very risky move I would think.

As members clubs of SL and the RFL if the RFL or SL are found to be in breach of their own rules i would guess that would give the member clubs to appeal that decision and similar historical ones.
IMO that is why this independant panel are the RFLs independant panel as they have too much credibility to lose.
I think the Bulls new owner knows this, but at least he is gaining some kudos with the fans for taking on the rfl.
Like i said I'm cautiously optimistic.

The administrator (David Wilson) requested the appeal. And his only remit is to maximise the return to creditors. The only reason I'm cautiously optimistic is that he is totally independent of the rfl but should have all the paper trail regarding events leading up to the administration.

Personally i don't think anyone has the full paper trail, again being totally honest i don't think there probably is one - it's not the RFLs M.O.
Has the new owner settled any of the creditors debt?

Nope - only his own, which I don't think counts

Moore/Calvert & Watt were going to settle all trade creditors, in full, over 5yrs though. But they walked when RFL gave them the 6 points. Which was strange, at the time.

Didnt the RFL ask MC & W to prove they had the funds to do this and they didn't?
So the new owner has come in settled his own debt, nobody else's and wants to start with no penalty?
That hardly seems fair.
Wasn't it the return of his £250k debenture that caused the admin in the end?
Sorry lots of questions, i should be on the independant panel LOL!!!