There's a bad smell and its not the curry.

Bg in t&a confirms it's an "advance on payments" the rfl are not paying our wages.

Strange since he's been consistent in saying there were NO offers. Unless he's had three additional offers today in addition to consortium he's spent all day in meetings with.

Well just apologize and leave the room.

It's a blood y outrage. I'm sorry but you should be allowed to fold, I am fed up of our pathetic ruling body falling over backwards to help some clubs whilst others are left to die!

Lessons will only be learnt should Bradford Bulls be left to fall down, then at least the shock wave from the resulting crash maybe acted upon.

The money dished out to you is from the other clubs pockets, they put it there and they will lose it.

We wouldn't be losing anything too good anyway, dropping crowds, a decaying ground and a bashed up boardroom all spell disaster in the not to distant future if not imminently.

The only people I feel for are the fans, the ones that turn up every week and cheer on their club.

Sorry but to me this is a sham. To me you should RIP.

If there are enough true fans than the club will rebuild and find its place again.

The money is the other clubs money?? Its actually OUR sky money for next month doylum.

Of course their giving you money! When you go to the wall who else will give em the money back?

It's ok giving you advances but when there's no guarantees of a future then how can they make such a decision?

Stinks!

This reeks very very badly, just now shows bent the RFL really are.

Talk about jumping the gun. It's a bloody advance on the TV money, that ALL clubs get paid next week anyway! It just means we'll get it before Friday to pay wages, other clubs get it next week!

I think the RFL definitely has questions to answer over secretly lending the club 700k last year as it should have indicated to their finance people that all was far from well. Steps should have been taken right then.

Right now, I think you're wrong. The RFL have no choice but to do everything in its power to save the Bulls. The knock on effect to sponsors, investors and in particular Sky who would look very unkindly on losing the club in a city the size of Bradford would cause massive damage to the game which far outweighs the cost paying the Sky money in advance.

As a support base, we've sold our allocation of tickets at enough semis and finals to call in a favour now. You simply can't say that about the other clubs who faced our situation.

Have a word..
They have lent the money, it will be paid back presuming the club is bought by the current consortium.
IF (and I hope you would hope does not happen, as am sure most fans did for Trinity and the like) we had gone bust and we were unable to fulfill our fixtures, the loss of a fixture to the other clubs would quite possibly be more than one months advance.
20+ players would be without a wage, whatever the club have done, do the men who put their bodies on the line deserve that? If that is what you think, maybe you should bob in and see Olivier Elima at training or one of the others, put your point to them.

You clearly want my club to die, so I'm not discussing this further, other than to say you are factually incorrect with where the money is coming from. It's not the rfls, it's not other clubs, it's from sky, due to us in staged payments over the season. If we went to the wall I'd guess it reverts back to being sky's money, not divided up like a windfall.

Why are all the small clubs fuming over this? Inferiority complex's are fraught on this thread. I hope anything that is possible and within the realms of being morally correct is done to save the Bulls as it would be a massive shame to lose their brand from Rugby League. What's the issue with getting an advance on TV monies due next week? It's coming from SKY ultimately, not the RFL or other clubs as some morons seem to be suggesting.

Why on earth would we pay it back?. its not a loan its the next installment of sky money which was due to the club next week anyway. All thats happening is were getting it a bit early, something that a lot of clubs do over the offseason anyway to help their cashflows.

fair point!! in my haste to write a reply, i didn't think that part out!!

It isn't.


You aren't sorry. We are folding. The new company (if it comes off) would not be the old company.


Another epic fail, it is the advance on our Sky money. I realise you are on Planet Angry, but could you at least try to keep within communication distance of this planet?


Ah. "Increasing" is "dropping" on your planet. OK, I'm sure all the clubs will draw over 10K when London come to town.


The ground belongs to the council, the RFL owns the long lease.


The boardroom is irrelevant as nobody from it would be part of the new company. (Well, unless asked, but the point is, it would be a brand new board, and as you haven't even a clue as to who might be in the boardroom, it is obviously stupid to call it "bashed up".


You do? You say we should be "allowed to fold", then in the next breath you're sorry for the fans that there's a fighting chance we will survive? What are you on?


It's really not.


Thanks. That's what the old club will in fact do, if it comes off.


Thanks. That's what the new club will in fact do, if it comes off.

Thats really interesting as this was what one of the buyers for Wakefield wanted prior to the licenses but the RFL wouldnt give an assurance so AG ended up taking over. This will be interesting to see how the RFL play it.

You are correct Steve Parkin pulled out when the RFL refused to give that assurance and as a side to that he took back is offer to put a SL sponsor in place.

Wasn't the assurances re the Wakefield licence related to the (at that point) future licencing process? If I understand correctly what's been asked about is assurances about the continuation of the Bulls existing licence (i.e. the next 2 years).
I understand both cases of people putting money in wanting to know what division the club would be in but there's a slight difference between the 2 cases.

Thing is, though, the RFL has stated publically that there are to be no guarantees of any club's SL status during this licence period. The RFL would be on extremely dodgy ground if they played this differently to the way they played Wakey.

Presumably now that the deadline has been extended to 27th, BG will extend the deadline for offers from other possible buyers?

Correct and that changed for this franchise period, i understand the point he's making but it matters not, anyone coming in would seek a guarantee of status before committing and that can't be given, can it.

Of course none of us are privy to the full rulings of the RFL.

Exactly that

And yet another point that seems to have been deliberately twisted by bitter Wakefield fans to continue to whinge about how unfairly they think they've been treated

There was never a suggestion that Wakefield would be dumped into the Championship within that licensing period, and the assurances sought were about the new SL licenses, which were due to be looked at later that season. Quite reasonably the RFL refused to give those assurances at that time, indeed if not for the Crusaders collapse then Wakefield would have dropped out of SL.

It is to the credit of Andrew Glover that he took on Wakefield under those circumstances, and I'm pleased for him that its worked out as it has, and Wakefield are now able to build for the future. It's a pity that some of the Wakefield supporters can't just be pleased about that, and stop the sniping towards our club

Of course it can

Its true that Richard Lewis did indeed say that SL licenses could be revoked during the licence period, and the RFL now have that decision to make. Indeed, they need to make it within the next week, as the consortium looking to take over the Bulls will need to know that BEFORE they commit.

I fully expect the RFL to meet before July 27th and make exactly that decision, together with the expected points deduction. Then the consortium can make an informed choice. I assume they'll pull the plug if the SL license is revoked, but frankly I don't expect that to happen

In which case what's the point of having a licence for 3 years if it can be removed at any time?

I understood Wakefield's potential investors were asking about the future licencing process, i.e the 3 year licence period we are currently in, which at the time they entered admin was a few months in the future. If that is the case then clearly the RFL couldn't say they would have given a licence but in the Bull's case the question is one of continuing with our existing licence.
Given that it looks like we just got lucking with the timing of going bust which is insane