Where's the fun in that?

The bid isn't actually from Bradford City, the local rag put 2+2 together and got it wrong.

He's a big bloke, some part of Nigel Wood is always in Australia.

How manymore deadlines are they going to have this saga is making our game look very silly.

4 Bids have been received by the RFL but they have given a deadline of 21st August for concrete business plans to be submitted. This means that Bradford wont know their fate until the season is over. The RFL will let them carry on in SL next year as if nothing has happened. Pathetic. How long can they let this farce go on.

Also why are the RFL getting so involved in who purchases the club? They should say that there will be no unconditional offers then let the Administrator decide who buys them. The RFL should have no say who owns them but just whether they can remain in SL. Stand back and let Brenda Guffaw decide.

The RFL are getting involved BECAUSE of how long this has been going on. They're interested in who buys the club because they don't want this whole thing to happen again in 12 months a la Crusaders.

And who says they're going to let the Bulls continue in SL next year? Oh that's right, you did so that must mean it's set in stone.

If the RFL had any balls and stopped bailing them out by paying players wages then it wouldn't have gone on for so long. Do you really think Bradford won't be in SL next year? That is the only reason the RFL got involved. Get the club a decent owner so they can stay in SL.

Well i hope whoever they persuade 'with promises' has a better track record than the last one they persuaded ....a certain Mr Samuels

I'm sure the employees of the Bulls appreciate your concern for their jobs. Or did you forget that behind all this are actual people who rely on the Bulls for their living?

Tough tittyroo I'm afraid. A bit of tough love from the RFL might deter chairmen of other clubs from putting their employees in jeopardy - not to mention the creditors that have already been screwed over.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the next club that engages in financial spasticicity like Bradford have done won't be handed a comforting 6 point penalty.

None of this is a pleasant affair but guilt trip posts are a little condescending.

Charming. Your empathy is an example to us all.


It's not a 'guilt trip post'. I'm just a little fed up with frothing rants about how the RFL should have immediately moved to not only bury the Bulls but preferably dance all over their grave as well, with little or no consideration for the blameless human beings working there.

And I haven't forgotten that creditors are also suffering, but as far as I'm aware none of the creditors are going to go out of business or lay off staff as a result. Neither will forcing the Bulls out of existence help those creditors in any way.

Finally - what makes you think that punishing people who had nothing at all to do with running the club into the ground will in any way deter future boards/chairmen from doing something similar? The folk responsible for this debacle have walked away scot free.

Man up.

No one is dancing over the Bulls grave and no one wants to see them go out of business but they shouldn't have the RFL pay them their wages. Did the Football League or the FA pay Portsmouth players wages or Luton's? Did the SPL or SFA pay Rangers players wages? Did the RFL pay Wakefied, Rochadle and Crusaders wages? The answer is no. They were left to get themselves out of a financial mess as it was their own doing.

And before you start with the Bradford to big to fail rubbish, they are not and life would go on.

Are the RFL not just advancing the Bulls Sky money that they would otherwise be due in any event?

You are having a go at the wrong people Kosh.
The people that you should be angry with are the folk that have badly overspent at Bradford.
You make comment that none of the Bulls suppliers have laid off staff because of the Bulls difficulties, but the level of debt that they have, cannot fail to damage their suppliers and it is very likely that some will suffer severe hardship as a result of this.

So apparently it's down to two bidders: Omar Khan and Bradford Park Avenue. Is history about to go full circle and the Great Split of 1907 be healed?

So the question is

What exactly does a club need to do , to get its licence revoked ?

Change it's name to Salford or Castleford ?

You're probably right.
The league is made up of "haves" and "have nots" and even when the haves have nothing the still dont become have nots, which does make you wonder why all the clubs have to go through the charade of franchise applications

The latter would pretty much ensure the former. Which was my point.


I have zero interest in what happens in Soccer and fail to see the relevance TBH. I'd also point out that for a Soccer player, being out of work for a few months would hardly trigger a financial crisis.


The RFL did, however, assist the Crusaders players in finding new employment.

I'm also unconvinced by the argument that just because something was done one way once, it should always be done that way. Surely the idea is to get better at handling these situations?


I've never said anything of the sort and neither do I believe it. If Bradford [ido[/i fail, despite all efforts being made to avoid that happening, then so be it. I simply feel that all efforts [ishould[/i be made - whatever the club involved.

It's perfectly possible for me to be angry at several different people at the same time. Quite common, even.



I'll say this again - what's the point of punishing folk who had nothing to do with the Bulls current situation when the folk responsible are no longer there? It's not even a deterrent.

I dont think that it is a case of punishing innocent people.
When any business fails, ordinary, hard working people suffer and nobody wants to see people lose their livlihoods, but, what you appear to be saying is, because it was someone else's fault, we should shrug our shoulders and carry on.
The RFL statement at the begining of the current franchise system reitterated it's position, whereby it said they would revoke the licence of any failing club.
If they do not wish to carry out this action, then they should not make an empty threat.
Does the current situation set a precident for ANY other failing cluib (and this has to include the likes of Salford, Cas, Widnes, Wakefield, Hull KR etc) , or is this just a case of protecting one of the games bigger clubs, one with an iconic northern stadium.
We haven't even begun to mention the franchise system or promotion and relegation and these issues are inexorably linked, never mind the fact that at some point in the relatively near future SL numbers may well be cut and it is likely that someone will lose their place at the top table, whilst Bradford remain.
Although I have much sympathy for Bradfords plight and especially for their supporters, who are certainly innocent victims in all of this, it remains the case, that Rugby League is a game without principles and whilst it is commendable that one team is saved but, ultimately this will be at the expense of someone else.

Actually they said they COULD revoke the license. Not WOULD. and thats the way the rules are worded too. They now allow the sanction of removing the license but it isnt mandatory. Subtle but important distinction.

Also, define "failing club" - if it was simply "going into administration" (even if it's because you collected income tax from your employees and VAT from your customers then treating the money as your own and spending it, so when HMRC asked for its money there was none there) there'd be no need for a separate punishment. In the form of a points deduction for going into administration ...