l had to laugh reading the Leaguer, Bulls appoint MP as hon. Chairman, yes, thats "Member of Parliament"
An MP is akin to a cheap chinese watch, keep your eyes on their hands, they both tend to lie ...........a lot
They also stated they are in talkes with Bradford PA with a view to joining them at Odsal, along with
uncle Tom Cobbley and anyone else who knocks on the door, they,ve only just got the rent book, and already
they are looking to sub let, maybe the leaseholder might have something to say about this.
Khan is going to spend 6 big ones on something he does not own, or have any right other than a tenant,
do they know something the rest of us don,t. The plot thickens.
Just keep yer eye on that "member".

The club [iis[/i a continuous entity. It's now owned by a different company.

Except that clubs are not legal entities. Companies are. The members of the RFL are listed by their company name, as each member company holds a £1 ordinary share in the RFL. Therefore the licence was awarded to the member (i.e. the company), which has now become defunct and so the licence can not be continuous as the proposed licence holder is an entirely different new member of the RFL (when ratified).

Then none of the old issues are relevent whatsoever to the new company, it is an entirely new member and new company.

According to you, Bradford Bulls, have no history, at all, in any way shape or form, a history of financial mismanagement, another company, which operated a club with the same name, did.

No. The [ibusiness[/i has a history, the [icompany[/i doesn't. They are not the same things.

Just on the continuation of membership, the rfl's articles of association make intertesting reading, apologies for a mass quote but it might be interesting to some;

[iARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE RFL (GOVERNING BODY) LIMITED
00000Articles of Association of the RFL (Governing Body) Limited – Issue 10 – February 2012 (extract)

4.7 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.

4.8 The Board has the right (but not obligation) to stipulate in advance of an Acquisition. Change of Control or Insolvency Event, whether or not a member will be readmitted or a new member admitted in such circumstances and to stipulate what terms it will apply.

4.9 For the avoidance of doubt a Club may participate in Super League without being a member (at the discretion of SLE). However, any non-Member club which participates in any competition referred to in the Operational Rules (including but not limited to Super League) must agree to be bound by the Bye Laws and in any event will be deemed to have agreed to be so bound by its participation in the competition.[/i

to paraphrase, the rfl will decide what they want to do and when regarding memberships continuing, starting or stopping, and its decided on a case by case basis, and they may or may not tell us why. And it specifically mentions not setting or following precedent.

On judging the Bulls on their past or present, I agree it is one or the other.

Either they are incumbents who have just washed their hands of a big pile of debt.

Or they are a totally new club with no right to even apply for a licence.

Either, IMO, makes them unsuitable for a SL licence. I know you think I've missed the whole point Smokey, but if you're right then the whole system is predicated on people missing the point and right now it is unignorable.

I am willing to acknowledge that they are likely the most suitable candidate for a place in SL, but that is different. The whole problem with licensing is exposed - following its principles leads to an outcome considered undesirable. If they think the mini-round will square that circle and save their blushes, they're deluded. It's come down to a choice of embarrassments. if they man-up (yuk, can't believe I just 'said' that) and choose one, then I'll actually have some respect for them. Not an easy choice - being honest, in their shoes, I'd keep the Bulls in SL and consign licensing to the history books. A second unpalatable choice then beckons, of course - what system to adopt?
If they go for the transparent fig-leaf of a mini-round then they've no integrity (overated, in fairness) or, unforgivably, intelligence.

Do you really believe that another club from the Championship is going to replace Bradford?

It’s just another ridiculous exercise by the RFL to validate Bradford’s continued existence in S.L.

Why arent they eligible to apply for a licence? Anyone who the RFL invite is entitled to apply for a licence.

It seems, again, that the main problem people have with this situation is that they wanted to the RFL to have their hands tied by the rules and we were left with no choice but to be forced to demote Bradford, but nobody really thinks that is the best outcome so they want the RFL to keep Bradford in, but be able to criticise them for not following the rules (which didnt exist)

This leaves us in the ridiculous position of people criticising the RFL for breaking rules which dont exist, criticising them for following the rules which do exist and criticising them leading us to a conclusion which we acknowledge is the best but are arguing we dont want.

They've actually got a rule saying there is no rule.

Credit for foresight at least.

The Bulls should of course be re-admitted to membership of the RFL. Or continuance or whatever you want to call it. Even to SL, but... yeah I'm boring myself.

The decision to give the ' new ' Bulls a SL licence should be a decision based purely on the Bulls , not on how they compare to any other clubs

Once that decision is made , if there is a vacant licence then and only then should any other clubs get involved

That should be the case not for the 'new' Bulls, but everyone.

which removes the need for the 2nd part.

Well considering he seems almost happy that a large number of people have lost a huge amount of money because of gross missmanagement in his clubs name , nothing he believes or thinks has any credibilty

And yes , the Gutless RFL and its administrators dont have the balls to face up to the mess they have colouded in making , they are now going to find scapegoats to apportion blame to

It really is quite obscene

That's kinda the point of rules!



Okay, accepting your version, would you at least acknowledge that the system you describe was mis-sold to us as:

1. Rigourous, consistent, fair and equitable.
2. Meaningful.

And, further, that the discovery that it isn't would be damaging to its credibility and likely to make adherence to its pretend principles or rules difficult to enforce - for big clubs because there is no need and for small clubs because there is no point?

Well put, Mild Rover, it seems that in SL size IS everything.

Maybe he knows a builder.


Not "and yet", this is the fact, and the only thing I've said. The business was, and the business is. It was sold as a going concern. The changing of companies is not "irrelevant", but what it is, is a change of owner. Like if you sell me your chip shop. It used to be your chip shop, and maybe you ran it into the ground, and got into loads of debts. But now it's my chip shop. It has a new owenr.

I didn't buy YOU, and I didn't take on your debts.


No, the new owners have asked the RFL whether they can take over the SL licence, and so far, no decision has been made. Unless you never read any news, you must surely already know this?? If the licence was "carrying on", the "farce" as some have called it of a mini licensing round would not be taking place.


I don't believe Bradford are certainties to be in SL next year, but no, I absolutely do NOT believe that another club from the Championship is going to replace Bradford, and find it hard to see how one could even make a case for that, at the drop of a proverbial hat.


Except that whether they do do some such exercise, they are damned, but if they did not, then the same people as are damning them for doing it, would be damning them for NOT doing it, and for NOT giving anyone else any opportunity.

I agree that in reality the chances that any of the Championship clubs could present a convincing case for SL, within a week or so, are nil, but don't agree that the Bradford SL decision has already been made, those whining about the RFL are mainly those with the "bradford should be out on their ear no questions asked" axe to grind. Which btw is a not unreasonable axe in the sense that while I don't agree with it, there are certainly significant arguments to be made. It's just a pity that very few on here are bothering with significant arguments instead descending to knee-jerkery and dribbling venom. (which isn't aimed at you btw)

Isnt this just the same as what happened to Wakefield? The only difference being that the new Wakey paid some of the debts of the old Wakey?

I would agree it was sold very poorly to some stakeholders in the game, others with vested interests use it to further them and as a stick to beat the RFL.

I dont agree that it isnt rigourous or fair and equitable (if other clubs were or Bradfords size, they would be treated the same) and meaningful.

Indeed



I also like the... "...the RFL may from time to time..."

They basically make the rules vague on purpose, like it or not (with most people firmly in the not here I suspect) the interpretations made by the RFL will be different for different scenarios and clubs.

FWIW I'm prepard to buy a season ticket for the Bulls in whichever league it may be, I can only trust that the RFL make that decision with good intentions [uwhichever way it goes[/u, for both the good of the game and my own and other clubs. As a fan I can do no more than turn up and pay and support my team.

I dont disagree. That wasnt the point i was making, which was you can't see Bradford as a 'new' entity then punish if for the mistakes of the old, or as an old entity and forget the success of the past.

In my view, Bradford Bulls, as a club, are the same. The business behind them are new. Bradford Bulls as a club hasnt failed, the business previously behind them did.

No disagreement from me on any of that, but at the same time we need to step back from the oversimplification of issues which too many are guilty of.

First, most on here seem oblivious to the distinction between BBHL, which being a limited company is a legal person, and the business it ran, which is Bradford Bulls.

However when BBHL went into administration, the RFL's punishment was to deduct 6 points from BB. I suppose it is true that this was in truth a penalty on the OWNERS of BB, and while they still owned it, it was obviously a (potential) financial penalty too, if it meant the team they owned didn't make the playoffs. But directly, it was a penalty on BB, and not on BBHL.

The new owner, OKBL, has acquired the business, BB. It has done so knowing that the 6 point penalty has been and gone, and has accepted that. No appeal has been lodged. But BBHL was a member of the RFL, (and still is!!) and OKBL isn't. So IF OKBL did not get a continuation of the existing licence, then that [iwould[/i clearly be in effect (if not intention) a punishment on BB, as many of the players would lose their livelihoods and it would affect most of the staff and of course the fans too.

It did, but to play devil's advocate the less vindictive opponents are saying that IF the old failed business had "lived within its means" then wewould not have been in this position therefore we have "bought our way to success" by spending money we did not have.

Of course, this blatantly ignores the very basic fact that ANY business has to make projections on cashflow and then commit to expenditure based on that. If the cashflow unexpectedly goes tits and/or if unforeseen major bills come in, that might precipitate a situation which isn't especially anyone's "fault", and certainly not down the road of wanton and gross reckless over-expenditure regardless of income, which the nuttier trolls are blathering about.

But most of all it completely misses the point that in recent seasons, during which our position has precipitously deteriorated, we've actually been pretty crap, won nothing and not even been qualifying for the playoffs! Therefore i conclude that those arguing the previous management "bought success" are amongst the nuttiest of all. In the years when we did have success, we were not in any financial trouble, and seemed to have done so paying our way. I don't think the statement of affairs will include a penny of debt for any season where we won something.

I presume you’re aware that the S.L clubs have already voted to keep the league at fourteen teams?

So, if you don’t believe a Championship team is to replace them, who possibly could?






I’m not of the opinion that Bradford should be replaced from the S.L.

However, I find it unpalatable that the Administrator takes all the money on offer, whilst the Creditors he’s supposed to be working for get sod all.

I also find the mini licence stuff a total waste of money, time & effort.

From the onset of this sorry saga I knew someone would come in at the last minute to save the day, contrary to many so called pundits & some Bradford fans nihilistic predictions.

But the elephant in the room is what if another SL club follows Bradford’s lead & sheds all its debt?

Seriously? This actually worries you? You actually think that a club might deliberately go into Admin in order to 'shed it's debt' just because the Bulls look like surviving the process?

Seems rather unlikely, doesn't it? I mean, the Bulls are hardly the first club to go down this route and we haven't seen a lemming-style rush for the insolvency cliff-edge yet.

Whilst that is true, and there is a limit to the simplification we can make before we lose sight of what is actually happening. I would look at it in a different way, BBHL, OK Bulls, whoever are fairly abstract concepts, they don’t physically exist and any punishment on them runs the risk of being symbolic rather than anything tangible.

Peter Hood exists, Chris Caisley exists, the major shareholders of Bradford Bulls exist, they were the ones with the responsibility to run the club in a sustainable way, not the players, not the fans, not the RFL, not me, you or Stevo. Punish them, ban them from involvement in the game. Ban Mr Caisley from being a player agent, ban him from ownership of an RFL member club or serving on the board, the same with Mr Hood. That would be a real punishment, Im sure neither as businessmen would want such a stain on their name, it would punish the people actually responsible and it would protect the game from them. It would also be an actual deterrent not the symbolic blood letting some are desperate for.

I would also say that ‘buying success’ is not only fairy nutty considering the facts, but actually pretty naïve in a business sense. Any businessman, very quickly learns that cutting spending isn’t a magic wand which creates sustainability and profit, as the old adage goes, you have to spend money to make money. It may very well have been that had Bradford spent less, they would simply have arrived at administration quicker.