Thats very good..........but who plays Sue Ellen?

Where is Caisley in all this? He has created the frenzy, but has appeared to have melted into the shadows.

If it's on iPlayer, I'd suggest you watch the BBC red-button discussion about Bradford after the Leeds/Wigan tie. A clearer line from the RFL with a long interview with Blake Solly, and input from Noble.

Can you summarise?

The absolute basics were that Solly couldn't guarantee the Bulls would be kept in SL (as the consortium demands) and Noble didn;t see why Bradford should get anything more than a Wakefield points deduction. They also said there have been no actual bids.

There was more than that, it went on for about 15 minutes , and the general impression was antipathy from the RFL towards the administators and how they're playing it, but I only had half an eye on it so perhaps someone else who saw it can expand.

I'd be surprised if he isn't the C in ABC.

Not for the first time has Mr Caisley been described as a C

And thats what Cannestan is for

Did I hear Solly correctly? I thought he said that, the 'new' punishment for "financial trouble" had been changed from points deduction to automatic relegation - which was why they couldn't promise to preserve SL status. Seems about right that we get the first opportunity to test drive the new policy when everyone else got a points deduction. Seems pretty shabby to just spring this on people, surely it's only natural justice to know what the punishment is going to be before you get hung for the offence?

RFL in making up the rules as they muddle along shocker...

Start to worry about this aspect once your club has been secured at the moment there doesn't appear to be any movement ona deal one step at a time

You miss the point sunshine. Catch 22. No SL status no ABC consortium bid therefore no club anyway.

Unless of course some other group was able to come in with a proposal, one that appealed to the RFL to such an extent that they felt able to mitigate the penalty, so allowing the white knights to feel able to proceed when the ABC lot felt they could not?

Plenty more twists and turns yet, I suspect, and who knows which fat lady will sing?

Did I also hear him say that Wigan & Leeds were examples of Clubs being run
financially sound without the help of a benefactor?

To be absolutely fair to the RFL (and, yes, it does slightly stick in the throat) they DID make it clear at the time of the awarding of franchises last year that clubs could have their license revoked.

Whilst it may seem unfair that we might dumped into the Championship, the points deduction for Wakefield and Crusaders was in the last license period. It is presumably in response to that sequence of events that the RFL made that hardline pronouncement on licenses.

It looks like it might come back to bite us, but its not strictly right to accuse the RFL of 'making it up as they go along'.

The bigger question is whether we'd have a consortium willing to take us over if we are going to be in the Championship?

Your final point brings another question to mind - being demoted into the Championship - or even further down - is one thing but it's whether it is possible to ever get back into the top flight again that would be on a lot of peoples minds.

It seems on from last nights news that Rangers could well be starting on the bottom rung of the Scottish leagues, but they can at least get back into the top flight by winning promotion. With SL it seems to be the only route from the Championship is via one of the existing SL clubs going bust, and what happens if several clubs hit the buffers in the near future?

In my opinion, without a rich benefactor the chances of Bulls surviving in the Championship, let alone securing a licence in the next round, would be close to nil.

If the club was relegated, kiss the academy and youth development in anything like its present form goodbye.

Kiss playing at Odsal goodbye.

I cannot conceive of ANYONE seeking to take the club over unless it remained in SL. Just can't see how it would be financially viable otherwise.

But never mind, eh? As certain people sought to tell you, some from the likes of Wakey and some from much nearer home, going into administration would be a relatively painless way of solving our problems at the expense of a one-off few points deducted and HMRC and the shareholders getting screwed.

Its legitimate enough if the RFL remove our SL license. But if they are going to do it they need to do it immediately, having reviewed any proposed deal for the club, not at the end of the season. The RFL have had their accountants "helping out" the club so should have a detailed understanding of our finances and should be able to fully evaluate any proposed deal for the club. That's when they have to make up their minds as to whether to remove the license. Clearly they would still have the option to remove the license if the deal proved to be not what was promised, or if there are further problems. But otherwise the license should either be removed immediately if the RFL are not happy with any deal, or remain until the end of the current license period.

Erm no I have not missed the point When Wakefield were bought out by AG there was no certainty of SL in fact the opposite, the club to all intents and purposes were gearing for the Championship but it didnt stop him buying the club. The bidder prior to AG wanted assurances but got nshort changed. You need a buyer first.

there was never any mention of wakefield losing their SL place for the remaining year of the license period IIRC.Parkin wanted a guarantee wakefield would be awarded a license for the current franchise period which RFL refused to give.

Thats correct yes but Wakefield were in danger of going out of business as you are now there was no gaurentee that would have been able to complete the fixtures, the difference then was that Wakefield went into Admin just before the fixtures started and wioth the new licenses coming up we were tipped to be outed due to Admin event though Crus had fared the same fate, a level playing field then! Ther issue now is that you have gone into Admin during the first year of the new license so its a dilema for the RFL. One has to ask the question how much the RFL knew 12 months ago of Bradfords plight?

I don't think anyone said that Administration would be "painless" - especially the Wakefield & Crusaders fans. If the company was anything other than a professional sports team, there wouldn't have been any argument as to whether Administration was or wasn't the right way to go.

The potential outcome of Administration is exactly the same as it was when this whole sorry mess came to the fore earlier in the season. The only difference is that the generosity of the Bradford fans has been tested to the limit by the outgoing BoD with the false promises of what would come through raising the £500k.

Now instead of HMRC & the shareholders getting screwed, you can add all of the Bradford fans to that list too..............oh, and the outgoing directors conveniently get out of having to pay the amounts they'd guaranteed to the bank!!!

Just think how different the future could be looking if the £500k had been available to be used towards a Supporter's Trust + ABC consortium joint venture instead.

Not this again....

There wouldn't have been 500k sat in a supporters trust.

Right, apolgies for the long post, but I've just spent the first half watching the cup semi also reading through the rfl operational rules. (I know, life on the edge is so thrilling). If I'm reading it correctly it does indicate that an "insolvency event" can automatically trigger a removal of membership;

[i"A3:1
4.5 Where a member is subject to an Insolvency Event, as defined below, the member concerned shall immediately cease to be a member..."[/i

An insolvency event is defined in a long list, the relevant bit for us (I think) is;

[iAn “Insolvency Event” shall occur if
...
(i) ...
(ii) any petition is presented or any demand under section 123(1)(a) of the 1986 Act is served on the company or an order is made or resolution passed for the winding up of the company or a notice is issued convening a meeting for the purpose of passing any such resolution;
(iii) any petition is presented for an administration order or any notice of the appointment or of intention to appoint an administrator of the company is filed in court or an administration order or interim order is made in relation to the company in each casewithin the meaning of the 1986 Act;
(iv) any administrative or other receiver or manager is appointed of the company or of all any part of its assets and/or undertaking within the meaning of Part III of the 1986 Act or otherwise..."[/i

I think thats us...

However, the rfl's duties, responces and outcomes are many and varied, and I'd sum them up by it them saying "we'll do what we want when we want judging each case seperatly at the time";

[i"In the event of a member ceasing to be a member upon notice from the Company by virtue of Acquisition, Change of Control or Insolvency Event, the Board, at its absolute discretion, shall have the right to readmit the member or admit a new member as a member on any terms as it sees fit, which for the avoidance of doubt, may include financial, administrative and/or sporting sanctions. In the event of membership continuing the Board may determine that membership shall be deemed to continue to subsist as if the member had not ceased to be a member at all. The Board will from time to time set out policy for the exercise of its discretion but is not bound by such policy or precedent decided under such policy or previous policy and the Board shall be entitled to amend any policy with immediate effect"[/i

is that law speak for we'll make it up as we go along thanks?

[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/Memorandum%20and%20Articles%20of%20Association.pdfrfl op rules[/url


My reading of it is we are rightly open to removal (or any other sanction the rfl see fit) according to the rules, which I presume were rewritten and strenghtned (quite rightly IMHO) after the wakey/cru situations? I would guess if we exit admin as the same company agreeing to pay off debts then we will be allowed to continue with our franchise and a points penalty and a warning for our future licance applications. If we liqudate and a newco is formed then the rfl have a choice to make, who knows what they'll do. I personaly would say the franchise dies with the company that won it, and the new company would need to reapply for its franchise, at the next round, from whichever championship league is kind enough to admit the newco......but who knows what will happen?

Indeed.

Sick and bloody tired of being lectured by Wakey fans who, lest we forget, NEVER HAD TO ACTUALLY DO IT THEMSELVES AND SO HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER ON WHICH TO DRAW OR ACHIEVEMENT THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE.

If I had to guess, I would say the RFL are desperate for a realistic proposal from a group who genuinely have the interests of the club and the game at heart, and are not playing games to further their own interests. I suspect that should they see such a firm, viable proposal, they will be inclined to take a lenient view. Equally, they can use the threat of loss of licence to deter any opportunist or less than wholesome bids. The gesture from Leeds has I suspect helped buy some more time for a bid, reflecting what the RFL are looking for, to be made.