Interesting point. Has any rugby league club with a lawyer on the bridge ever picked a major legal fight, if so, how did it go?

You've got me there...

What 'sympathy' from what Cubs?



I have none.



Nor do I for BDMC who have supported Northern through thick and thin to the detriment of other BDMC sporting clubs!







Your incompetent Directors have thrown-away your true supporters' hard-earned and taxed cash whilst failing to pay their rightful dues!



How many of your supporters fail to pay their Income Tax and PAYE and yet pay their taxed income to support Directors who have been less-than informative about the TRUE situation at Odsal?



Roll-on the decision and the same result that was inflicted on Crusaders.



That said - the RFL will manage to squirm out of taking such a decision for whatever reason they deem to be rightful in their consideration.



That said, if they do, then the RFL should be denied any taxpayers funding in future for whatever purpose and I will make it my sole purpose in life to ensure that they are!

Any a merry Christmas to you too, you sad obsessed individual.

Perhaps Caisley's so called hardball is him spitting the dummy out again, he is just trying to deflect opinion of himself when the outcome of the revue is concluded and probably the flack he will get from Peter Hoods version in todays media! All very sad and it is not taking the Club forward! Might as well enjoy the verbal jousting it as its not going away!

If he were to prove that the deal is legally invalid, doesnt that just mean that we have to give back the £1.25m + VAT? Would any court actually set more favourable terms?

If this is true, how will it help.



None of the Bulls fans will go there will they?

He's probably just asking/trying to get the rent reduced, it'll probably have the same outcome of Mark Lawn's annual attempts to do the same thing at Valley Parade, though the RFL do have a big vested interest and will probably be a little more favourable if the rent is really crippling the club.

None - definition: "not any".



Hmmm, I'm pretty sure there were one or two other people sitting near me the last time we regularly played home fixtures down there.

One line from his diatribe suggests he might be a malcontent Lawkholme laner, seems to be the usual sort of rhetoric..

The RFL certainly has shown preference to clubs in the past - London and Crusader that we know about - and I think what they have done with the advances and ground purchase must be close to what they are allowed to do for a particular club.

But even if the Bulls have contrived to get themselves into bad position with the new lease is the best way to agree more manageable terms to go public in this way with the body which will be making the franchise allocations in the next few years?

Even in this 24 hour sound bite culture we live in there is still a lot to be said for quiet diplomacy.

Not surprised, or even find much wrong, about the RFL helping 'development area' clubs, but the Bulls aren't in that category, so it doesn't really make a precedent imo. That doesn't mean they should be awkward with clubs though. The trouble is that this kind of statement is just the sort of thing which elicits a response, and then we get into another slanging match; as if we haven't enough bad publicity with the shareholders doing their dirty washing in public.



Of course, I did ask the OP for a link to this story and as yet, zippo! Which maybe tells us all we need to know? If there is any truth in it then it should probably have been picked by the news organisations by now.