The Bulls will remain in SL as to give the place to another club would not be a great thing to do as that club would be a year behind of where they should be.The RFL wont dare kick the Bulls out with the fan base they have though that might change.
The new owner has said he wants to make Odsal the Wembley of the north and that will cost a lot of money so the playing side will suffer hes said as much as that in the T&A.There wont be cheap season tickets and people have to cut the cloth so inevitable that some fans wont be going and that would happen at any club.

Oh well that's ok then. So administration is ok at the beginning of the season, just not at the end.

Well of course the Bulls will stay in SL. The new owner is the right person to "Curry" favour with the RFL!

Take aways all round!

Although Omar did baulk at the small print saying Nigel Woods would be entitled to free all you can eat buffets at his restaurants!

On your first point who's to say that the Bulls will not be whipping boys for next 3 years as they will need to budget accordingly and with some Sky money spent already they will struggle to match this seasons contracts for next year and can see a lot of players going and the one's coming in not as good.

I think the outcome will be that the Bulls will remain in SL.

I would choose to either:-

1.Have a secret ballot of all existing Super League club chairmen(women to be PC)/CEO - (a secret ballot means that people vote freely and do not feel under undue pressure to be seen to vote a certain way, or worry of the consequences on the future of their own club).

2. A mini franchise round (which we appear to be having). The major difference here as opposed to Wakefield and Crusader's situation last year is that there is such a small time frame to put an application together. The new OK owners have very little time to get to grips with franchise requirements and submit a realistic bid. In the same way there is little time for any selected Championship clubs to pull together an application. Further, it would be difficult for a Championship club to pull together a competitive squad for next year, this close to the end of the season. Admittedly we can speculate how many of the Bulls players have agreed terms elsewhere for next year, however the nucleaus of the squad is there and puts them in a better position.

Irrespective of all this "can't manage without the Bulls"/"crowd pulling power" etc talk let's just stick to the basics.

My preferences are listed above and the RFL seems to have adopted the mini franchise process. Time is limited which is a hinderance but at least there is some form of assessment. Maybe do away with grades A, B and C which is controversial and just say who is strongest out of the applicants.

Irrespective, I really do hope that OK Bulls seek to honour many of the legacy creditors. The fans have suffered enough this season as have many of the release staff. The creditors are the victims that many have not talked about and they are probably some of the most innocent in all of this.

Does anybody else on here hope that the mini franchising round replaces Wakefield with Fev?

So should all the clubs who didn't get an A licence be involved in the franchising round? Just to make it fair?

Probably --but I am one who doesn't.. Despite some Trinity fans raising our hackles by misrepresenting the actual position I believe the majority of their fans (and fans of other clubs) do want us to stay. What Glover has done at Wakefield is remarkable and should point the way for many clubs . Three things stand out for me:
a 30% increase in crowds ,
improving the old stadium whilst still moving ahead with plans for a new ground
appointing Agar when most thought he had blown his chance at Hull
I'll be hoping that we win at Catalans and Wakey lose at Salford. But if that's not the case then I'll be hoping the Wildcats do well in the play--offs

That`s only because they will be playing Leeds most likely

Why would Omar Khan pay off the debts run up by others?

All this feeling sorry for the suppliers who have been shafted smells of people trying to take the moral high ground, in reality the suppliers traded with the Bulls as a business, anyone with an ounce of common sense would treat any sports team based buisness with caution and take out Trade Credit Insurance to cover for all enventualities. My company deals extensively with blue chip multi nationals and we take out cover on every contract.....

If we're talking of hope; I hope automatic one-up, one-down promotion and relegation between the leagues is introduced immediately - so that we can be rid of all this nonsense.

It does. And it rings especially hollow from supporters of clubs like Wakefield who have been there, done that. But you may well not have got an underwritten specific limit on the Bulls under a mainstream credit insurance policy, as their creditworthiness would probably have been too restricted.

The likes of Euler Hermes and Atradius (who I have dealt with through major policies for many years) will write individual limits on multinationals at will. And relatively cheaply too because the risks are generally low. You will find it far harder to get them to give you a limit on a business like the Bulls, especially if other clients of theirs have already grabbed and are sitting on what overall limit is available.

Not many small businesses are really in a position to take out credit insurance. The costs and the admin are too high, they often do not have a wide enough customer base to secure the standard "whole turnover" policy at reasonable cost, and it is devilishly difficult to stay within the parameters for not having to request a specific limit. The best many can hope for is a CPA policy, but then they so often blow their cover by not handing the debt over for collection when it falls outside the terms set out in the policy, or setting a limit when the available evidence suggests they should not have.

Don't think Wakey are involved in the mini franchising, isn't it just us and three Championship sides?

You what? I suggest anybody asked to provide services to any sports club should require cash up front.

no they shouldn't, but they will.

yes i am a Fax Fan, however i am not saying this in malice.

Your licence was up for debate again as soon as you entered admin. Now as the new Co you cant (in my opinion) rely on past attendances/honours to keep you in the top league.

all you put forward in your 'new' bid is speculative (like ours was last time around)

People in this thread have commented on the Bulls having the 'fanbase' and Fax simply "don't"

i put this question forward to you all. what would the attendances be at Odsal next season if you were downed to the Championship? all paying normal Championship prices (roughly £160 for a season ticket)

i realise this is SPECULATIVE but unfortunatly this is all we all have to go on.

Re the comments above that say suppliers should have insurance. That sounds like what a little scrote of a car thief said when asked how the car owner feels. "What's he worried about he's insured"

Do you live in the real world?

Have you tried asking a much bigger business for cash up front?

Likely response #1: "Well there are plenty more where you came from if you won't supply on credit and on our terms."

Likley response #2: "Fekk off you time-wasting ässhole."

You might as well advise any small business never to deal with any sports club.

If you think sports clubs are risky , try the double glazing industry

To be honest in the current climate if you were giving objective advice to a small business you would tell them to be careful trading with a sports clubs - especially if they were in the business of hosting web sites!

Indeed you would. ATEOTD its down to the commercial risk a small business is prepared to take. All too often it is like a tragic game of pass the parcel - you just hope and pray its not you left holding it when the music stops and it goes off...

Same as why, for example, I did not take up the offer of one of the multi-year season tickets.

And did you miss a couple of words out of the second part of your post?

you're soooo transparent sometimes !

Perhaps they should, but almost certainly they won't get the business, because there'll be another supplier who will offer credit terms. Of course, in the event of the debtor going tits, they can have a chortle, but even then they didn't get the profit on the business in the years before it went tits, and if like most sports clubs it doesn't go tits, they've lost a good customer.

It's essentially a business risk. Which is not to say I don't feel sorry for creditors affected - I've been there done that with other failed companies and it is not nice - but the Bulls aren't the first UK business to become insolvent.

If you can trade on a cash up front only basis, then great, and some do, but I'd guess the majority don't have the luxury of being able to restrict the people they do business with in that way.

I don't know what you mean?

But while we are dispensing valuable business consultancy advice I would also recommend the management of Website companys not to diversify into the management of sports clubs. Though on a serious note there clearly was at least one former director who did take a hit to the wallet as a result of the administration, I haven't seen the statement of affairs but assume that must have been one of the bigger trade creditors?

You might suppose that; I could not [ipossibly[/i comment...

To be fair it's not easy for people running companies when trade is hard to find.

I worked for a firm during the eighties, a firm which made textile equipment as its major money spinner, and it was struggling very badly as the industry contracted and the customer base simply closed down beneath us. The company diversified into other areas with partial success, but in reality was slowly bleeding from a thousand cuts in its core business.

The final straw was when they got a large order from China, from a source they'd dealt with previously, and went ahead and ordered the materials without waiting for a letter of credit, and I guess you can work out what happened when the order was cancelled after work had already started on it.

It was stupid. Everyone agreed it was stupid, and diabolical business practice, but desperate times called for desperate measures and anyway, without the Chinese contract the firm was most likely dead anyway. Small firms are just blown around in these sort of circumstances and sometimes it's difficult allocate 'blame', even though you know that blame has to be allocated.