No , just give you the licence now and have done with it

I doubt we could even agree on how to frame the question.

Mine would be:

Which of the following should the RFL retain?

A. The Bradford Bulls in SL

or

B. Licensing

This is why they are looking to use the Championship clubs as ' cannon fodder ' , and the idiots at those clubs cannot see it

Did he say he wouldn't? If they do, what do you think he will do - write off the money he has put in? Please at least [itry[/i to think about what you type.





One would be that people like you couldn't then whinge that nobody else was given a chance. But you seem to be, without knowing it, of the 100% firm conviction that the Bulls are the only sensible choice.

Quite correct , but as has been pointed out , if they are , then it puts the whole of principle of ' Licencing ' to question

Thats why they are going to use the Championship Clubs as the ' fall guys ' and it stinks

AGAIN

Every competition is run on an ‘it depends’ basis. Any competition which ties its own hands and deals with situations which are blatantly different in the same way is just damaging itself.

And yes the RFL have rules set down. They are following those rules.

They don’t care, the bleating of a minority of vested interests makes next to no impact on them.

It seems very strange that you are demanding Bradford be relegated, why not Wakefield aswell then?

Sheffield have released a statement saying they will not be taking part in any "mini" licencing round.

Er, that's precisely what I did, but thank you for so kindly granting me permission to make further posts, I can't tell you how grateful I am.

There are no fall guys. If a club put in a manifestly better application, but were refused despite their application being a far better prospect than Bradford, then they would be a fall guy.

You are not thinking straight. Either there is a better bet for SL than Bradford, or there isn't. This does not put the whole priociple of "licencing" in question, on the contrary, it is the whole firkin point of licencing, to get the best 'applicant'.

But you are also arguing that by definition of it being a Newco Bradford don’t have a licence at the moment and this process would involve the RFL granting a new one. If by that definition Bradford are a newco, then Bradford haven’t shown any lack of skill in those departments, another different club did. Surely you can accept it would be wrong to remove Bradfords licence for what another, different club did?

Or, Bradford are the old club, which is keeping its licence having been bought and carrying on.


Yet they were before, as Widnes did, then they weren’t in the last round (and this stopped 0 clubs who were eligible applying) and then they were again. Why only this time the outrage?
There are rules, just not rules which make us make a decision that everybody seems to accept would lead us to a conclusion nobody seems to think is for the best.

No , the WHOLE FIRKIN POINT OF LICENCING IS WE SHOULDNT BE HAVING A MID LICENCE PERIOD APPLICATION PROCESS YOU FIRKIN NUMPTY

WE ARE BECAUSE YOUR FIRKIN USELESS CLUB MADE A FIRKIN MESS OF HAVING A LICENCE IN THE FIRST FIRKIN PLACE

HTH

Do we know if they were asked to?

Within the criteria , they are/were as entitled to do so as much as Fev and Leigh

bang on!

Nail. On. Head.

To use a real world analogy, its like having an employee who has committed gross misconduct but deciding to delay a decision on sacking him/her until you have interviewed potential replacements. If there's nobody better qualified or more experienced who applies then he keeps his job, despite his gross misconduct.

Awww, don't take on so!



Er, no. The second half of that sentence is not capable of being a "point" of licencing, let alone "the whole point". Your grammar is as bad as your manners, and demonstrates which of us is the numpty.


No, we are because the RFL has decided to offer other non-SL clubs the chance to make a case to (presumably) replace the Bulls. I wouldn't know why them doing that upsets you so, but I don't think it's good for your blood pressure.

Its me who's patting you on the head sunshine , you made quite the most ridiculous statement of this whole sorry mess , the fact you tried to pull some grammar just makes you more pathetic , you admit you dont understand the point I am making , that just adds to the impression of your stupidity

Hmmm. Please list OK Bulls Ltd.'s "gross misconduct" as to why they should not hold a licence, and I'll give that some thought.

You do actually know that BBHL, ie the people who were running it ie Hood and the former board, are no longer there don't you? Your analogy doesn't work, because neither Omar Khan, Gerry Sutcliffe nor OK BUlls Ltd were at any time in the employ of the oldco. And the people who were (principally the players, but also the rest of the retained staff, and the coaching staff) are absolutely not, on any view, the persons who did any "gross misconduct", if anybody did.

Your analogy fails as you are desperate to punish the people whose fault it is not, because you can't punish the people whoever they may be whose fault it is, but your are being unfair.

Awww bless.

I pulled the grammar point as the statement you made is a simple [inon sequitur[/i. Thus a non-point.

The thing is, you make so many incomprehensible or stupid points, it's hard to know which particular one you are now on about. If you tell me what your killer point is, I'll give it my best shot.

Good analogy. Any Championship side that gets involved in this farce deserves all they get. Don't legitimise it!

If some of the CC clubs apply for SL status, to join SL next season, they do risk falling on their sword.
Year 1 (next season) they would do well to avoid the wooden spoon followed by a possible small improvement in their second season, which would be the third of the current licensing round, at which point they would probably be the weakest application for the next full round of applications.
At this point in time, it would be wise for them to keep their tinder dry and save everything for next time round, assuming a super league "cul" does not take place.

What does he think he'll get for 6 million quid? Has he any idea about the cost of sports stadia. It's a bit more expensive than opening a new restaurant.

A few years ago Halifax Council FINISHED OFF (Note: not completely built) the East Stand at The Shay.

That cost over 5 million.

And yet, on the Bulls forum you are claiming that the club is a continuous entity and the changing of companies is irrelevant. Make your mind up.

On the flip side of the coin you could argue that once your in club you have all the advantages that come with. I certainly think it helped us last year. Your always going to have a stronger bid from been a SLE member that anyone from the CC. Having said that it’s not going to apply because the Bulls will be in next season and onwards. For me that decision was made by the Grand Master of the inner clique Eamonn McManus when he publicly came out in support. Him and the 3 other top bosses of SLE clubs seem to have to biggest influence on what direction the game takes.

In which case the licence is carrying on with the same club.

It is one or the other. Bradford, new club, none of the issues of the old ownership are relevent, Bradford old club, Licence is theirs.