Report on Total RL website confirming That the tribunal against the old company, Cha-Lo company and RFL will go ahead in Jan, after RFL failed to get majority of cases thrown out. www.totalrl.com/rfl-appeal-dismi ... -tribunal/ Wonder what the current regime think about current players being involved and what harm (if any) it does to us offering Chisholm a contract next season, fitness permitting. Still think Cha-Lo have nothing to be concerned about, they were told the old club was dead, so bid for a new franchise against a set of criteria from the RFL which did not include settling legacy payments and contracts. Perhaps if the case is lost but Cha-Lo are found to have no liability for above reasons we'll get another penalty plus hold back of funding from the RFL to pay for it, as we are the FFL's pets!!

Report on Total RL website confirming That the tribunal against the old company, Cha-Lo company and RFL will go ahead in Jan, after RFL failed to get majority of cases thrown out. www.totalrl.com/rfl-appeal-dismi ... -tribunal/ Wonder what the current regime think about current players being involved and what harm (if any) it does to us offering Chisholm a contract next season, fitness permitting. Still think Cha-Lo have nothing to be concerned about, they were told the old club was dead, so bid for a new franchise against a set of criteria from the RFL which did not include settling legacy payments and contracts. Perhaps if the case is lost but Cha-Lo are found to have no liability for above reasons we'll get another penalty plus hold back of funding from the RFL to pay for it, as we are the FFL's pets!!

I have to be honest, I don't understand what's going on really.



I don't see how the new club can be blamed for any of what's going on in the past.

Agreed. But I suppose in some way they, and us, have been already with our delicious 12 point deduction.

Interesting that the RFL kept money back for this out of the new clubs funding. Seems they have decided that although it is a new club they have links and need to have liability despite trying and failing to prove otherwise. So the RFL punish a new club with the old business's failings two fold by withholding monies due in central funding and a points deduction.

So how do the new business prove they are not liable as they are a separate entity but with the same name? the governing body have treated them as the same and thus are they in the wrong? I note it is them that are trying to get it thrown out? how as a governing body do you justify player welfare and interests as paramount when your taking them to court to try and suggest they shouldn't get any of the money you withheld for such purposes?

Fantastic point. The RFL by witholding money are directly and giving a new franchise a 12 point deductions for the failings of the old club points liability straight to the new club. I bet if we had started on zero points with no central funding witheld for this outcome it would be a lot harder to prove any liability other than the new club buying the imaging etc of the Bradford Bulls from the RFL. Sounds to me again the fault of the RFL that the newco are getting dragged into it by treating newco as old

I suspect its all that plus the shenanigans that went on just before liquidation became a fact. iirc one of the bidders went and spoke to all of the players about the marvellous future for them a day or two before the RFL rejected all bids, then put out their own terms for a new club - academy, Bradford area, points deduction, payment deduction, etc. It did not include the requirement that the new club called itself the Bradford Bulls. Shortly thereafter up pops chalo, and the Bradford Bulls. I am a cynic rather than a conspiracist, but even I am veering towards something untoward going on, and if it is the RFL that are behind it then they should pay, not our ex players or new players the club and most important us long suffering fans.

Now I don't claim to be any legal expert so hopefully some on here could help.



Will we ever be able to find out what happened with all the hijinks instigated by the RFL last minute before the sale? Ideally a freedom of information request though I suspect the non disclosure agreements will protect them for now.



I imagine knowing this would clear a lot of the doubts about the new owners as well as laying bare what the RFL have done with the money supposed to have been distributed from our central funding.

Presumably if any case went to court then the RFL would have to explain how the two entities are different if one can be punished for the crimes of the other.

Oh look, it must be summer holidays at the special ed school

oh look, another armchair fan

Actually I prefer a sofa. More room to stretch out.

Yet, if I am drunk, I still have a better grasp of English than you do.



But lets face facts, I'm not a sad 13 year old down the park like you would be with your mates if only your parents didn't make you be in before the street lights come on. And it's after 9:30, so you'd best just put on your Ronnie Rhino PJs and get to bed or you'll be grumpy in the morning