There was a moment when we might have had a chance to rescue the club, when the community raised more than enough money to buy it, but unfortunately that money was handed to the owners, rather than being held back and donated to Bullbuilder or a similar body who could then make a democratic decision on what to do based upon proper due diligence. Lots of people, including those directly involved with Bullbuilder, provided plenty of reasons why that was not advisable, many of which I could sympathise with and understand, and that moment passed.



There are other, larger and far more significant sporting clubs run in this way (as a co-operative or some variation), and my feeling remains that is the only way to bring the Bulls back and to rebuild something the whole City can take pride in, however it's a massive task and many people are thoroughly disillusioned and alienated from the club now.



The route we have gone down is unsurprising and sad, and includes, in my opinion the low of taking money from a payday loan company, one of the reasons I'd never buy a shirt (until they're gone) and a reason I know that some people failed to renew their season tickets. I am sure, like Salford and many other super league clubs, many people think a rich individual is the way to go, and maybe that's the only ways things can be rectified, but we've been here before time and again now, and it doesn't appear that there is anyone like that around for the Bulls.



If there is anyone interested in renewing the struggle for a fan run, democratically organised club then I'll be happy to put energy in to such a project, but until then, I imagine I'll be watching depressed from the sidelines as one bunch of clueless people after another ruin what was, and could be, a great club with a long and fine tradition.

the one thing I've learned from friends is that the 'Asian community', split as it is, by religions and 'homeland' factions, is far from being some kind of homogenised lump and is as diverse as the 'non Asian community' when it comes to taking sides in disputes.



Reasonably successful people tend to divide all opinion anyway, I'd suspect Omar falls into that category.

What's odd about the t&a saga is that, as pointed out at the time, the articles that I think the bulls board are referring to as damaging weren't actually credited to Ross himself. Instead of his name being at the top of the article, there was simply nothing there. So who wrote them?

Are there any examples of this pro-OK stance as I can't recall reading anything in the T and A and thinking this is pro or anti OK or Moore/Calvert/Watt.



The article which I thought was bizarre and I have no idea why Ross or the editor went with was the one which claimed Lord Peter of Hood was effectively cleared of wrongdoing and the club would be in a better shape if he'd stayed in control. The sentence which stated the club had 200k in the bank at the time he left without mentioning Lord Peter had sold the ground and begged a half a million in the months prior, is up there with Freddie Starr ate my hamster.

The only thing bizarre is that your still missing the point(s) as a starter clue the Bulls didn't own the ground they sold their leasing of it to the RFL! (Which is why the RFL are still taking such a keen interest in having the Bulls as a going concern.)

The rest of your assumptions are as usual up in the air!

Apologies, I assumed everyone on here knew the bit about the lease/ground.



On my other up in the air assumptions, did I merely assume that someone once said that things were going so well the Good Friday 2012 game against Leeds could be the club's last? Or did that really happen?