Is it up to the RFL to come with an alternative? Nobody else in the world has. Why would they be able to?

There has to be a model that's more sustainable than what we have? It's a challenge to come up with any ideas that would be workable though. I'd like to see club directors given more scrutiny by properly constituted supporters trusts to ensure that money was being spent appropriately and with the long term health of the club in mind. That could be made a byelaw and condition of club ownership. Of course it might put some off investing!!

Ditto football, ditto yawnion.

I have heard that argument, & the similar "I am not going again while X coach is in charge", quite regularly over the years. I find it not believable unless you have had a personal altercation with the said person or know something so extreme that you dare not risk your life disclosing it. What in reality has happened is they no longer have the affection for the game or the team is no longer winning. When the CEO or coach changes it rarely changes their attitude, unless they start winning every week of course.

Would there be a chance of bank directors being given more scrutiny by properly constituted customers trusts? No, and that's in a game where bankers scramble for gravy-train directorships.

Practically nobody wants to run rugby clubs. And none of them make any money by it. You seriously think the few remaining who want to take it on, would tolerate outside busybodies telling them what to do and how to do it, and having some formal rights to stick their regular oar in? Can't see it meself.

You are right the major clubs in Football and Yawnion by and large have rich backers, but these two games also manage to bring in large amounts of sponsorship and or money from internationals. The TV advert for the Lions tour probably had more spent on it than the whole SL budget for the year. I have already bought tickets for the RL world cup but there is a danger this could still cost the RFL money and give John Inverdale something to sneer at.

If your average SL club spends to the cap £1.8m on the squad and as much again the off field activities then you need both a reasonable amount of sponsorship and a gate averaging 15,000 if the clubs wealthy backer is not going to be required to get his cheque book out. So at the moment maybe only Wigan and Leeds are paying their way.

Touch of the Utopia for a Friday afternoon?

But I assume you are coming from the standpoint that as it stands the group of people who invest the most into the clubs each year are of course the fans? What did the Founding Fathers say " no taxation without representation"

Respect to Omar. Here's hoping he can get some other Bradford businesses on board too. He can't be expected to shoulder the burden all alone.

I think the misguided concept was that sport is a business. It is not, there are similarities and there are business principles that can be used to run a club, keeping costs low and revenues as high as possible.

However, if TESCO's want people to spend more money, they can open for longer, sell a different range of products, etc etc.

Sporting clubs cannot. If the Bulls suddenly started selling Leeds matches, they would not make more money.

They can't add extra games.

Put simply, you could have the best players in the world, as Bradford did, when their time expires, the costs of those players far outstrip the revenues from the few extra fans, also other clubs will not stand by and let one team continue forever at the top of the game.

With sport it's never going to make money except for the one or two teams at the very top, with a large enough fan base.

The only way you could stop clubs going bust is to have a breakeven rule, but that would mean clubs living within their means and so the pecking order of clubs would become more fixed and moving out of that order more difficult.

There is the american model which is a true franchise system, but I am not sure if this stops clubs going bust.

Most footy clubs with all the wealth that there is in that sport still struggle to breakeven.

Supporters desire for success, undermines any financial stability.

Hope this comes to reality and assuming it does it's great news for the Bulls but also RL in general. Can't understand why so many supposed fans of the game took so much delight in the difficulties and possible demise of Bradford (including some fans of my own team). As has been pointed out I would think the vast majority of clubs are treading a very thin line and we should all be wary. As with other sports single ownership by a money man is ok as long as he retains interest and health.
Good luck to the Bulls (except against us last game of the season!), although I admit never been my favourite team I would hate to see them, or any other club, going under.

I think sometimes it might be an excuse when, for other reasons, someone is unable to go to games. A lot of people are finding it hard to to justify the cost of watching sport each week when their disposable income is dropping - maybe, "I'm not going whilst he's in charge", is just a way of saving face. I'm pretty sure Bradford is neither alone with nor immune to those pressures.

It makes you wonder where all the 'backers' for Messrs Hood and Caisley have gone. Supposedly they were queueing up to join either scheme should their man have won the power battle. Perhaps they are not true Bulls fans (always assuming they existed in the first place).

It so is. It's pathetic. Really pathetic. I mean, if the person in charge even KNEW that X wasn't going because X was in charge, that would at least be something, if not much, but X doesn't know, doesn't care, wouldn't care if he did, and doesn't know X from Adam. Utterly empty and pointless gesture, even if true.

Well we've a huge resource that is only used 14 times a season and that's Odsal.

It seems the new board are trying to correct this with things like the concerts they've put on. But they really need to up the usage to actually make the place worthwhile. But really, there's no money in RL, regardless of which team is being discussed.

I saw an absolutely huge Asian wedding going on at Odsal a few months back. There must have been hundreds of guests as the convoy of cars and limos stretched way down Halifax Road. That kind of thing must bring in a few bob.

I can't think of a more romantic setting

Why the wink????

I think it's ideal for any big celebration; the Coral stand is far enough away from any housing for noise not to be a [major problem and the interior is a nice environment and, no doubt, even better when done up with the the usual wedding ornamentation etc.

Well there's a piece in today's T&A about how OK could lose everything without additional investment. Tbh though, it seems more like an attempt to guilt stay away fans into buying tickets and stop being armchair supporters.

It also said that we're waiting to hear from the RFL regards more money for Kopczak

I didn't read it that way to be honest. I think was more the reality that Omar doesn't have bottomless pockets. He's released a big chunk of money on this occasion, but he simply doesn't have the resources to keep doing that.

The last impression that needs to be given is that Omar is just going to keep bankrolling the club like a Ken Davy or Roman Abromovich.

Huddersfield are lucky - big money supporter and relatively low gates, but the consistent achievers - Leeds, Wigan and co all have gates averaging 3/4000 more than we do which is giving them a £1m start on us at present even before the Sky shareout. I known its the old chicken and egg problem but we are always going to struggle on average gates around the 8000 level

Having spoken to several fans recently(fans who no longer attend games) the message from them seemed to be the wilderness years under previous regimes seems to have put them off. We are talking about supporters who went to all games and events. They don't support other clubs but are armchair supporters who are still interested in the fortunes of the Club, but we need to get them back. They also mentioned the stupid fixture lists as one of the drawbacks. With a few more winning matches it may encourage more to return.

With regard to getting some more cash in, one thing which seems to have dropped under the radar is the issuing of more shares. It was mentioned at the first forum after Omar took over and at the next one, when they said they were, "still looking at the best way to do it". Well we're now nine or ten months on from that and since then it's not even been mentioned - I wonder why?

Think the problem is we currently operate below breakeven - so if you cannot increase the gate and or sponsorship you have a shortfall every season. So if you have a share issue you help plug the current year's gap - but you cannot do this every year. Now if you said we want to raise £xxx to bring in player A, B and C which then brought more fans through the gate and improved results that would offer a better payback than just filling the cash flow hole and perhaps be more likely to get a better response?

I can't disagree with your logic, but they haven't done that either.

The only caveat I'd offer on that idea is that, unlike when when we did something similar to bring in Deryck Fox, it isn't really transfer fees which need paying these days, as players are rarely 'bought' from other clubs, but on-going contract money and I'm not sure how that would work, since as you say you can't do it every year.

Whatever they choose to do though, and they did say they were thinking of a share issue, they haven't followed it through, not as yet, anyway, and a one off or not, it would be cash in club's coffers but only if they actually get the shares issued...