Exactly FA,the lunatics have really taken over

anyway. It hardly matters to them who goes out - the cost is the same.

I think the RFL will be trying to get their ludicrous idea of 2 x12s,then 3 x8s in place

Have you seen what funding each set of 8 gets,now that really is lunacy

Clubs will be going to the wall very soon

Not at all, the RFL know exactly why they need Bradford in the comp, that's one of the reasons we are still in the comp. Eg replace the Bulls with Sheffield - who are top of the Championship, yet drew a crowd of 841 last week - and see how much money [ithat[/i costs the comp over the season. I don't know how many of those paid what, but just for example if you averaged that @ £10 a speccy, that is £8410 x 11 = gate income of £92,510 for a whole 12 team season. Not counting that U16s are free, and many of the 841 would be season ticket holders and others would be OAPS etc paying significantly less. Last time they were in SL except when Leeds or Bradford were in town, they were basically declaring gates bet. 2500 - 3000 - with many gates that happened to be a perfectly round figure, which often happened to be 3000. It didn't work then (Huddersfield-Sheffield, anyone?) and it won't work now.

BTW just to avoid any doubt, I'm not arguing against them, or anyone, being promoted by the rules if the rules are changed. I'm just debunking the theory that from the RFL's perspective it "hardly matters" - little could be further from the truth.

Logically none of the other clubs will want to level the playing field financially and give us a better chance of surviving at the expense of their own club. I would not expect anything else if we were in their position. As long as nobody will get preferential treatment and it is decided on the field that is all we can ask.

Somebody posted on T&A website what Sky will say if London finish in bottom 2 next year, will they insist they stay in the top flight. Lets hope the RFL have consulted Sky about this before just doing it then finding out Sky say no

Could be another Peter Hood selling the lease on Odsal to the RFL then the bank calling in the overdraft cos we then had no assets to secure

Brian Carney, employed by Sky and speaking on Sky, seemed quite lukewarm about the need for a London club. Perhaps Sky have finally decided after 17 years of SL that it just isn't going to work at a professional level in the capital? They don't seem to show that many London games these days.

Don't show many of ours either,but yes I know what you mean

Bear in mind that's he's almost certainly including o'brien,naughton,wood, Roberts, Mellor and conroy in his 30-34 man squad who probably don't have ten SL games between them. So in reality were looking at a 22-28 squad of SL level players. If we get to upper end of that then its probably ok but if we're at lower end of that then well struggle again when injuries strike unless young lads really break through.

There should be no one 'safe' from relegation so that it's a level playing field.

Except it isn't a level playing field, because we have half as much Sky money as everyone else.

of the middle ground British players who are available. In a short pithy sentence, we get less bang for our buck.

It's pretty obvious that a club with reduced income is going to suffer more than others, of course.

But all the other clubs [iare[/i getting preferential treatment; we're £600K down and they're all around £50K up. At least they're not claiming "we're all in it together"..

It's hard to say just what influence Sky have over the RFL. Maybe also we shouldn't assume that Sky presenters are always speaking on behalf of management. The two Sky bods on Backchat were together in saying it was unfair that we should be on half money in such an important season as the one coming up, but hey-ho, exactly what did they ratify the very next day..

I might be wrong but aren`t all the other clubs getting more money than you due to the fact you borrowed the money up front to save you going bust?
Equally I don`t know how you can say you are badly treated compared to others when most clubs Leeds in particular bailed you out to help you survive.

I think this is pay back time for the way your club was run in the past.
There is no such thing as a free lunch remember and at some time debts need clearing.
Aside from all the handouts you got from players , supporters and othe SL Clubs to keep you afloat.
Short memory syndrome here I think.

Leeds,as well as all the other clubs are getting 100k each over 2 years thanks to the bulls

So if anybody helped us out,as Leeds did,they are getting quite a bit more back in return

I think the issue is that the people that got us into the mess and who are responsible for it got away scot free. The new owners are unfairly being penalised for that. Where's the justice in that? What good does it do and what message does it send? I think you're confusing the Bulls of the Hood era with the club now.

IMO it says that if you make mistakes we'll punish whoever picks up the pieces. That's totally unfair and counter productive.

It says to fans that you'll also have to suffer for the mistakes of previous regimes even though you weren't party to their mistakes and even though you kept the club afloat.

If I were the new owners of the Bulls it'd leave a sour taste in the mouth and make me extremely unlikely to do anything other than promote the clubs own interest over others in future. Is that a good thing?

Lastly, this isn't a go at Leeds who were one of the clubs that didn't want to take a portion of our Sky money but wanted to put the sum into promoting the game. Unfortunately other clubs voted to share our money amongst themselves.

you are wrong. The money we 'borrowed to keep us going during administration, was an advance of the remaining sky payments due to us for the 2012 season. we fulfilled all our commitments on the field during the season so we were entitled to that money. we had already used up the sky money due to for remainder of 2012 season by the time takeover happened and Omar Khan funded us out of his own pocket for period from august until november when 2013 sky payment kicked in (albeit a reduced amount). The reduction of sky money is nothing to do with the money advanced, Its never been clarified by RFL or Bulls exactly what the reason for it is but common view is its either a fine to discourage other clubs going down admin route to clear debts (and the amount deducted is pretty close to our total debt at time we went into admin) or it was a sweetener to get license for new company.

most bulls fans dont have a problem with the deduction. Its the price we paid for staying in the league. Its the subsequent decision by other clubs , leeds not included afaik, to share the money out amongst themselves which seems unfair.

The old management sold the lease of the ground to the RFL who then deducted the amount borrowed from the proceeds, so there was nothing owing to the FRL. The later money wasn't borrowed as such, it was an instalment of Sky money due to the club which was just paid a week early.
This nonsense has been done to death a million times last season - can't we be done with it?

Not knowing what you're talking about syndrome

Some interesting replies and pretty informative I have to say.
You are right the current management are taking a kicking due to the inept mis management of the club that got you into the mess.
Whatever happened to the old Board and how much have they contributed to keep the club afloat recently i wonder!?
Some positive comments about Leeds too who probably helped and or tried to help you much more than others did.
Yet you still hate the Rhinos

But with short memory syndrome you wont remeber what I said anyway so it is irelevant.

Remember what you said about what?

wouldnt be same if we didnt would it ?

As a first choice, the RFL should have paid that money to the previous regime's creditors. That would have been the best thing to do.

However, that would have taken much needed money out of the game, so putting it into the grassroots of the game would have been an excellent alternative (preferably in Bradford, but I can appreciate it not being used exclusively there).

There really isn't another option that made any sense at all.