Yet again a potential misreading!
The article in The News & Star does state that the winding up order was for £55,000 to HMRC but also says:

"Rochdale, who were established back in 1871, had debts totalling £190,000, with £150,000 of that owed to the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, with a further £40,000 due to local suppliers"

Couple that with the MEN article which refers to "... the club's current tax bill...." which would include IR and Customs & Excise and the loan could well have been £143,000 ie £7K short of £150K

Don't they do comprehension in schools any more?

Last post on this complete mess, 48 K is a lot different to 600 K, nobody is suggesting other clubs haven't had support from the RFL, Leigh were supported by them a couple of seasons ago

It is the level of support, the clandestine nature of it, the complete ' bull ' that was used to justify it, the fact this support was needed a matter of months after they had been awarded a ' B ' licence

Its the whole sorry mess, defend it all you want , would other lesser profile clubs have recieved similar? , we dont really know, personally, I doubt it

Lets hope the latest people in the hot seat get it right, because I doubt they'll be offered it again

It's also to do with the fact they spent lots of money, money they didn't have, turning themselves into an "iconic" club.

The sport then ran around to keep their licence, a system, we are repeatedly told, that persuades clubs from overspending. Remember their "B" licence? I don't know if it's ironic or just shoddy administration of the licensing system.

The sport has to rally around the next club this happens to, whatever its level, in the same way. Giving a green light for clubs to continue bad financial management! Brilliant

You aren't trying to have a debate, you are trolling. Your ridiculous contradiction simply highlights it. You aren't going to fool anyone by pretending to be the victim now Mr Busted Flush

The problem is that when circumstances aren't the same, the response can't be the same and nor should we expect it to be.

For example Wakefield have no assets to secure against, the have no stadium or owned facilities with value to act as collateral. Bradford did. Do the RFL need to extend a loan to Wakefield as the did to Bradford to be treating them fairly?

And I think this green light o bad management issue is a red herring. No one wants to be losing money, by the time we reach this point the owners have already lost money and are already likely to be gone or going. This is about how we recover clubs for the game, those who got them into that position will lose out.

It was paid back through the lease. The million plus pound was taken from the bulls share of SLE and sky funding. That money was given to other SL clubs.

A £700k loan secured against the lease on Odsal has cost Bradford over £1m in sky funding and the lease. This according to some is a sweetheart deal for Bradford.

To those who think this was a good deal, if you want to send me a PM I have some really attractive financial products to talk to you about.

The Licensing report for the Bulls read:

Bradford Bulls provided a solid submission detailing a strategy, tactical plan and targets to achieve improved commercial and financial performance. The club has a solid fan base, a strong brand and good operating structure/governance in place. However the club faces some challenges. These include the local economic environment, poor recent on-field performance and an ageing facility. The application acknowledges these challenges; however the club believes that its business plan for the next three years will move it to a position of sustainability with good prospects for further growth. The club has invested heavily in its youth performance programme in recent years, and it is expected that the club will soon start to reap the rewards of this investment with improved performances and increased numbers of quality club-trained players.

So, what you're saying is that once again I've vastly under estimated the level of support the RFL have given to another club? Gee... How could I have made such a mistake? It seems my point about the Bulls not being alone in receiving aid from the RFL or some how getting preferential treatment just keeps getting stronger.

I'd say Rochdale have a lesser profile than Bradford, yet they seemed to have been given a comparable level of support.

As for the so called clandestine nature of the support Bradford have gotten, it seems many on here feel that the RFL should run all their business dealings past them first for vetting. But in the real world, businesses tend to keep their dealings to themselves. And as everyone seems to know the ins and outs of things at Bradford, it's hardly an Area 51 style conspiracy is it?

Am I right in thinking the initial £700k was secured against nothing, and only when the RFL realised they were unlikely to see that again another £500k was 'payed' on top of the previous loan to prevent predatory developers getting their hands on the 'iconic' Odsal.

Indeed. In the last 3 years the RFL senior officials have given Bulls owners and their financial plans the green light on numerous occasions and yet here we are again firefighting. Yet it appears no one at the RFL is accountable for this shambles.

1. There is no indication of the precise amount of support received by Rochdale. It is known that many other struggling clubs in the same division as Rochdale received nothing.

2. no one has said the Bulls are the only club to get assistance. However the RFL are selective in their provision of assistance and the purchase of the Odsal lease dwarfs aid provided elsewhere. AND despite this purchase we have had administration / an owner who came, went and has now come back + directors who came went..and have now come back. A farce.

3. The RFL executive are accountable to the RFL Council and they ought to be taking actions with their consent and support rather than doing deals in secret. The RFL is a governing body that should not be going behind the back of its membership.

More ballcocks I think, what has 300k the council and the lease held by the RFL got in common....nothing. The loan was taken out after OK had taken over and don't the RFL hold the lease from earlier, so how can the lease pay off the loan???

650k was withheld I thought not 1 million

So what assets did the Bulls have? The lease? Worth diddly squat. If Bradford disappeared how would the RFL recover their outlay on it?

Try getting a loan, from say a bank, using the lease on a house you're renting as collateral.......

You know the difference between a bog-standard landlord lease and a long lease don't you? I'm sure there are plenty of people posting on here who have mortgages on properties, usually flats, on long leasehold.

if they survive they will be in the bottom 2

If it was me,i'd offer it back to the council

well it would mean if the Bulls went belly up and the ground was no longer needed for RL the council could develop the land, and the RFL would need to be paid out or get a slice of the development profits.

What has the council loan got to do with the RFL?

Roughly £650k, twice has been taken from the bulls, that's closer to £1.3m

Nothing has been taken, it was ' offered '

Hilarious

Yes, I know

Yeah, offered in the same way the man being mugged offers to give the mugger his possessions.

Bradford are hardly victims in all this, they weren't forced into it

When you consider the alternative they pretty much were

The alteratives being?