Bradford Bulls may have a buy back clause but if the offer is to form a "newco" then they are a new entity and won't have the option of the clause

They managed to announce the 6point penalty part of the sanction without knowing how much creditors were going to be paid.

Agree! I am slowly losing all hope

What bothers me here is the RFL stating that ABC haven't provided proof of funding. As the old Chinese curse goes - we live in interesting times.

One snippet from the press release:



Some posters taking about business plans not being able to be produced because they don't know what league they are in, surely it would follow:

Plan A : Super League, Plan B : Championship, Plan C : Championship 1

There should always be a Plan B (or even Plan C) if that's not built into the business plan proposed I doubt it will be considered viable

Quote“The position with Bradford Bulls is identical to that faced by Widnes Vikings and Wakefield Trinity Wildcats, who were taken out of administration in 2007 and 2011, respectively, by new owners without any guarantee as to which competition they would be playing in"

My only problem with that is that Widnes & WTW were taken out of administration in the off-season when funding could be tailored to which league they are in.

We are trying to come out of admin in-competition with SL wages & debts to be paid for at least 6weeks. The reason the RFL is suddenly dragging their feet re wages is that I think we have used up all the Sky money which is available to be advanced....

Other than that - yes , it is identical

The RFL might have been better advised if, instead of labouring the point about the bid being "conditional", they had described it as "incomplete".

The point about not having proof of funds might be premature. Bidders often don't provide that until they're fairly sure that an offer will be accepted. Although if the RFL have asked them to provide proof of funds and they haven't it would naturally raise concerns.

Clearly the bid is for a Super League license so any business plan, including financial forecasts would be on that basis.

Was there ever any suggestion that Wakefield wouldn't be allowed to compete in SL in 2011 ( the final year of their license)?. I can only remember there being uncertainty over whether they would be awarded a license for the next licensing period, which is the same situation every club is in, at least theoretically. So we aren't in same situation as Wakefield at all.

So, the RFL are themselves effectively wanting to put reverse conditions on the bidders. "You must buy, without knowing what you're buying". Utterly mad. Wakey etc. may have had a bidder who wanted a club, whether in SL or not, but that was there, and this is here; we DON'T. It so happens OUR bidder ONLY wants it if it is an SL club. I can't for the life of me see why the RFL don't get that. They can't be so deluded as to think if they stick to this line, the bidders will relent and will buy "blind". Can they??

Anyhoo, that caps it off; unless either party is lying, that means end of game, so why is anyone still wasting their time? ABC definitively want what the RFL categorically will not give, so can anyone tell me WTF else there is to discuss? It is clear that ABC won't get the RFL's agreement so there is indeed no point left in their approaches. The fat lady has finally sung, and it was a funeral dirge.

BG now has a decision to make
As do our current "charity" workforce.
I wonder if there will be any other volunteers?

Alternatively they do get that and that's why they are saying no? Just because the only bidder wants guaranteed SL status doesn't mean it should be given!

Tbh chances are if you are bought out of admin you'll be fine with regard staying in SL. If Bradford are liquidated that's a different story.

Tbh the lack of disclosure of identities of potential shareholders and directors is just as big a deal breaker for rfl as the lack of business plan and proof of funding IMO. How can they accept a bid when someone banned from involvement with RL like DES Johnston could be involved?. Admittedly that an extreme example and I suspect the identities of the people refusing to be named will turn out to be names from our recent past.

Looks like the players agents are gonna be busy...isn't CC one of those.

Just some points for accuracy:-

Wakefield came out of administration after the season had begun, not before as alluded to by Highlander.

Glover had no assurances for forthcoming seasons as to which league the club would be in. He prepared business plans based on whether they would be in Super League or in a lower league. As mentioned above, business plans should cover a range of scenarios not just scenario A (every decent business person knows this).

Whilst the previous management team of Bradford were awarded a 3 year licence, there is nothing to suggest what the ABC team propose as a business plan. Wakefield saw out their season when they came out of administration then applied for a licence. (The fact it was also the 3 year licence re-application period is coincidental.)

I have no issue at all if Bradford are bought out then re-apply for their licence for 2013 onwards. That is the same as the situation with Wakefield.

Remember the old Bradford management got the licence not the hypothetical new management.

If ABC can't put together a business plan, disclose their directors and funding plus listen to RFL "no conditions attached" then they sound very suspect to me. Glover had to go through a fit and proper persons assessment before he was allowed to buy Wakefield. How can the RFL deem ABC fit and proper if the directors are not disclosed.

If the MP's lead bid is more transparent and adheres to no conditions then I suspect that is a better option.

Arguments aside, best of luck over the next few days/weeks/months. You fans have suffered enough. Rugby League will always be present in Bradford no matter what. If the worst happens, I have every faith the phoenix from the flames will rise and you will be a force once again.

Didn't Stephen Coulby say they were all "new to RL" with no possibility of any blame for the past being attached, or something very close to that? I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a bit of spin, but surely that pretty directly rules out any former directors or shareholders?

Incidentally, I feel the idea of providing three separate detailed business plans is ludicrous, though he whole charade has taken so long they've certainly had the time...

Can't help but think this guy Solly Blake at the RFL has painted himself into a corner here. This issue will be resolved by negotiating surely. By playing hardball he has left himself no wriggle room. If negotiating doesn't do it then there really is no where to go. Both offers and the one from Sutcliffe have conditions to them. The alternative is liquidation, and probably very soon now, leaving the RFL with a big hole in the ground and no revenue from it for a number of years.

Eh? So if I was the bidder, and made it crystal that I ONLY want a SL club, and am not interested in running a Championship side, perhaps you can explain to me why on earth I would prepare an alternative business plan for something I am not under any circumstances going to do?

So, you want to buy it on condition of being in SL. No.

The RFL statement suggests no detailed business plan has been submitted at all.

then it would indicate to me that the bidder is not a true RL fan, just a businessman looking to make a fast buck - I wouldn't touch that sort of bidder, not if I had the interests of my club at heart

what happens if the consortium is given the nod and run the business to end of the franchise period, get the new franchise refused by the RFL and drop down a division or two ?
that means by inference they would pull out of the club leaving it high and dry...

sounds all very tenous to me - too many 'ifs' and 'buts'

Bang on, it’s pointless.

However, if you had your original bid rejected & it was pointed out why, would you leave in the same stipulations at the second attempt?

I agree. We don't want people to run clubs as a business we want more moneyed 'fans' pumping money in and underwriting huge losses.

For the sustainability of the sport and that.

Depends what sort of game I was playing to be honest.

We don't know the nature or content of discussions behind the scenes.

It isn’t co-incidental, it is fundmental.

Wakefield were applying for a licence like everybody else in SL, they knew the timeframe, format, process, and competition. Them being bought put them in exactly the same position as everybody else in RL if you want to be in SL you put in a winning bid. That applied as much to Paul Caddick as it did to Andrew Glover.

In this situation no-one knows the process, no-one knows if there will be a ‘bid’ process, no-one knows if Bradford will be included or discounted from it, no-one knows how long that licence is for, no-one knows when this process will be or when the decision is made.