Bradford Telegraph and ArgusSports law expert: Bradford Bulls unlikely to win points appeal (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting TANEWS to 80360, or email

Sports law expert: Bradford Bulls unlikely to win points appeal

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Bulls chairman Marc Green says the club's decision to resort to legal action over their points appeal is a matter of principle Bulls chairman Marc Green says the club's decision to resort to legal action over their points appeal is a matter of principle

A SPORTS law expert says the Bulls are unlikely to succeed in their High Court attempt to overturn the club's points deduction.

The relegation-threatened Super League outfit have already lost an appeal against the decision of the Rugby Football League to dock them six points for going into administration earlier this year.

Bradford's directors opted to fight on after receiving the findings of the independent sporting appeal panel which upheld the penalty a fortnight ago and consulting with their legal team, as well as newly-appointed head coach Jimmy Lowes.

But Simon Boyes, who teaches at Nottingham Law School and is the author of the text book 'Sports Law', believes the High Court are unlikely to rule against a governing body.

"Bradford Bulls' decision to challenge in the High Court the six-point Super League deduction raises key issues over the accountability of sports bodies through the courts," said Boyes.

"While the Bulls and their fans might be hopeful that the penalty will be overturned, the reality is that courts are generally extremely reluctant to interfere in the decision-making of sports governing bodies.

"Generally, as long as a sport's regulator acts in accordance with its own rules and regulations, then a court is unlikely to interfere, usually taking the view that the specialist body is in a much stronger position to make an appropriate decision based on its expert knowledge of the sport.

"A court might, in extreme circumstances, rule that a penalty imposed is excessive or disproportionate.

"But in previous cases there has always been a wide discretion afforded to the sports governing body in making that decision.

"In extreme cases the court may regard the rules as an excessive or unreasonable restraint of trade – but examples of successful claims on this basis are few and far between in English law and the restrictions involved are usually more significant than a points deduction."

Boyes believes that, even if the court rules in favour of the Bulls, it is likely to order a new hearing rather than overturn the points deduction.

"One further possibility is that a decision may have been made through an unfair or faulty process and be struck down by a court," he said.

"However, even were this to be the case, this only requires that the matter be heard again, using a lawful process, rather than striking the decision down forever.

"Ultimately, while a court will carefully scrutinise a claim of this kind which is brought before it, those with an interest in it should be aware that airing grievances before a judge is no guarantee of success."

It is thought that Bulls chairman Marc Green's decision to resort to legal action could cost around £100,000 but he took to Twitter to defend his actions, arguing it is a matter of principle.

"To those concerned about wasting money in fight against points deduction, I thank you, however, in reality, principles cost, simple as that," he said.

"I was always taught to fight for what I believe to be right, provided it is and in the fullness of time, this will be proven to be the case.

"The most important thing right now is for us to get behind our new coach, a Bulls legend remembering United We Stand, Divided We Fall."

It is thought the case could be heard in weeks rather than months and, in the meantime, the Bulls will seek to make up the points deficit on the field – starting with Sunday's game at Warrington, the first under Lowes.

The Bulls are currently nine points from safety with ten games left and firm favourites, along with London Broncos, to drop into the Championship in 2015.

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:30pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

There are the words of an impartical sports law expert. Rather than misguided fans like Raisemeup or Bronco, or a set of lawyers who can smell court fees at 50 yards and see a quick buck to me made.

Overall, pointless.
There are the words of an impartical sports law expert. Rather than misguided fans like Raisemeup or Bronco, or a set of lawyers who can smell court fees at 50 yards and see a quick buck to me made. Overall, pointless. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 7

9:24pm Fri 27 Jun 14

robatoz says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
There are the words of an impartical sports law expert. Rather than misguided fans like Raisemeup or Bronco, or a set of lawyers who can smell court fees at 50 yards and see a quick buck to me made.

Overall, pointless.
I think you mean impartial,dick
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: There are the words of an impartical sports law expert. Rather than misguided fans like Raisemeup or Bronco, or a set of lawyers who can smell court fees at 50 yards and see a quick buck to me made. Overall, pointless.[/p][/quote]I think you mean impartial,dick robatoz
  • Score: 5

9:26pm Fri 27 Jun 14

robatoz says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
There are the words of an impartical sports law expert. Rather than misguided fans like Raisemeup or Bronco, or a set of lawyers who can smell court fees at 50 yards and see a quick buck to me made.

Overall, pointless.
I think you mean impartial, ****.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: There are the words of an impartical sports law expert. Rather than misguided fans like Raisemeup or Bronco, or a set of lawyers who can smell court fees at 50 yards and see a quick buck to me made. Overall, pointless.[/p][/quote]I think you mean impartial, ****. robatoz
  • Score: -5

11:01pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

That I do. One must apologise for such a typo.
That I do. One must apologise for such a typo. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 5

12:12am Sat 28 Jun 14

raisemeup says...

robatoz wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
There are the words of an impartical sports law expert. Rather than misguided fans like Raisemeup or Bronco, or a set of lawyers who can smell court fees at 50 yards and see a quick buck to me made.

Overall, pointless.
I think you mean impartial, ****.
It strikes me that you protest too much the innocence of the RFL, are you somehow in the pay of those venerable people at Red Hall?
You see one Sports Lawyer,(Richard Cramer I think) and I assume the legal team, including a Barrister, so we are informed, think differently, to this Law expert, is it perhaps because the aforementioned Law experts know the circumstances, and the Nottingham Law Expert doesn't?
Only time will tell who is right, certainly you nor me are able to judge, so please don't cast assumptions about anyone like Bronco or anyone else myself included, who because of our loyalty to our particular sport will attempt to see it in safe hands for the good of the game. I have no axe to grind with the RFL (the organisation) but the saying is true, that companies are judged by the people they keep, to paraphrase and reorganise the famous quotation> You have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be an untrustworthy source as you tend to see everything in the eyes of a prosecutor. I will not have anything else to do with your unbalanced comments,
[quote][p][bold]robatoz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: There are the words of an impartical sports law expert. Rather than misguided fans like Raisemeup or Bronco, or a set of lawyers who can smell court fees at 50 yards and see a quick buck to me made. Overall, pointless.[/p][/quote]I think you mean impartial, ****.[/p][/quote]It strikes me that you protest too much the innocence of the RFL, are you somehow in the pay of those venerable people at Red Hall? You see one Sports Lawyer,(Richard Cramer I think) and I assume the legal team, including a Barrister, so we are informed, think differently, to this Law expert, is it perhaps because the aforementioned Law experts know the circumstances, and the Nottingham Law Expert doesn't? Only time will tell who is right, certainly you nor me are able to judge, so please don't cast assumptions about anyone like Bronco or anyone else myself included, who because of our loyalty to our particular sport will attempt to see it in safe hands for the good of the game. I have no axe to grind with the RFL (the organisation) but the saying is true, that companies are judged by the people they keep, to paraphrase and reorganise the famous quotation> You have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be an untrustworthy source as you tend to see everything in the eyes of a prosecutor. I will not have anything else to do with your unbalanced comments, raisemeup
  • Score: 10

12:15am Sat 28 Jun 14

raisemeup says...

Apologies Robatoz my comments were directed at TVOR not you!
Apologies Robatoz my comments were directed at TVOR not you! raisemeup
  • Score: -4

6:05am Sat 28 Jun 14

CanaBull says...

Regardless of the rabid defence of the RFL, I think we can all agree there has been mismanagement at all levels. Green stated it was a matter of principle, which tells us that it's a procedural argument. Whatever the continued speculation may be, there is enough to warrant an argument in a court of law, so we will have to wait to see what is given in evidence.
Regardless of the rabid defence of the RFL, I think we can all agree there has been mismanagement at all levels. Green stated it was a matter of principle, which tells us that it's a procedural argument. Whatever the continued speculation may be, there is enough to warrant an argument in a court of law, so we will have to wait to see what is given in evidence. CanaBull
  • Score: 8

7:15am Sat 28 Jun 14

Walruss says...

Marc Green is quoted as saying this in support of his actions to fight on as a matter of principle,
"To those concerned about wasting money in fight against points deduction, I thank you, however, in reality, principles cost, simple as that,
I was always taught to fight for what I believe to be right, provided it is and in the fullness of time, this will be proven to be the case."

Fighting for what is essentially a moral belief is quite different to fighting for what is reality.

I just hope that those concerned have deep pockets, and that includes the fans.

When I was practising in the legal profession, if a client stated that it was a matter of principle then the first thing I would do would be to try and dissuade them from continuing. Failing that I would always ask for a ridiculous amount to be deposited on account of costs. It worked very well.
Mr Green would be well advised to think again unless of course he is prepared to underwrite the legal costs personally.
Marc Green is quoted as saying this in support of his actions to fight on as a matter of principle, "To those concerned about wasting money in fight against points deduction, I thank you, however, in reality, principles cost, simple as that, I was always taught to fight for what I believe to be right, provided it is and in the fullness of time, this will be proven to be the case." Fighting for what is essentially a moral belief is quite different to fighting for what is reality. I just hope that those concerned have deep pockets, and that includes the fans. When I was practising in the legal profession, if a client stated that it was a matter of principle then the first thing I would do would be to try and dissuade them from continuing. Failing that I would always ask for a ridiculous amount to be deposited on account of costs. It worked very well. Mr Green would be well advised to think again unless of course he is prepared to underwrite the legal costs personally. Walruss
  • Score: 7

7:52am Sat 28 Jun 14

monobrow man says...

If the court case was just about the points I would agree but I think this is about money and how the rfl has taken or kept it from bradford bulls over the last 2 years. Personally I think the rfl are going to be in a lot of trouble stemming from this court case.
If the court case was just about the points I would agree but I think this is about money and how the rfl has taken or kept it from bradford bulls over the last 2 years. Personally I think the rfl are going to be in a lot of trouble stemming from this court case. monobrow man
  • Score: 5

8:01am Sat 28 Jun 14

expatbull says...

"Generally, as long as a sport's regulator acts in accordance with its own rules and regulations,then a court is unlikely to interfere,
So for all you internet lawyers out there what if court does find RFL broke their own rules?
What if RFL did tell Bulls to go into administration as some reports say?
Was the last appeal impartial some reports say the lawyers used were the same firm that the RFL use?
Personally I am resigned to the fact the we will be in Championship next year and as always will be getting a season ticket.
"Generally, as long as a sport's regulator acts in accordance with its own rules and regulations,then a court is unlikely to interfere, So for all you internet lawyers out there what if court does find RFL broke their own rules? What if RFL did tell Bulls to go into administration as some reports say? Was the last appeal impartial some reports say the lawyers used were the same firm that the RFL use? Personally I am resigned to the fact the we will be in Championship next year and as always will be getting a season ticket. expatbull
  • Score: 15

8:07am Sat 28 Jun 14

expatbull says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
There are the words of an impartical sports law expert. Rather than misguided fans like Raisemeup or Bronco, or a set of lawyers who can smell court fees at 50 yards and see a quick buck to me made.

Overall, pointless.
an impartial lawyer, who probably does not know on what grounds appeal to be fought or even seen any case files perhaps he would be better described as a bloke T@A found to base a story around.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: There are the words of an impartical sports law expert. Rather than misguided fans like Raisemeup or Bronco, or a set of lawyers who can smell court fees at 50 yards and see a quick buck to me made. Overall, pointless.[/p][/quote]an impartial lawyer, who probably does not know on what grounds appeal to be fought or even seen any case files perhaps he would be better described as a bloke T@A found to base a story around. expatbull
  • Score: 3

9:53am Sat 28 Jun 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Smoke and Mirrors. The more he does this, the more he draws attention from not strengthening the team or preparing for next season.
Smoke and Mirrors. The more he does this, the more he draws attention from not strengthening the team or preparing for next season. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 2

9:57am Sat 28 Jun 14

Out of site says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Smoke and Mirrors. The more he does this, the more he draws attention from not strengthening the team or preparing for next season.
You really are a clown.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Smoke and Mirrors. The more he does this, the more he draws attention from not strengthening the team or preparing for next season.[/p][/quote]You really are a clown. Out of site
  • Score: -1

9:58am Sat 28 Jun 14

fedupwiththeBS says...

Even if we get the points back or some of the points how is going to war with the RFL going to benefit our Club in the long run? They own the lease for our ground, issue our Operating Licence and allocate sky funds. the clue is in the name; they are the Governing Body.

I am sure Jimmy would rather have the £100K to spend on strengthening the squad so we can at least build for next season and finish this one with some pride.
Even if we get the points back or some of the points how is going to war with the RFL going to benefit our Club in the long run? They own the lease for our ground, issue our Operating Licence and allocate sky funds. the clue is in the name; they are the Governing Body. I am sure Jimmy would rather have the £100K to spend on strengthening the squad so we can at least build for next season and finish this one with some pride. fedupwiththeBS
  • Score: 8

9:59am Sat 28 Jun 14

Out of site says...

robatoz wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
There are the words of an impartical sports law expert. Rather than misguided fans like Raisemeup or Bronco, or a set of lawyers who can smell court fees at 50 yards and see a quick buck to me made.

Overall, pointless.
I think you mean impartial,dick
He could do with being parted from his d--k,god forbid he hasn't any kids.
[quote][p][bold]robatoz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: There are the words of an impartical sports law expert. Rather than misguided fans like Raisemeup or Bronco, or a set of lawyers who can smell court fees at 50 yards and see a quick buck to me made. Overall, pointless.[/p][/quote]I think you mean impartial,dick[/p][/quote]He could do with being parted from his d--k,god forbid he hasn't any kids. Out of site
  • Score: -4

11:20am Sat 28 Jun 14

salford red says...

Walruss wrote:
Marc Green is quoted as saying this in support of his actions to fight on as a matter of principle,
"To those concerned about wasting money in fight against points deduction, I thank you, however, in reality, principles cost, simple as that,
I was always taught to fight for what I believe to be right, provided it is and in the fullness of time, this will be proven to be the case."

Fighting for what is essentially a moral belief is quite different to fighting for what is reality.

I just hope that those concerned have deep pockets, and that includes the fans.

When I was practising in the legal profession, if a client stated that it was a matter of principle then the first thing I would do would be to try and dissuade them from continuing. Failing that I would always ask for a ridiculous amount to be deposited on account of costs. It worked very well.
Mr Green would be well advised to think again unless of course he is prepared to underwrite the legal costs personally.
hat sound very sensible..principles don't buy new players...
[quote][p][bold]Walruss[/bold] wrote: Marc Green is quoted as saying this in support of his actions to fight on as a matter of principle, "To those concerned about wasting money in fight against points deduction, I thank you, however, in reality, principles cost, simple as that, I was always taught to fight for what I believe to be right, provided it is and in the fullness of time, this will be proven to be the case." Fighting for what is essentially a moral belief is quite different to fighting for what is reality. I just hope that those concerned have deep pockets, and that includes the fans. When I was practising in the legal profession, if a client stated that it was a matter of principle then the first thing I would do would be to try and dissuade them from continuing. Failing that I would always ask for a ridiculous amount to be deposited on account of costs. It worked very well. Mr Green would be well advised to think again unless of course he is prepared to underwrite the legal costs personally.[/p][/quote]hat sound very sensible..principles don't buy new players... salford red
  • Score: 9

11:25am Sat 28 Jun 14

salford red says...

as a Salford red devils fan and a bulls fan...will mrs koukash have control of the bulls next season. when mr green has spent on principes
as a Salford red devils fan and a bulls fan...will mrs koukash have control of the bulls next season. when mr green has spent on principes salford red
  • Score: 2

1:24pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Alhaurinrhino says...

raisemeup wrote:
robatoz wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
There are the words of an impartical sports law expert. Rather than misguided fans like Raisemeup or Bronco, or a set of lawyers who can smell court fees at 50 yards and see a quick buck to me made.

Overall, pointless.
I think you mean impartial, ****.
It strikes me that you protest too much the innocence of the RFL, are you somehow in the pay of those venerable people at Red Hall?
You see one Sports Lawyer,(Richard Cramer I think) and I assume the legal team, including a Barrister, so we are informed, think differently, to this Law expert, is it perhaps because the aforementioned Law experts know the circumstances, and the Nottingham Law Expert doesn't?
Only time will tell who is right, certainly you nor me are able to judge, so please don't cast assumptions about anyone like Bronco or anyone else myself included, who because of our loyalty to our particular sport will attempt to see it in safe hands for the good of the game. I have no axe to grind with the RFL (the organisation) but the saying is true, that companies are judged by the people they keep, to paraphrase and reorganise the famous quotation> You have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be an untrustworthy source as you tend to see everything in the eyes of a prosecutor. I will not have anything else to do with your unbalanced comments,
Surely it's only a matter of time Brian before you disappear up your own ar*e, you're so up yourself. No wonder your wife spends all her time at bingo.
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robatoz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: There are the words of an impartical sports law expert. Rather than misguided fans like Raisemeup or Bronco, or a set of lawyers who can smell court fees at 50 yards and see a quick buck to me made. Overall, pointless.[/p][/quote]I think you mean impartial, ****.[/p][/quote]It strikes me that you protest too much the innocence of the RFL, are you somehow in the pay of those venerable people at Red Hall? You see one Sports Lawyer,(Richard Cramer I think) and I assume the legal team, including a Barrister, so we are informed, think differently, to this Law expert, is it perhaps because the aforementioned Law experts know the circumstances, and the Nottingham Law Expert doesn't? Only time will tell who is right, certainly you nor me are able to judge, so please don't cast assumptions about anyone like Bronco or anyone else myself included, who because of our loyalty to our particular sport will attempt to see it in safe hands for the good of the game. I have no axe to grind with the RFL (the organisation) but the saying is true, that companies are judged by the people they keep, to paraphrase and reorganise the famous quotation> You have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be an untrustworthy source as you tend to see everything in the eyes of a prosecutor. I will not have anything else to do with your unbalanced comments,[/p][/quote]Surely it's only a matter of time Brian before you disappear up your own ar*e, you're so up yourself. No wonder your wife spends all her time at bingo. Alhaurinrhino
  • Score: 2

6:58pm Sat 28 Jun 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Out of site wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Smoke and Mirrors. The more he does this, the more he draws attention from not strengthening the team or preparing for next season.
You really are a clown.
Easy tor pull the wool over idiots eyes.
bet you were a Khan fan.
[quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Smoke and Mirrors. The more he does this, the more he draws attention from not strengthening the team or preparing for next season.[/p][/quote]You really are a clown.[/p][/quote]Easy tor pull the wool over idiots eyes. bet you were a Khan fan. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 2

11:31am Sun 29 Jun 14

Out of site says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Out of site wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Smoke and Mirrors. The more he does this, the more he draws attention from not strengthening the team or preparing for next season.
You really are a clown.
Easy tor pull the wool over idiots eyes.
bet you were a Khan fan.
Not a bad fighter until he got hurt.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Smoke and Mirrors. The more he does this, the more he draws attention from not strengthening the team or preparing for next season.[/p][/quote]You really are a clown.[/p][/quote]Easy tor pull the wool over idiots eyes. bet you were a Khan fan.[/p][/quote]Not a bad fighter until he got hurt. Out of site
  • Score: 1

9:49pm Sun 29 Jun 14

bradfordbronco says...

The fact that this guy doesn't have any of the facts available to him makes his opinion worthless. Give him the facts then ask him
The fact that this guy doesn't have any of the facts available to him makes his opinion worthless. Give him the facts then ask him bradfordbronco
  • Score: -1

8:51am Mon 30 Jun 14

Papa Smurfs Wig says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
There are the words of an impartical sports law expert. Rather than misguided fans like Raisemeup or Bronco, or a set of lawyers who can smell court fees at 50 yards and see a quick buck to me made.

Overall, pointless.
I don't think they even noticed your last word, arf arf.
I think Fed Up is right, the RFL get wound up then the more problems the Bulls will get. A £100k on a lawsuit and the club need nine points at lease. This is if the clubs just above don't win anymore games.
You can bet your bottom dollar that if it costs so much then he'll say most of the budget went on the court case. And have yhe club budgeted for possibly crowds a lot lower next season? Even if the Bulls lot all still go, l can see less away fans coming unless new potential new derby games against Fax and Ktown brong a load in.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: There are the words of an impartical sports law expert. Rather than misguided fans like Raisemeup or Bronco, or a set of lawyers who can smell court fees at 50 yards and see a quick buck to me made. Overall, pointless.[/p][/quote]I don't think they even noticed your last word, arf arf. I think Fed Up is right, the RFL get wound up then the more problems the Bulls will get. A £100k on a lawsuit and the club need nine points at lease. This is if the clubs just above don't win anymore games. You can bet your bottom dollar that if it costs so much then he'll say most of the budget went on the court case. And have yhe club budgeted for possibly crowds a lot lower next season? Even if the Bulls lot all still go, l can see less away fans coming unless new potential new derby games against Fax and Ktown brong a load in. Papa Smurfs Wig
  • Score: 1

5:37pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Bantamzen says...

Out of site wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Smoke and Mirrors. The more he does this, the more he draws attention from not strengthening the team or preparing for next season.
You really are a clown.
I think TVOR does have a valid point here. Thus far it seems that little effort (at least on the face if it) has been made by the new owner to start to rebuild the Bulls for next year. Instead he's off to the High Court on a "matter of principle", which is likely going to cost a six figure sum. It certainly seems like a handy distraction from the lack of movement elsewhere at Odsal, save the recent sackings.

And even if he were successful, the general consensus seems to be that the best the Bulls could hope for is for the High Court to rule that the Appeal be heard / reheard. It's very unlikely that they will order the RFL to hand back the six point deduction, so the turmoil will continue for weeks & months to come. Of course in the meantime, these going-ons will act as a motivation for the couple of teams that the Bulls can hope to catch if the deduction was wiped out, so it may still end in relegation. And who do you suppose will foot the bill at the end of the day? I'll wager any costs to Green will eventually be passed directly or indirectly to the Bulls. And that bill is rising all the time.

Finally, if by some miracle of events the Bulls somehow managed to stay up, at what cost would it be? Any future financial calamities at Odsal would not be looked upon kindly by the RFL, and goodwill would be at a minimum so help may not ever be forthcoming. So maybe in the current situation, discretion is the better part of valour and Green should take a step back & look at the bigger picture. Yes, it may leave a bad taste in the mouth & many questions unanswered. But the alternative may be far, far worse and could even mean some hidden, ugly truths be unearthed from the bowels of previous administrations at Odsal which could damage the club permanently.

Sorry to reuse this cliche, but it really is time to move on for the Bulls and rebuild.
[quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Smoke and Mirrors. The more he does this, the more he draws attention from not strengthening the team or preparing for next season.[/p][/quote]You really are a clown.[/p][/quote]I think TVOR does have a valid point here. Thus far it seems that little effort (at least on the face if it) has been made by the new owner to start to rebuild the Bulls for next year. Instead he's off to the High Court on a "matter of principle", which is likely going to cost a six figure sum. It certainly seems like a handy distraction from the lack of movement elsewhere at Odsal, save the recent sackings. And even if he were successful, the general consensus seems to be that the best the Bulls could hope for is for the High Court to rule that the Appeal be heard / reheard. It's very unlikely that they will order the RFL to hand back the six point deduction, so the turmoil will continue for weeks & months to come. Of course in the meantime, these going-ons will act as a motivation for the couple of teams that the Bulls can hope to catch if the deduction was wiped out, so it may still end in relegation. And who do you suppose will foot the bill at the end of the day? I'll wager any costs to Green will eventually be passed directly or indirectly to the Bulls. And that bill is rising all the time. Finally, if by some miracle of events the Bulls somehow managed to stay up, at what cost would it be? Any future financial calamities at Odsal would not be looked upon kindly by the RFL, and goodwill would be at a minimum so help may not ever be forthcoming. So maybe in the current situation, discretion is the better part of valour and Green should take a step back & look at the bigger picture. Yes, it may leave a bad taste in the mouth & many questions unanswered. But the alternative may be far, far worse and could even mean some hidden, ugly truths be unearthed from the bowels of previous administrations at Odsal which could damage the club permanently. Sorry to reuse this cliche, but it really is time to move on for the Bulls and rebuild. Bantamzen
  • Score: 2
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree