Walshovski wrote:
I wasn't being patronising at all and do hope Bradford survive.
It was, but if you didn't mean it to be, fair enough.
Walshovski wrote:
I have no idea of the bid submitted or what criteria the RFL will use to assess whether the move should be blocked. I'm simply saying what is blatantly obvious from what we've seen so far.
Did you see the interview with the pair of them on Sky Sports News?
Yes, and I have also read the drivel which has come out all over these forums too, from people who similarly have no idea yet at the same time "know", "cos it's obvious innit". Maybe you should run off a copy and send it to the RFL, because it seems certain that they must somehow have completely missed this evidence.
What I have so far not seen explained is WHAT is so blatantly obvious. That Mrs. K. can't afford a rugby club? If so then she would just be the latest in a lengthening list; it didn't stop them. That she can't run a rugby club? What, as opposed to Whitcnut? Do me a favour. That she "has none of her own money"? I must admit I am intrigued why she has clearly released full details of her finances and assets to so many on these forums, but I suspect that in the unlikely event that she divorced the good doctor in the morning, their lawyers may well take a different view.
You at least concede that you have no idea of the bid submitted or what criteria the RFL will use to assess whether the move should be blocked. Perhaps it will be blocked. Or perhaps it will not be the accepted bid. If it was, though, would you not concede that would have been by people who DO have full knowledge of the bid submitted (as opposed to your and my zero) and of the relevant criteria to assess whether the move should be blocked?