Re: The mad doctor : Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:02 pm  

dboy wrote:

Which club is Kath Hetherington CEO at?

Wakefield.
But she owned Hull FC for years and that didn't seem to bother people with regard a conflict of interest. Otherwise Leeds would have won the 2005 Cup Final.

Re: The mad doctor : Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:06 pm  

Bull Mania wrote:

This simply won't happen. It's jut fantasy land. You could use the same example with Leeds & Wakefield. GH could of course throw their game against Wakefield so his missus is still chief exec at an SL club. Of course it doesn't happen. Fans, players, coaches aren't thick. You really think Franny Cummins would allow the above to happen?? You think fans of Salford would pay to be the others B team?

The hetheringtons don't own their respective clubs.

Re: The mad doctor : Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:10 pm  

Bull Mania wrote:

This simply won't happen. It's jut fantasy land. You could use the same example with Leeds & Wakefield. GH could of course throw their game against Wakefield so his missus is still chief exec at an SL club. Of course it doesn't happen. Fans, players, coaches aren't thick. You really think Franny Cummins would allow the above to happen?? You think fans of Salford would pay to be the others B team?

The hetheringtons don't own the respective clubs, they still have people to answer to with regards their performance, carter and caddick namely, that the koukash's wouldn't ...

Whilst I doubt it could ever be as blatant as suggested above, should Bradford be taken on by mrs koukash, and then return to the powerhouse that they once were, if they then stood between Salford and success, what's to stop the doctor from whittling down his wife's spending money until they can't compete and Salford over take them? Or is the point Bradford are only ever going to chase to be second fiddle? In which case what's the point?

Chairmen are always going to have people they prefer dealing with, and thus certain teams are going to deal players to each other more than others (Leeds to the kath clubs being the obvious example) and that's fine, but when it is controlling the finances, expectations and abilities of one club controlled by another, there is an obvious conflict of interest flag that shouldn't be ignored.

It's interesting the different reactions from the Bradford, Salford and neutral fans ...

I don't care if they do or they don't, as long as they a) bring back reserves b) offer exemptions for retaining top home grown talent and c) agree a future date (preferably ~3 years) to bring in a simple, 1 per club marquee signing exemption rule.

Re: The mad doctor : Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:19 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Whilst I doubt it could ever be as blatant as suggested above

Over exagerated examples to emphasise the point.

If this koukash bid is allowed, the integrity of the competition dies with it.

Re: The mad doctor : Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:22 pm  

FlexWheeler wrote:

Over exagerated examples to emphasise the point.

If this koukash bid is allowed, the integrity of the competition dies with it.

Proof by ad absurdum I'm well aware, however the point was missed by the person I quoted, so I just pointed it out

If it is allowed using the doctors money, then the integrity is in question. If however mrs koukash has her own abilities, and finance, to run the club (and can prove that) then everything is fine, and accepting the bid should cause no problem. However, given the evidence i have seen (which I will fully admit is no where near enough to draw a conclusion on the matter) it's looking like the former rather than the latter...

Re: The mad doctor : Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:35 pm  

I am confident that the RFL will be very grateful for the incisive, in-depth financial analysis and technical advice. And to think - there can be very few people with an in-depth knowledge of the bid, and intimate details of the Koukash family's finances - but whaddya know - they are all on here, and available for no fee!

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:17 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I am confident that the RFL will be very grateful for the incisive, in-depth financial analysis and technical advice. And to think - there can be very few people with an in-depth knowledge of the bid, and intimate details of the Koukash family's finances - but whaddya know - they are all on here, and available for no fee!

I understand you want to save your club and if it was Salford I would feel exactly the same but come on the whole thing is a nonsense. Anyone who saw the Sky Sports News interview with the pair of them and thinks she's behind this and she's funding it herself are potty. The earlier poster who said the integrity of the competition would die with this deal is spot on.

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:49 am  

Walshovski wrote:

I understand you want to save your club and if it was Salford I would feel exactly the same but come on the whole thing is a nonsense. Anyone who saw the Sky Sports News interview with the pair of them and thinks she's behind this and she's funding it herself are potty. The earlier poster who said the integrity of the competition would die with this deal is spot on.

Thank you for your input.

However I have no idea of the details of their bid, nor of their info as supplied to RFL. The RFL seem very picky if recent experience is anything to go by, and as for the administrator, I wouldn't worry your head as he will simply pick the best offer for creditors.

Whoever has the bid accepted has therefore jumped the hoops required and I did not read anywhere that the RFL felt that accepting any bid would kill the integrity of their competition so I presume that is not their view of whatever they have been presented with.

As for your patronising comment that you "understand we want to save our club" you are aiming your stream in the wrong direction - it wouldn't make a gnat's fart difference what we Bulls fans want, we have got used to the idea that something will be imposed and we have no say. So it isn't "a nonsense". It just is whatever it is.

I note with interest that you are confident Mrs Koukash is lying, that presumably thus false information re funding will of necessity be provided to deceive the gullible RFL, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is "potty". It is a brave position to adopt. As you are a Salford fan maybe you could run the point past Dr. Koukash just to be 100% sure you are right and that he is in fact trying to own a second club by improper means.

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:43 am  

A lot of sad, bitter and jealous people on here.

It's not a conflict of interest for two different people to own two different clubs. It would be if they were the same person like Ian Lenagan or News Corp in Australia but they aren't.

If the bid is the best for the creditors it will be the administrator's favoured bid and if they can prove investment and a plan to take the club forward into the future then RFL should welcome it.

If you want to aim unfounded accusations and make predictions about the future based on ignorant small mindedness then so be it.

With the ability to read information that is not in the public domain, predict the future and with such knowledge on running sports clubs already handed out it's a shame some of the people on here don't run clubs. Rather than spending all day in here.

Laters losers!

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:49 am  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Proof by ad absurdum I'm well aware, however the point was missed by the person I quoted, so I just pointed it out

If it is allowed using the doctors money, then the integrity is in question. If however mrs koukash has her own abilities, and finance, to run the club (and can prove that) then everything is fine, and accepting the bid should cause no problem. However, given the evidence i have seen (which I will fully admit is no where near enough to draw a conclusion on the matter) it's looking like the former rather than the latter...

You haven't seen any evidence you're just a gob poop