Yes he would. There is NO intention of SLE owning an SL team in 2013, that much is obvious. Could simply never happen. Yet clearly the SLE's preferred outcome is a Bulls in SL in 2013, otherwise they would not have done what they are doing. If they just wanted us to finish the season then all they had to spend was enough to pay the wages for the remaining games. But personally I can't see it happening.

But players are ordinary people with mortgages and bills, and seeing as SLE are a stopgap owner, in fact I reckon basically till the season ends and no more, what else is possible? The players cannot be left in limbo, they have to be free to do whatever they feel is right for their own futures. They are not slaves. If you can't offer them anything, at all, not even an assurance, then what alternative is there?

SLE could conceivably run the Bulls if no buyer is found as a Championship club. But clearly that would involve most of the best players leaving as they won't want part time pay and who can blame them.

But I can't see where a buyer with millions to waste is going to come from, so I guess that unless I win the Euromillions, the alternatives would be limited to Championship level or oblivion.

It's looking increasingly bleak for me.

FYI, I have spent many decades very happily going to places such as Batley and Featherstone, and it was indeed always thoroughly enjoyable. I'm off to Keighley for the Leigh game, and I'll enjoy that too. But then I'm not a disrespectful t0sser who despises those sort of clubs.

Neither am I, as a former director of one of them and having contacted several of them suggesting ways to improve their ' lot ' and make them more money, I have the utmost respect for all of them, much more in fact than the blue eyed boys of SDL

=#FF0040IF we get a buyer who is NOT prepared to so do, we get ejected from SL and have to see if there is a future within the lower leagues (which personally I doubt).



This is what concerns me more than anything else, you seem to think that the Bulls would have no future in the lower leagues and that is with a current season ticket holding in excess of 8000. If the Bulls couldn't succeed with that kind of following why are every club outside the Super League even bothering playing the game or is it that the Bulls support is only based on a winning team on the field.

How long do you expect crowds of 8000 would last without the chance of promotion? How many would come to watch a team with none of it's star players left? It won't be 8000 for long that's for sure.

ALL players

Three points
1.) The SLE have a potential buyer for the club, only potential mind, who refused to deal with BG

2.) Do you honestly think that SL clubs want to see Bradford in NL1. Bradford would be a massive threat to a SL club outside of SL, you would have a side that was winning week in week out and we know how the Bradford fans love to watch a winning side, you have several thousand stay away fans who would be back like a shot. You would become a problem to a SL club because you would be demanding entry back into SL at the cost of one of its members. If you stay in SL you are less of a problem. Why do you think every SL chair voted in favour of the SLE deal. ( this is the big problem with SL, chairmen vote based on what they think is best for their club rather that what is best for the game, the sooner SLE / RFL gets outside people running the game the better )

3.) Well done Bullbuilder, now is the time for the Bradford fans to give time to Bullbuilder and gain more influence.

And there we have the problem, most on here advocate that the Bulls have to be in super league as they need you and you would be too great a loss. What incentive is there now for all none SL clubs to build and vie for promotion, you don't want the Bulls to be in their position but are happy for them to be in it.

In the last 10 seasons before SL started Halifax were averaging an attendance that equalled Bradfords, if they replaced you what is to say they couldn't build on their support and in a few years be a big club again and valuable to super league

Having read the Bullbuilder interview with Blake Solly it seems to me that we are destined for league 1 or 2, whatever happens. If players are going to be released as soon as the deal is done then SL next season isn't going to be feasible. Similarly with coaching staff; without knowing where the club will be playing how are staff to be contracted.

I guess the only hope is that someone, or a group, comes forward very quickly now the boards have been swept clean. Maybe there really is someone who will commit under the new circumstances, but if SL is to continue in Bradford that division element will need sorting PDQ. The playing and coaching side is Ok but if it is allowed to drift away there is no point in us even thinking about SL next season.

No he would not.

By taking over now the RFL can guarentee that the Bulls will finish the 2012 season - no other available option atm can offer this with as much certainty.

SLE clubs do not want the Bulls in SL, that is why the RFL have consitently opposed the condition that the Bulls will be in SL in 2013/14.

If the RFL wanted the Bulls in SL they would not encourage all players to seek new contracts elsewhere with immediate effect. They know now that they do not intend the bulls to be in sl in 2013.

Yes, he would.


Well, yes, you are stating the obvious.




So you alone have the inside gen on the TRUE reason why the RFL would not accept the conditions! The RFL and the SLE clubs are all liars, the RFL was acting under duress of the clubs. Riiight. One of the dottier conspiracy theories, that one!


It is as I have said elsewhere the only thing they can do. The SLE clubs are not the long or even medium owner of the Bulls, only a new owner - if one ever comes forward and is accepted - could enter into any negotiations, sign or re-sign players or staff, and that much is obvious. So it isn't anything at all to do with not wanting (or wanting) the Bulls in SL, it is simply being fair to players whose livelihoods we are talking about. If they don't have any owner to talk to - what would YOU have them do?

The reality is that it is now very hard to see a way for a new owner to be in place in time to save the main part of the squad and be in a position to even ask the RFL the 2013 SL question, but that is just timing, it's where we are are nothing can be done about it.

Your RFL conspiracy theory is as dotty as it is unnecessary. More likely the truth is as was expressed yesterday by the RFL and Hetherington. Conspiracies not needed here.

can i just say when i started supporting my club (hull kr) in the eighties i watched us win everything and then in the 90s watched us slip into oblivion down to the old third division playing players from the amateur game in hull no money seeing us get beat 1-0 at home to barrow and then we rose again and although it was a long road back we got there so all im saying no matter what league you play in or what players play for you it will still be bradford and you will still be watching your team good luck

Just how exactly do you know this?

What IS quite likely and perhaps understandable, IMO is that there will be some sugar daddies who have poured milions of their own monies into their own clubs, who might take great exception to a rival club having its debts writen off and so - in their eyes - gaining an unfair advantage. I say this because that is exactly what Caisley said about London a few years ago - and he had put in only a tiny fraction of what the likes of Davy and McManus have done.

We also know that, from memory, Hudgell and McManus have called for a smaller competition. It therefore seems quite possible that they would prefer us (since the opportunity exists) to drop out of the competition to help bring that about, I suggest?

Whether there are club owners who do indeed hold such views, and whether if so they can carry a majority (or could otherwise get their way) is probably what matters?

I suspect, from everything I have seen reported, that the RFL would very much prefer Bradford to remain in SL. It seems too that we have friends amongst some of the clubs - the fantastic gestures of O'Connor and of Leeds and Wire must be testament to that, and I recall reading Lenaghan being supportive. But unless the debts are cleared to the satisfaction of the creditors, I fear the argument for the club remaining in SL will be hard to carry. And I cannot see the club surviving in anything like its present form in the lower leagues.

Quite right too! Bulls, both before, and in administation is Frankenstein's Monster and should be trimmed/killed to a sustainable business.

Any thoughts or intentions that Bulls should continue as they are, is bonkers.

They must get the balance of income/outgoings right and not chase unrealsitic dreams, which is what has caused this mess.

I am afraid that the unrealistic dream being chased was survival.

Chasing that unrealistic dream has CAUSED the fight for survival.

Mind you, if Bulls had cut their cloth accordingly, as they should have done, then I'm sure support, including commercial, would have been down anyway, resulting in the same outcome.

Perhaps chasing the dream was a last throw of the dice to balance the books.

As a Salford supporter, used to years of medocrity and now seeing our side being slowly disbanded as the better player seek greater certainty of employment due to our chairman insisting on some degree of decent financial management, I find it a bitter pill to swallow that Bradford are being bailed out when the debacle is entirely self inflicted.
It will be fascinating to see what unfolds in respect of Salford if the rumours around our precarious state prove to have any foundation - will SLE bail us out?

You miss my point.

Any club in the lower leagues would, in my view, have to leave Odsal and groundshare with someone. It would lose all its academy and youth development, and with it most of what gives us any hope for the future. The crowds would, I fear, soon reduce to levels more consistent with the rest of the competition. Without a sugar daddy, the best we could hope for would be to be to limp on from year to year. Is that an attractive proposition for anyone? For any external investor?

If we lose our SL place - and my own guess is that if we do not find an incoming investor prepared to buy the club and its debts pretty well as is (presumably via all being transferred to Newco so the current shareholders do not get one penny) then the most likely outcome is a one-way ticket to oblivion.

Go ask your chairman. He was one of those who unanimously voted for it.

Absolutely, dboy. Note that many on here argued that the "death spiral" was caused by the poor form of the McNamara years. Spending less on player salaries would have been unlikely to improve this form.

BF - I don't see how Bradford's problems are any more or less self-inflicted than Salford's. Each are historic clubs trying to make it work in the 21st century. They have their own particular circumstances and we have yet to see what the reponse will be to any Salford administration.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Yes, he would. Well, yes, you are stating the obvious. So you alone have the inside gen on the TRUE reason why the RFL would not accept the conditions! The RFL and the SLE clubs are all liars, the RFL was acting under duress of the clubs. Riiight. One of the dottier conspiracy theories, that one! It is as I have said elsewhere the only thing they can do. The SLE clubs are not the long or even medium owner of the Bulls, only a new owner - if one ever comes forward and is accepted - could enter into any negotiations, sign or re-sign players or staff, and that much is obvious. So it isn't anything at all to do with not wanting (or wanting) the Bulls in SL, it is simply being fair to players whose livelihoods we are talking about. If they don't have any owner to talk to - what would YOU have them do? The reality is that it is now very hard to see a way for a new owner to be in place in time to save the main part of the squad and be in a position to even ask the RFL the 2013 SL question, but that is just timing, it's where we are are nothing can be done about it. Your RFL conspiracy theory is as dotty as it is unnecessary. More likely the truth is as was expressed yesterday by the RFL and Hetherington. Conspiracies not needed here.'" Not a conspiracy theory at all. The RFL and SL clubs are absolutely clear that the condition of SL status in 2013 would not be granted. This is because they do not think the Bulls should be in SL in 2013. Hardly some deep dark conspiracy. The RFL will encourage players to find other clubs because they know the Bulls will be in the championship, at best, in 2013. If they wanted a Bulls SL team they would try and hold onto your key quality players - instead they are encouraging them to go. Where did hetherington and the RFL state that they were keeping the Bulls in SL in 2013? Must have missed it. I saw this: www.therhinos.co.uk/news/19986.php Interestingly I am sure you spotted the inaccuracy here? (we both know GH was not present, in body, at Red Hall for the meeting )

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Yes, he would. Well, yes, you are stating the obvious. So you alone have the inside gen on the TRUE reason why the RFL would not accept the conditions! The RFL and the SLE clubs are all liars, the RFL was acting under duress of the clubs. Riiight. One of the dottier conspiracy theories, that one! It is as I have said elsewhere the only thing they can do. The SLE clubs are not the long or even medium owner of the Bulls, only a new owner - if one ever comes forward and is accepted - could enter into any negotiations, sign or re-sign players or staff, and that much is obvious. So it isn't anything at all to do with not wanting (or wanting) the Bulls in SL, it is simply being fair to players whose livelihoods we are talking about. If they don't have any owner to talk to - what would YOU have them do? The reality is that it is now very hard to see a way for a new owner to be in place in time to save the main part of the squad and be in a position to even ask the RFL the 2013 SL question, but that is just timing, it's where we are are nothing can be done about it. Your RFL conspiracy theory is as dotty as it is unnecessary. More likely the truth is as was expressed yesterday by the RFL and Hetherington. Conspiracies not needed here.'" Not a conspiracy theory at all. The RFL and SL clubs are absolutely clear that the condition of SL status in 2013 would not be granted. This is because they do not think the Bulls should be in SL in 2013. Hardly some deep dark conspiracy. The RFL will encourage players to find other clubs because they know the Bulls will be in the championship, at best, in 2013. If they wanted a Bulls SL team they would try and hold onto your key quality players - instead they are encouraging them to go. Where did hetherington and the RFL state that they were keeping the Bulls in SL in 2013? Must have missed it. I saw this: www.therhinos.co.uk/news/19986.php Interestingly I am sure you spotted the inaccuracy here? (we both know GH was not present, in body, at Red Hall for the meeting )

Quote ="Cripesginger"Not a conspiracy theory at all. The RFL and SL clubs are absolutely clear that the condition of SL status in 2013 would not be granted. This is because they do not think the Bulls should be in SL in 2013. Hardly some deep dark conspiracy. The RFL will encourage players to find other clubs because they know the Bulls will be in the championship, at best, in 2013. If they wanted a Bulls SL team they would try and hold onto your key quality players - instead they are encouraging them to go. Where did hetherington and the RFL state that they were keeping the Bulls in SL in 2013? Must have missed it. I saw this: www.therhinos.co.uk/news/19986.php Interestingly I am sure you spotted the inaccuracy here? (we both know GH was not present, in body, at Red Hall for the meeting )'" Don't want to admit it but i agree with what he is saying.

Quote ="Cripesginger"Not a conspiracy theory at all. The RFL and SL clubs are absolutely clear that the condition of SL status in 2013 would not be granted. This is because they do not think the Bulls should be in SL in 2013. Hardly some deep dark conspiracy. The RFL will encourage players to find other clubs because they know the Bulls will be in the championship, at best, in 2013. If they wanted a Bulls SL team they would try and hold onto your key quality players - instead they are encouraging them to go. Where did hetherington and the RFL state that they were keeping the Bulls in SL in 2013? Must have missed it. I saw this: www.therhinos.co.uk/news/19986.php Interestingly I am sure you spotted the inaccuracy here? (we both know GH was not present, in body, at Red Hall for the meeting )'" Don't want to admit it but i agree with what he is saying.

So why avoid confirming that? Why make such a big deal about being unable to confirm the bulls continuation of licence, if the decision has been taken, why not confirm the Bulls wont have a licence?

payback. Clubs may want the Bulls in SL, but the probably dont want them to be better than them.
The bulls may, or may not be relegated, it remains to be seen.

Yes, it does make you wonder!! John Wilkinson's problem is being just too much the nice guy - it would be fascinating to have been a fly on the wall in the discussions leading up to this



My point is that our chairman and board have managed the club with a degree of financial prudence and again and again dipped into their own pockets to fund Salford's existence. It's been the case that we red supporters know we can't afford to pay up to the salary cap, we know that our best players get sold on to better and brighter things, but that has meant the club has survived. If you just list the Bradford errors - the Iestyn Harris deal, the lease sale and it's effect on your RBS relationship, the membership/VAT fiasco - you surely cannot deny those are self-inflicted issues that have brought about the current situation and didn't need to happen - yet there is a bailout?

The very clear message that Bullbuilder gave Blake Solly is that we don't want to hear what they think we want to hear, we want to hear an open honest view of what's coming despite how painful it may seem to be. Blake agreed and we look forward to those discussions as soon a the bid is accepted.