Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:28 am  

Wakey Til I Die wrote:

No we believe in treating all teams equally, Bradford appear to want preferential treatment. How typically Bradford.

So you will be handing back half your Sky money for this season and last then?

Or maybe not that equally eh?

We are all equal, just some more equal than others.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:43 am  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Wakefield fans were asked to raise £500,000 at the end of the Ted Richardson era, and rather than blindly raising it asked questions instead. The main question was "will this be it?' People were asked to put in a £1,000 each, hoping there would be 500 fans willing. I was one of the willing ones, and I know some of the others, but we asked whether we were merely postponing the inevitable.

You raised it, and for that well done. It turned out you were merely postponing the inevitable.

It's not about fear for own club. It's about the perception that clubs are not treated equally.

Treated equally so Wakefield supporters trust et al will be asking their own club to return their share of the Sky money given up by the Bulls. They will of course do this to support equality? I think not.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:48 am  

Someone at the RFL told me that they do now recognise that the same rules should apply to everyone.

So, they have decided to relegate the Bulls at the end of 2014 regardless (it being too late to do it now without screwing up the whole season).

And, to maintain equality of treatment and punishment - which Wakey so adamantly demanded - to withhold 50% of Wakefield's 2014 Sky money, to divvy up round the rest of the clubs. AND to send them a bill for the 50% that should have been deducted last season. Meaning they get no Sky money at all for 2014.

The RFL are apparently going to congratulate Wakey for the very high moral position they took on this issue, setting an example to us all of selflessness and sacrifice in the interests of fairness. Despite people urging them to be careful what they wished for. They HAVE asked the club how they propose to fill the financial hole this will now create, but assume the club must have thought of that before opening Pandora's Box so do not envisage any problems.

Oh, and - in an unrelated announcement - the RFL confirmed that if any other clubs go into administration this year due to income shortfall or whatever (and having Sky money stopped will not count in mitigation, as Wakey pointed out to the RFL re the Bulls, so setting the precedent) then they go down at the end of the season too.

I think we have misjudged our Wakefield friends, guys? They were prepared to bring upon themselves the same consequences as they wished upon the Bulls, to ensure that everyone was treated equally.

Meanwhile, the chairmen of London and Cas and Widnes are to throw a big party, to celebrate Wakefield's noble gesture that has saved their own clubs from the spectre of relegation. They are calling it the "be careful what you wish for bash". All wakefield fans are invited.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:58 am  

Now the precedent has been set, can Bullbuilder now write to the RFL asking for confirmation on whether Wakefield were ever threatened with relegation or whether they completely made it up for reasons best known to themselves?

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:59 am  

Your argument about the Sky money would have course have some merit if Wakfield had gone into administration, which they haven't, and so I'm curious as to why Wakefield would suffer a sanction for sound financial management.

If, of course, they had gone bang, and it was the price for staying in the top flight, I'm sure they would have accepted it with good grace and ensured they didn't go bang again, bearing in mind the consequences.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:11 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Firstly, this is a discussion forum. Hence, things get discussed pertinent to the forum concerned, in this case the Bulls.

Wait ...

Let me get this straight; your remark is meant to imply that the s.h.i.t.e I referred to was "discussion". And pertinent to the forum".

Please stop now ... my sides are splitting.

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Secondly, if you have seen the letter from the Supporters Trust sent to the RFL and the media outlets, you will see that this has been done. I posted a link earlier in this thread.

If you have seen the responses to your post, you will note everyone can see how disingenuous that letter is.

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Clarification may kill the issue.

You mean "may" as in "Not a feckin snowball's chance in hell"? That sort of "may"? Amongst certain Wakey fans, even a carefully targeted thermonuclear device would struggle to do that, I'm afraid.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:13 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Your argument about the Sky money would have course have some merit if Wakfield had gone into administration, which they haven't, and so I'm curious as to why Wakefield would suffer a sanction for sound financial management.

LAST time's administration.

You went, paid off a few of your creditors (how much did HMRC etc get...?) and got 4 pts. And 100% Sky money.

Bulls went, paid off no creditors, and got 6 pts. And 50% Sky money.

Bulls go for a second time - RFL agrees with Wakey, automatic relegation.

Wakey, now having lost their Sky money, go for a second time.

RFL agrees with Wakey - automatic relegation.

Jubilation on the terraces of london, Cas and Widnes (as a minimum) that two of their perceived relegation rivals have so spectacularly been blown up in a cycle of Mutually Assured Destruction ("MAD").

Good arrows, guys. And, this time, maybe not even Hope will be what remains in Pandora's box.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:16 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Amongst certain Wakey fans, even a carefully targeted thermonuclear device would struggle to do that, I'm afraid.

Any idea if we can get hold of one of those on eBay?

we could at least give it a shot...

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:21 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

If you have seen the responses to your post, you will note everyone can see how disingenuous that letter is.

You mean "may" as in "Not a feckin snowball's chance in hell"? That sort of "may"? Amongst certain Wakey fans, even a carefully targeted thermonuclear device would struggle to do that, I'm afraid.

If the RFL feels it is disingenuous, they will say so, and point out why it is so.

I agree that not everyone will feel it is a dead issue, and that is their right, but if there is no explanation or response, you can hardly complain if peoples' opinions become entrenched.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:26 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

but if there is no explanation or response, you can hardly complain if peoples' opinions become entrenched.

On the threat of relegation point, the best case scenario for me is for the RFL to tactfully say "Erm...well no we didn't ever say Wakey would be relegated but we understand why that misapprehension may have arisen". That saves Wakey chairman's face and shuts off a primary route to biggotry for some of the hillbillies.