According to information from another poster on another forum, the Bradford Bulls Holding Company is a special purpose vehicle to allow transfer of assets from the Bulls Ltd to OK Bulls. It helps them leave their debts with the old company.

The old company does still exist but has been "asset stripped" and now has only debts against it's name. It will be wound up asap so that creditors cannot go after the directors.

I guess the question is, since the SL licence was issued to the old company, is it transferable as an asset or is it the sole property of the old company to whom it was issued.

If that is the case, that would be why the RFL are doing this mini licence application excercise so that they can rubber stamp a new licence issue to OK Bulls.

Has anybody told Huddersfield, Hull KR, Wakefield, Castleford and Salford that p and r wasn't working. Isn't that how they ended up in SL ar various times.

Exactly.

No, but it might make the next SL CEO who wants to chase success without balancing his budget change his mind if he thought his club might end up in the Championship as a reult of his strategies.

Why would it, it isnt his club anymore, he isnt the chairman anymore and he has no links with the club anymore.

Fair enough, but it is too obvious to maintain the pretence that the framework of licensing has meaning or value.



Fine - give New Bradford a franchise (as distinct from a licence). It'll be a whiffy retcon, but if there isn't a better solution, then so be it, so long as they don't maintain the pretence of due process and an attitude of 'carry on as we were'. I've got not a problem with Bradford, I don't want to 'punish' them. But talk of 'demotion' for a newco of this type is preposterous under the system you're trying to prop up. They didn't just go into admin, they failed to emerge from it and just started over (it seems from the limited info available).

The point of 'punishing' them in these circumstances is twofold:

1. To try to persuade future white knights who save clubs to not just wait until the last minute, buy the assets and dodge the liabilities. This ('punishment') increases the chances of creditors getting some of their money and means that the reputation of the sport is less damaged.
2. To leave licensing with some credibility. I'm not saying it is worth it, but that's the choice (it seems). A Newco Bulls in SL or a credible licensing system - you [ican't[/i have both.

As for the lack of suitable replacements, that is a structural issue that is unlikely change until the structures do. If necessary let's admit that and choose the least unpalatable course of action.

I'm not arguing particularly for or against any system. I'm not even arguing for integrity - just honesty when the truth is obvious, and against an illogical and doomed effort from those in charge to have their cake and eat it.

Surely the 'due process' is the fairly simple and obvious process of seeing if firstly Bradford are capable of being an SL club in their new form, and secondly to see 'if there is a better solution'. We all (it seems) assume Bradford are, and that there isnt. But what is the harm in the RFL doing a bit more research in to it? If the cynicism is removed and we dont start from a point where the world is bad and the RFL corrupt they seem to be doing the obviously sensible thing.

Or, conversely it could dissuade a 'white knight' from saving a club at all and the creditors get nothing, the reputation of the sport still suffers and we lose a club. Punishing a 'white knight' for being a white knight seems an odd thing to do, especially when being a white knight is a good thing
If franchising is to have the best clubs in SL, and Bradford are one of the best clubs, the having Bradford in SL supports the credibility of franchising.

I think we do admit it.

If the RFL are being honest, and the Bulls arent guaranteed an SL place, and they are still being assessed then how could they prove that to you?

Bulls want it both ways...no punishments, cos that was the old club, that was.

But still want to claim the history and records.

Is it a new, debt free club or is it the iconic old Bulls that we all know and love?

Which is fine, if you have a system predicated on 'sensible', just doing what is [ubest[/u. But licensing is (supposedly) about a consistent application of a detailed and comprehensive framework and doing what is [uright[/u within the context of it. An ad hoc, make it up as you go along approach renders the principles of licensing obsolete.



Of [ifranchising[/i, yes. That is subtley but significantly different from what was advertised though, so this would represent a change, whether they admit it or not.

They are many arguements for and against the current farce that is unfolding yet I would hold your breath whilst waiting for an answer from the RFL. They will bottle it like they always do hiding behind some smoke screen ( that appears their only consistency)
I sure no real rugby fan from any club will want to see any club fold but Bradford have to pay the penalty for the mis mangement of previous board and subsequent going into administration.
The RFL should take a leaf out of the Scottish Footbal Assoc in the way they dealt with Rangers. They showed that there is no one club bigger than the game relegating the mighty Rangers to the lower regions on the
Scottish league, akin the dropping the bulls into the conferece.
So come on RFL show some b4lls and make a decision.

I'm sure the creditors that receive their 10% are over the moon with that.

Actually, it says that if Bradford ARE one of the best clubs in SL then SL itself is sheeeeiiite. But it doesn't because you're wrong.

Bradford WERE one of the best clubs, until they spent money they didn't have. Keep spinning your bullsheet though, it's an entertaining read.

from what you are saying it seems that you see some process within the franchise framework which isnt being adhered to, i dont know what process they arent following. And I would think it a stretch to argue that (from the RFL's point of view) licensing/franchising isnt a system predicated on doing what is sensible and what is 'best'.

Its almost as if people are criticising the RFL for there not been a rule stating outright, no equivocation, administration equals demotion, then criticising them for not following this rule which doesnt exist, then criticising them for taking an ad hoc approach, even though they accept that there will always be a necessary element of an ad hoc approach.

It is a change, but there would always, and will always be subtle changes to whatever system is implemented.

As i said, the three year time period was a mistake, it should be gotten rid of. It is unnecessary and arbitrary.
I also disagree with the 'competition' element of the way it has been advertised. It again was unnecessary. The franchising process shouldnt be a 'competition' between the clubs. It should be a pathway for each and every club. I think that if Leigh, or Halifax, or whoever were capable of being a Bradford, a Leeds, a saints, a wigan etc, then they would be in SL, we would expand SL to accommodate them. For all the arguments of there being too many clubs, i would argue we dont have enough, we need more, but they need to be up to standard.

That is the attitude the game needs to have, you are in SL on your own merits, because you add to SL, because you add more value to SL than you take out. Not because you are better than clubs x,y and z.

If we were to promote Halifax, Leigh, Featherstone, or whoever else it should be because of what they bring to SL, not as a default for Bradfords failure.

Im sure whether Bradford are in SL or the Championship it doesnt make a blind bit of difference to the creditors.

I'm not saying administration equals demotion in licensing. If the club had [iemerged[/i from administration then it would be possible to say everything was above board. A newco is a step too far, IMO. If even under these circumstances a phoenix club can gain a licence, then the bar is set so low... well there isn't a bar. A club can fail utterly, despite all the advantages of its SL status, and start fresh with a clean slate - so long as the other members of the club decide they are wanted. All the independent scrutiny, and measurement against criteria are meaningless. Perhaps they always were - but now we know.



I don't see it as subtle, but perhaps I wasn't cynical enough from the start.





That's not at all unreasonable - if that was the system we had or even the one we were changing to as a result of all this. Early press reports indicate they're planning something altogether more hypocritical. Hopefully they see sense and choose something that isn't self-contradictory.

Is that how Crusaders got a license? What value have Bradford added to SL since they were last granted a license? Six months of media attention that the game never gets. Smashing that.

I suppose the RFL have got the lease of an "iconic" stadium at a £750k snip. That's certainly more value added to what Bradford have taken out. Well done them.

It's not a newco is it? I was under the impression that Khan & Sutcliffe have bought the club, not that the club has gone under?

It is a newco. OK Bulls Ltd have bought the assets of Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd (but of course not the liabilities), they have not bought BBHL per se. Which is why the new owners have had to apply for membership of the RFL as it is a completely new undertaking. As things currently stand, until the RFL board meeting later this week Bradford Bulls are not a member club of the RFL.

Really? Because everything I've seen says that the administrator has sold Bradford Bulls Holdings to OK Bulls

Fair enough, new business, new club, no past, no history, no SL titles, no CC wins, no WCC wins, a totally Speculative business plan, judge against that?

We could really do with a journalist to ask the question and clarify the situation. There was reference on the Bulls board to a letter sent to creditors indicating that they wouldn't be getting any money, the sale money all going on administration costs - no talk of a CVA or such like. There's a couple of other things as well, but as I say it'd be useful if somebody asked.
If it was an emergence from admin, I doubt there'd be the speculation about a mini round of licence applications. The points deduction would be enough, based on what happened last year.

Yes really. The announcement was that the administrator had sold the "business & assets" of BBHL to OK Bulls Ltd. The "business and assets" is not the company. If Omar Khan had bought the company he would not need to set up another company to do it, he would simply take over the shareholding of the existing company.

The RFL are on record as saying that there is to be a meeting this week to discuss admitting the new company as members of the RFL, which is a bit of a clue really.

I'd thought that the RFL were still carrying out due diligence on Khan and that's the delay in transferring RFL membership. As for business and assets, most reports have just said either the club has been sold to OK Bulls or that the company (BBH) has, but as I understand it (which is by no means a good understanding!) I'd thought that a business and assets sale is basically just another way of selling the company instead of through a share sale. As for having another holding company well lots of clubs do/have done that and IIRC Wakey did out of admin, IIRC Wigan set up a new holding company when Lenagan took over and Leeds CF&AC are owned by Leeds Rugby Ltd.

Like Mild Rover says though, it'd helpful if there was a statement on it all.

If the club has been sold then it is still the same club, not a new one, in the same way Wakefield or Widnes are still the same club. In this case it's still the same old Bradford, well going back as far as 1964 obviously.
Ah 1964, a new Bradford club accepted into the league and a top 16 playoff - I bet some RL fans were complaining somewhere.

The trading company is not the same as the sports club. Back in the day they were one and the same, but many (all?) of the SL clubs at least now operate a trading company that's legally separate from the sports club - in fact the trading company may well own more than one sports club.

It's an odd thing to say when the Bulls are still participating in this season's competition. How are they doing that if they aren't members of the RFL?

All somewhat opaque and confusing IMO. We really need a definitive statement clearing everything up, but I won't be holding my breath.