Re: The mad doctor : Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:38 am  

Except THE RFL vetoed two of them. Which two I wonder.

Re: The mad doctor : Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:30 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Except it isn’t, because one ‘bid by’ date passed, and then another was chosen and new bids were made there were even brand new bidders. Its almost like the administrator themselves was in complete control of that process, and if they wanted to accept new bids they could, and if they didn’t they didn’t have to. Its like this arbitrary rule you have invented in your tiny little head never existed and that rules made in the tiny little heads of bitter and angry RL fans don’t bind independent administrators and they are free to negotiate the best settlement as they see fit.

You are demonstrably wrong, what you said couldn’t happen, did happen! The administrator could accept new bids, he did accept new bids.

HTH

There was never an invitation to amend or up bids.

There was a bid process, where a bid was accepted and where the successful bidders subsequently withdrew their bid.

The administrator could have dropped to the next best bid, but didn't. Instead, and quite rightly, he announced a second, totally new bid process.

At no point in that bid process was the opportunity to amend or up bids.

Koukash bid low, thinking he would get them cheap - he gambled and failed and squealed about it in the press afterwards.

He should have bid what he was prepared to pay in the first place.

It was not an auction, where he could gazump another legitimate bidder.

HTH.

Re: The mad doctor : Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:08 pm  

dboy wrote:

There was never an invitation to amend or up bids.

There was a bid process, where a bid was accepted and where the successful bidders subsequently withdrew their bid.

The administrator could have dropped to the next best bid, but didn't. Instead, and quite rightly, he announced a second, totally new bid process.

At no point in that bid process was the opportunity to amend or up bids.

Koukash bid low, thinking he would get them cheap - he gambled and failed and squealed about it in the press afterwards.

He should have bid what he was prepared to pay in the first place.

It was not an auction, where he could gazump another legitimate bidder.

HTH.

Bids were amended. That fact renders the rest of your bitter nonsense irrelevant (as factually incorrect as it is)

It was BTW, Richard Lamb's second bid which was accepted before he failed to complete.

Re: The mad doctor : Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:27 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Pee jars at the ready if Flanaghan gets involved! If you can't buy them, inject them?

Pee Jars for the players or his horses?

Re: The mad doctor : Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:59 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Pee jars at the ready if Flanaghan gets involved! If you can't buy them, inject them?

Re: The mad doctor : Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:44 pm  

TheButcher wrote:

:roll:

What? Are you suggesting the NRL was wrong to ban him for his involvement in the sharks drugs case? (In which case he would never be coming to the uk) Should a man who now has a record on such a matter not be subject to regular check ups to ensure no repeat matter?

Re: The mad doctor : Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:47 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Pee jars at the ready if Flanaghan gets involved! If you can't buy them, inject them?

As a sports scientist, well his job is to maximise what you've got, as we know, he couldn't buy the players he wanted, well what do you do? And they were lacking in facilities compared with other teams, S Flanagan and some of his staff/contacts were just trying to level the playing field. I assume that not many of the best players wanted to join Essendon either, well it is a bit far from the Victorian coast up there.

BUT, let me add, no player from either club has failed a drugs test.

Re: The mad doctor : Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:10 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

TheButcher wrote:

:roll:

What? Are you suggesting the NRL was wrong to ban him for his involvement in the sharks drugs case? (In which case he would never be coming to the uk) Should a man who now has a record on such a matter not be subject to regular check ups to ensure no repeat matter?

I'd suggest you should get your facts right before casting aspersions - Flanagan has been banned for not having the correct governance procedures in place - the NRL have been quite clear that they do not believe Flanagan had any knowledge of illegal substances being given to players, and as of yet, surprise surprise, ASADA have yet to prove any illegal substances were ever even administered at Cronulla.

Re: The mad doctor : Thu Apr 03, 2014 7:22 am  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

What? Are you suggesting the NRL was wrong to ban him for his involvement in the sharks drugs case? (In which case he would never be coming to the uk) Should a man who now has a record on such a matter not be subject to regular check ups to ensure no repeat matter?

Just rolling the eyes at a pointless post.

I'm sure he's got his six cases loaded with performance enhancing drugs to dispense to the Salford players. Koukash will even gather a press conference to witness Adrian Morley receiving his first injection of the day...