El Barbudo.
I stand corrected Thanks.

But the RFL have the power to block any bid for the bulls so even if they are not making it they have the power to prevent it

SLE is a company, don't the RFL own it in some way, isn't it basically there to help the RFL distribute money to the clubs?

The RFL as a governing body should set the rules regarding these matters, not a small number of clubs within the game - I do not know if this will turn out to be the right decision but if it does not the RFL should have further serious questions to ask on top of those already arising

So does that mean Bradford is now owned by the other "Super League " clubs ?

Should this assumption be correct how does the money Bradford owe get repaid and by whom ?

What happens when London Broncos/Salford and whichever other club losing money gets into financial trouble ?

How can clubs compete with a club they have a financial interest in ?

I think it has to be the RFL.

Oh by the way I want Bradford Bulls to stay in existence but this move makes a mockery of a pro sport with a supposedly level playing field.

Apologies to Batley and Featherstone of course.

If Bradford go over the salary cap, who will the fine go to?

Worse... How could it be worse?

All I said to my wife was "that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah"

Comparisons with other clubs and other industries are highly spurious. In SL terms Bradford are one of the 'big' clubs. With all due respect to Wakefield and Widnes (who weren't even in SL at the time they went bust) they are not in the same league if you'll pardon the pun. IMO SL simply could not afford to lose the Bulls at this stage - and it appears that all the other SL clubs understand this despite whatever bravado they may have come out with in the past.

Right now it doesn't matter one jot who is responsible for the current position - SL has decided that they had to step in or lose the Bulls.

I'd expect that the proposed ownership will only last until the club can be made stable and then SL will seek to offload the Bulls.

If it's commercial/financial concerns that drive this decision, you have to wonder why it's a great bit of business for SL when it is an investment nobody else will touch with someone else's ten foot pole? Where is SL getting the money from? Are the clubs really, as a collective, flush enough to take on an unprofitable business that has proved to be a supermassive black hole for people's money over several years?

I'm not saying the answer is no (I don't have that information) just that I'm surprised that the answer is yes.

I'm sorry but this I vehemently disagree with.

What are you basing this uopn?

If it's history and heritage than a comparison with Widnes might leave the Bulls falling short. Furthermore, your comments about which division Widnes are in seem somewhat harsh given their "artificial" relegation in the past.

Wigan got relegated once, when the game was a lot less healthier. The game survived.

There is no rational reason to place more value uopn the Bulls than any other club.

with the staff that have been let go and the lease of the ground not being paid the Bulls could be profitable in the short term, giving enough time to allow investers to come on board. I base this on the following assumptions

1. Coaches etc that are currently working for free will continue to help the club through to the end of the season
2. The lease payments to the RFL are suspended. whilst the RFL and SL are different bodies,the RFL would receive no revenue if the bulls were liquidated, on that basis I can see payments being suspended for a period to allow the Bulls to finish out the season.

The main issue now will be whether the bulls can continue in SL for 2013 and if so the player retention /recruitment policies that the club will have.

If they are allowed to stay in SL for 2013 I can see a number of loan players in the team and this could be an opportunity for Leeds to blood some of the youngsters that are potential SL players.

2) Makes the RFL's decision to buy out the lease in the first place a terrible business decision doesn't it?

Now I've had chance to mull this over I suspect that Superleague have just attached a parachute to the Bulls.

They are still going down but they have been bought a bit of time, and their descent can be controlled.

Quite the opposite.

The RFL were a creditor of the Bulls. They were owed money. They didn't pay for the leasehold, the accepted it in settlement of their debt.

As the Bulls have since that date gone into administration and are facing liquidation the RFL have, quite cleverly, avoided the situation of being a creditor in a pretty bad insolvency. They also accquired an asset (value tbd) which could be quite useful going forward.

It was a very smart move by the RFL.

i'm not saying it couldn't make a profit when paying staff, i'm just suggesting that the "new" club could try to get the coaches to work for less /nothing to close out the season whilst the club is being prepared for sale.

leases usually have a get out clause in them should either party enter administration /receivership. On that basis the lease will need to be renegotiated. Whether the RFL deal is good or not depends on
1) how much they paid
2) If they can get newco to agree to lease
3) The long term vision they had when they bought the lease.

Aye and this controlled landing may allow the bulls to regain their wings. I suggest the potential resurrection should be as the steam pigs. Then we may be able to see if pigs really can fly.

Haven't read thread so don't know if this has already been posted but: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19110189 Basically it's a temp solution as others have suggsted until an unconditional bid is found. 1.5 million in debt, players free to find other clubs to secure future. as someone said above, theyve just had a parachute attached, the fall be slowly and not as hard.

Haven't read thread so don't know if this has already been posted but: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19110189 Basically it's a temp solution as others have suggsted until an unconditional bid is found. 1.5 million in debt, players free to find other clubs to secure future. as someone said above, theyve just had a parachute attached, the fall be slowly and not as hard.

I would be extremely interested to see an independent valuation of odsal.
Commercial property prices have dropped through the floor,and are still
Dropping, as I have found to my cost.
Also odsal is an unusual site ,it probably would be a difficult site for a
devolpment .

Apparently the land is contaminated as well, which can limit certain development potential from what i've read.

This whole saga has been a cloud over the season and it looks set to continue for some time. This new development raises far more questions than answers and once the details are finalised i don't think i'm the only one that wants some answers and transparency.

Indeed. My first thoughts were also just how much value is there in a lease of a site built on contaminated ground that comes with restrictions on it.
And yet, the Asian consortium saw something in Odsal which they thought they could turn a profit on.
It would have been interesting to have been a fly on the wall at their meetings with the Administrator.

Just wonder what the SL will do next season when the [inext[/i club inevitably gets into the same financial dire straits.

Hope an unlikely bluddy good sponsorship deal can be secured for a good few years.

how can the SL buy a club, durely a conflict of interest !

Can you imagine owning a house which has been built on what was the Bradford Bulls pitch ?

You'd never get your car up the hill and out of the estate for four months in the winter, your days would be at least four hours shorter than everyone else's as the sun rose and set over the lip of the crater and the corners of your garden would curl upwards like a four day old sandwich.

And the whole estate would be haunted at night by a strange creature in an afro wig and Dennis the Menace jumper who whizzes around the streets at night on a mini motorbike to Queen songs.

The Bulls debt has been revealed as one and a half million pounds, my rough calculations would indicate the original debt must have been pushing up to two and a half million pounds.
This before the half a million fund raising input,and the sale of the lease,this seems a crazy sum of money. I am assuming this debt will be taken up by the
owners. If that's the case this deal looks commercially stupid.

Anybody who has some more accurate figures for the bulls, or even better estimates than mine please send them in. I should imagine a fair number of SL
clubs must be pondering over this transaction.

Just read the article on the Sky Sports website about the "new deadline" and noticed this bit.

[urlhttp://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12213/7976027/Deadline-for-Bulls-buyers[/url

Surely if they were relegated they would be breaking the salary cap?

Does this mean that they will be staying put?

That's Guilfoyle talking utter gash. As far as I'm aware, all player contracts at a Super League club are 'Super League' contracts, and become null and void should the club lose their Super League license.

I can't help but think that he's taken the Bulls, RFL and potential new owners on a massive wild goose chase to increase his time in charge and thus his fee.