I think you'll find the punishment has mostly been meted out to the players and fans, neither of which was responsible for the mess we find ourselves in, but if that's the price, then so be it.

Are you now suggesting that NewCo needs to be punished for taking over as well? Seems a bit unfair to me.

No.
I'm saying that a NewCo shouldn't be allowed to use details of the OldCo as a reason it gets a licence seeing as it was rather quick to dump that OldCo and the debts built up it.
Either pay the old debts or it dies totally.

I'd suggest Bradford Bulls werent thinking of anybody else except Bradford Bulls when running up massive debts that now cannot be paid

So your point is what exactly?

Details like the number of fans they can expect? I can't speak for anyone else but personally I didn't go to watch OldCo play, I watched the Bulls, irrespective of who owned them. I don't think it's unfair to use historical data as part of a potential franchise bid, do you?

OK paid a rumoured 150k for the Bulls , less than P & A will get paid , and they WILL get their full money , unlike creditors !

OK got the Club for nothing in terms of cash flow for the Bulls , no new money yet. A 'promise' of UP TO 6 million but how much of that is hoped for grants and smoke and mirrors.

I mentioned on here many times that people like OK don't like shelling out any of their own money in large amounts. They never do.

OK will run this as a business and if outgoings v income meet , then he will still have spent 150k only , but you will not be spending at full cap in 2013 in SL as he won't want to spend his own $$$. They never do.

Any ground developments will be him looking to make cash after an initial outlay , like opening and re furbing a new big mega curry house etc

I doubt you will see any 'big' cash and I reckon RFL/SL will let in Leigh/Fax or even Fev for the next 2 years until '14 , giving OK the chance to put his $ where his mouth is in the Championship

Yes it is.
You as a club (like it or not) have shafted everyone in sight over your historic debts so why should you be allowed to use that same history to let you acquire a licence for your NewCo.
Either pay the old debt and use your previous attendances and awards or don't and don't.
Like I said you seem to want your cake and eat it.

You wouldnt would you, but retaining your licence should be decided on your merits, not other clubs failings

The other problem in this is like it or not, what happens to you set a precedence for the future , just what exactly would a club have to do to get its licence revoked, murder?

So when the RFL ask what they forecast attendances to be, NewCo should say what exactly? We have no idea as we can't possibly expect any of the people who come to every home game to continue so doing?

I have no idea what you mean in your first point but in general terms I agree the team with the best proposal should get a licence.

The second point depends on the RFLs motives. If they decide that making an example of the Bulls is more helpful than running SL with the Bulls, then they should revoke the licence. If, however, they believe that having the Bulls in SL is better for the sport, they shouldn't revoke it. It's their call.

It is their call, so they should make it, not put Championship clubs up against the Bulls in a pointless contest to attempt to justify it

This actually is also the point I was making

I'm not sure how what happens to the Bulls involves precedents when no club has previously had their license revoked.

Were it proved a club enaged in murder that probably would raise questions about fit and proper persons at boardroom level, yes. I suggest in such a case the person who is suspected of carrying out the said crime be charged and prosecuted personally, much as I feel should happen in this case, although going into administration is in itself, not a crime. Unlike you I don't see why a long standing, well supported, much loved organisation should be destroyed by the actions of individuals. I agree on the licensing process having failed, on the bizarre decision to lend Peter Hood 700k and the general failures of the RFL.

If Fev, Leigh or Fax were fit to be in SL , or if Super League had 10 clubs of the size of the Bulls there'd be an argument. They're not and they don't.

To be honest the Bulls over spent and if do not pay all their debts should be relegated like any club.Sport should be done fairly and Fax or Leigh should be given a chance.There is a reason for the salary cap so teams do not over spend.Cheap season tickets probably did not help either.Nothing against Bradford but if all debts paid then stay in Superleague.

You still dont seem to be grasping my point

Issue 1 , should the bulls be demoted? ,that is the question, they have brought the game into disrepute, does that disrepute need punishing with a loss of licence? That is the question

Issue 2 , if the Bulls are demoted, then and only then should the question of who replaces them be considered

The 2 issues are totally seperate and should remain so

So yes it is the RFL s call, but it seems they are reluctant to make it, why?

It seems to me that they are essentially going to use the supposed failings of the Championship clubs to make the decision for them , that is wrong

Life isn't fair; get over it. Is it fair that there are clubs with sugar daddies making up the difference because they're living beyond their means?

I could accept a drop to a lower division because ethically that's the right thing to do but it probably isn't going to happen. If you think the RFL is bent, give up watching the game.

They should give a guess.
It should then be classed as 'speculative' which is what did for Fax by all accounts.

But I guess Ok Bulls will be happy to hypocritically point to the historic figures of the OldCo, The same company they were ever so quick to dump.

I already have

He has by all accounts.
Can you guess the major reason why?

Also can someone remind the club that you are now est-2012 just in case they 'forget'.

Look I couldnt care less if they drop down or not, but that decision should NOT be put at the feet of Championship Clubs, it is the RFL/SLE s decision, they should make it irrespective of the quality of the replacements available

The Championship clubs are going to be placed into a contest they cannot win

We can't have it both ways, we can't take over any of the good this club has achieved to the newco, but we can take the bad and punish the new management, players and fans who have nothing to do with the awful running of the club.

Seems an intelligent and well thought out view point. When RL struggles for fans I think the best thing to do would be to cut one of the clubs involved in a large proportion of the highest attended games.

It's not that we deserve to be in super league, it's the fact that the other teams want a 14 team league and nobody else is a viable option for SL.

Were you on the Trinity board spouting this bitter rubbish last year? And if you say no because they paid their debts - the punishment for debt was supposed to be the 6 point dectuction -you can't have it both ways

Christ almighty, could you be any more bitter?

What they meant by 'speculative' was having zero relationship to anything real or concrete in the last 10 years. In other words 'bo££ox'.

It's not hyspocrisy, speculation or guessing. The Bulls have fans as demonstrated by the attendance figures over many years. Fax don't.

But your OldCo DIDN'T pay any debts so the 6 points stuck.
You then went to the wall and the last time I checked Wakefield didn't and they still only survived by Crusaders going belly up.
If you want to keep wrongly connecting the 2 go for it but just try to remember all the facts not only the ones you want to remember.

Yep.
I just don't think that it's fine to dump all the debt and carry on as if nothing has happened.
I personally am not happy that you have dodged a £1/2M of tax without attempting to pay any of it and then carry on in SL.
Not to mention all your other suppliers who have got diddly-squat.
If you had entered a CVA at least you would have tried to do the right thing by paying 'something' back.
No doubt you will continue to quote your previous wins and carry on in SL even though you were so quick to dump that history when it suited you.

I personally want the Bulls in SL simply because of the crowds they bring to the game which has got to be good for SL.
However if the rules state you must not go into debt and the penalty is relegation than the Bulls should be relegated .
If the rules state you go into debt and you get a 6 point deduction then this has already happened.
Some clarification would be good on what the rules actually say.
The issue is if the Bulls were relegated and a team from the lower league was promoted. Could that team meet the criteria regardless of the amount of fans they could bring to the game.
Sadly I do not think there is a team that could measure up thus leaving SL with only 13 clubs.
To say that the Bulls are good for the game so don`t relegate us is not a good argument IMO.
Whatever the penalty is for the crime it should be adhered to and to be honest I have not got a clue what that penalty is.