No guarantee of which league we'll be in + no way we can buy back the lease = No Bradford Bulls!!! Given the VERY clear statement from Mr. Solly no wiggle room for change without th RFL looking very stupid.

So RFL - why would you advance us more cash from Sky money to pay August wages unless it's to really save face for this year!!! Should the Widnes game even happen now?

precisely FA. Its not a sugar daddy bid, its a bunch of businessmen that can see that the only way a business plan will work for the Bulls is to have an SL crowd in a redeveloped stadium. The RFL's stance means that only sugar daddies with money to burn need apply. That is not a practicable model for expanding the game. So until a sugar daddy turns up or the RFL change their stance, hello Gloucester University.

Every turn,a stone wall,every step forward,one back...are we really sure,Ganson and his mates are not part of the decision makers at Red Hall...things couldn't get any worse could they?

Word is that Bradford will be relegated at season end with no one coming up to replace them.

Bilko from your board tweeted that earlier?!

Call me old fashioned but I can remember a time when the team that came bottom of the league was relegated.

Maybe this is a new marketing ploy to generate more excitement in SL - random relegation?

Could a club liquidated be relegated, that doesn't sound possible.

A plague on all their heads!
If the 2 bidding groups we are told have submitted offers have reached their bottom negotiating line, they should publish the broad terms of their final offers in the press for all to see. There's no need to publish names.
I disagree fundamentally with Mick Gledhill. He may have had a point a few weeks or even days ago but any decent journalist should be publishing what they know given the apparent sounding of the death knell.
Potential directors names and security of funding are irrelevant AT THIS STAGE. If the bids had been acceptable they could have been a provisional agreement SUBJECT to those conditions being met.

Wrong there was loads of uncertainty when they went into Admin there was no buyer like yourselves but our buyer had two plans one forSL and the other for license loss that was expected in the round of licenses. What he did though was put all his effort into retaining the license and some will say we stayed because of the Crus demise. The other bidder for Wakefield is like yours that one wanted assurances for SL prior to the licenses being awarded HTH

I wouldn't.

They didn't.

Sit tight people, this saga has a way to run yet.

You're looking at it the wrong way round.
ABC: 'Can we be guaranteed Super League Status?'
RFL: "No. Subject to ratification by the member clubs and the terms under which you negotiate the administration/liquidation.'
ABC: "Can we buy the Odsal?"
RFL: "We paid £1.25 million for it. That is a matter for separate negotiation? Do you want to buy the Bulls?'
ABC: "No."

They won't buy the club without agreements the RFL either cannot guarantee or don't know the detail of. So they don't want to buy it.

Well we can speculate til the cows come home. Hopefully some other buyer will materialise soon....

Yes he had two plans, one for SL and one for license loss AT END OF LICENSE PERIOD. That's point I'm making! It was never suggested that you wouldnt be allowed to complete your existing license. Fact you came put of admin a week into season is immaterial, there was never any doubt about you starting season in SL provided you were bought.

The final "no" is plainly wrong, though. If they didn't, why would they be wasting time effort and money? Just how keen remains to be seen but in principle that is a "yes" not a "no".

Next, in the world of corporate law, negotiations which involve more than one party are hardly unusual. You talk to one party, agree something in principle, then talk to the other, agree something in principle with them, and then the lawyers write the magic words so all the agreements are given effect at the same time. So nobody is sold a pup, they all know what they are getting.

The thing which has caused most confusion is the ROFL's use of the phrase "we will not accept conditional offers".
(1) as regards the Bulls SL licence, it isn't an offer for the ROFL to accept or reject. It's a question. (Whether they are prepared to accept the buyers and their plan is of course a different matter, but even then, that would be more like "approve the bid/bidder" than "accept an offer".
(2) as regards the lease, that is a matter entirely between the bidders and the ROFL, who will (presumably) have had a direct offer (subject of course to all deals being signed simultaneously). The RFL need only respond whether they would, or would not, sell the lease, on those terms, or at all. So it can never be a "conditional offer" from the POV of the RFL. It's an offer, of a purely one-off nature, for a purely one-off deal. Take it, leave it, or negotiate it.

Harrumph. THEY were supposed to come out of the woodwork yesterday, so I am presuming that's another non-starter.

the rfl are doing the correct thing in standing there ground, there should be no guarantees like with wakey an widnes. Also I feel the fact that bradford have been able to keep hold of there best players is a bit of a shock especially with the overheads you have.

Yes and we were bought had it been like this saga we wouldnt whats the difference your clutching at issues that dont exist

Nope you adding the important 'all' bit onto what he said. He actually said



you COULD read it as the entire consortium is new to the sport but I dont think it categorically rules out former directors. Think theres definitely an element of spin in the statement.

Not at all. Just disputing the RFLs statement that were in the same situation as wakefield as we plainly aren't.You were bought and allowed to finish the current license period and there was never any doubt that that was the situation you were in. When Glover bought you he knew you were going to be in SL for the 2011 season and would have to apply for your next license along with everyone else. RFL is refusing to tell groups trying to buy us whether we are going to be allowed to complete our license or not.

That's a fair way of putting it, and I think you're right about the "conditional offer" bit, when they really mean those items can't be part of the negotiations as they can't guarantee either. If, however, ABC are saying they can only offer if there is a yes to both, then I suppose it is sort of conditional. "We will make an offer if these two conditions are met". RFL say, "we can't give a yes to either condition". Its wordings and semantics.

Wouldn't you be better off with an O'Connor or Glover who is prepared to build from the Championship, rather than the Death or Glory ABC lot?

Banned from forum

And you know the proposed buyer wanted assurances around the next round of licenses, source please. I expect mr. Guilfoyle wil go back to Football, at least there is a single penalty to apply if he sells the club - in this it is unattractive unless you are a fan purchaser as there might be a license you might be able to apply for, but no set rules, all at the discretion of the RFL

Don't disagree we might be better with an O'Conner or Glover, but being part of the Championship is a condition and they are not allowed!