Re: bulls : Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:16 pm  

1873 wrote:

Honestly, most fans think the help you have got from Red Hall is the only reason you are still going, but you still want to have a pop at them, unbelievable Jeff!

From that remark I guess you think it is alright for them to misbehave as long as it is to you benefit. I personally expect them to behave honourably and honestly whether it is for my benefit or to my disadvantage. The fact that the Bulls are still going is a personal advantage for the Bulls. The turmoil this has caused RL is disgraceful. If you think I am not allowed to say that then that is your opinion. If the forums are to be believed then most Wakefield fans would agree that the RFL is badly run especially when you were threatened with immediate relegation if you went into administration. The time to voice your disagreement is when you have received a perceived advantage. Otherwise it's a bit like only complaining about the ref when you lose. People listen more if you criticise the ref when you've won.

Re: bulls : Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:31 pm  

rugbyreddog wrote:

From that remark I guess you think it is alright for them to misbehave as long as it is to you benefit. I personally expect them to behave honourably and honestly whether it is for my benefit or to my disadvantage. The fact that the Bulls are still going is a personal advantage for the Bulls. The turmoil this has caused RL is disgraceful. If you think I am not allowed to say that then that is your opinion. If the forums are to be believed then most Wakefield fans would agree that the RFL is badly run especially when you were threatened with immediate relegation if you went into administration. The time to voice your disagreement is when you have received a perceived advantage. Otherwise it's a bit like only complaining about the ref when you lose. People listen more if you criticise the ref when you've won.

Indeed, I must admit to a wry smile reading some of the comments on here. Mainly from the very same people who claimed the RFL were corrupt and would do all they could to see Wakefield kicked out of SL.

[PopTart]

Re: bulls : Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:36 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

Indeed, I must admit to a wry smile reading some of the comments on here. Mainly from the very same people who claimed the RFL were corrupt and would do all they could to see Wakefield kicked out of SL.

Well Bully, I reckon you guys have won that one. The RFL seem to be more pee's off with you than us now.

Re: bulls : Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:38 pm  

Wasn't there supposed to be a full written explanation of the judgement by the appeals panel 14 days after the decision was made?

Re: bulls : Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:43 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

Indeed, I must admit to a wry smile reading some of the comments on here. Mainly from the very same people who claimed the RFL were corrupt and would do all they could to see Wakefield kicked out of SL.

Oh yeah, the Bulls are the victims here and have no culpability in the circumstances they've found themselves in over the last 3 years, big bad RFL

Re: bulls : Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:15 pm  

rugbyreddog wrote:

From that remark I guess you think it is alright for them to misbehave as long as it is to you benefit. I personally expect them to behave honourably and honestly whether it is for my benefit or to my disadvantage. The fact that the Bulls are still going is a personal advantage for the Bulls. The turmoil this has caused RL is disgraceful. If you think I am not allowed to say that then that is your opinion. If the forums are to be believed then most Wakefield fans would agree that the RFL is badly run especially when you were threatened with immediate relegation if you went into administration. The time to voice your disagreement is when you have received a perceived advantage. Otherwise it's a bit like only complaining about the ref when you lose. People listen more if you criticise the ref when you've won.

As usual you misread the intentions and thoughts of others, yes I do think Red Hall is corrupt and incompetant but you have had all the advantages possible-as you say we were threatened with relegation but you are whinging about 6 points. A fair crack is all I ask.
Bradford refusing to accept the punishment is the only thing that has caused turmoil in RL, we accepted our position and worked hard to compete. Bradford on the other hand continually cry foul, play on the heartstrings, play the media game, try to whitewash previous mismanagement then blame them for debts - somehow absolving the incumbants of blame.
You are certainly allowed to say what you want, but I do not not want to read it on a Wakefield forum, I do not visit you board and whinge, you come on here and I will correct you when you are wrong/miguided/deluded
FWIW I criticise the ref win or lose

Re: bulls : Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

Indeed, I must admit to a wry smile reading some of the comments on here. Mainly from the very same people who claimed the RFL were corrupt and would do all they could to see Wakefield kicked out of SL.

Really don't get it do you.
Yes we were at risk, turned it around by cutting to the bare bones and trying to rebuild whilst others carried on regardless/recklessly (yes, Bradford) then have continually moaned about not following the advice given by the governing body. This continual blindness to previous mismanagement would make me squirm not raise a wry smile.

Re: bulls : Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:11 am  

it would be interesting to see if the RFL decided to put their rent up

Re: bulls : Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:44 am  

The truth, as I remember, is that the RFL never actually threatened us with relegation. What they did do is tell us that an act of insolvency would result in our relinquishing our SL licence and that we would be forced to re-apply for it. Given that this was conveniently at the end of the season, and with a background of knowledge that there was a desire to cut the numbers of clubs in SL, and with the club having a track history of financial problems, it was fairly clear that there was a high degree of chance that the fellow SL clubs - who are the shareholders who can determine the granting of a licence - would not vote for us and we would therefore need to re-apply to the RFL, a process that would almost certainly have us join in Championship 1.

This bears no relation to the threat of a points deduction awarded during the season, which seems like a light smack on the wrist compared to the sledgehammer we were faced with!

Bradford were insolvent, whether that was due to the structure of the club or the amount of debt, or the nature of the directors, or a combination of all 3, matters not. The rules state that if you endure a act of insolvency, you face a points deduction as a sanction.

I fail to see what is unfair about the application of the rules towards Bradford, they knew what the penalty was when they took action. Technical insolvency is still insolvency, whether that is to get rid of directors they don't like or to avoid accumulated debts, it matters not.

I'm fuming about this and just as angry that the likes of Hudgell and Koukash are using the opportunity to show support for anyone who threatens to de-stabilise Nigel Woods world. Now don't get me wrong, I don't support Wood, but this is pure opportunism on Bradford's part and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Koukash isn't helping them out with the finances - it would suit him just nicely!

Re: bulls : Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:13 am  

As a person who doesn't have vast knowledge on the financial side of Rugby League and to be honest not that interested however looking at our sport it makes us look a joke. I don't think i've seen anything like this in professional sport especially in recent years. I don't know what Marc Green is doing whether he is trying to get his money back or actually help the bulls but IMO he is going the wrong way about it and I know bulls fans/whoever will disagree but as i say just my opinion.