Twas always thus and it always will be.

It was the same under P+R

Except it isnt withering is it. More people are going to watch it. Clubs who didnt qualify for the playoffs before are qualifying now, your chicken licken impression is simply nonsense.

Or is Glover simply chucking money down a bottomless pit? There's a difference between a club breaking even/making a profit through sound business sense and a club that simply spends it's Chairman's retirement money. Huddersfield and London are examples.

It's Chicken Little



Henny penny, turkey lurkey ..............................

Given that the plan seems to be that 'team 14' (whoever it may be

), will make good on the advances given to the Bulls, through reduced central funding, perhaps a lovely Dutch auction is in prospect? even if you don't think you can win, you could bid low in an effort to cripple the winner for a couple of years.




It seems depressingly possible. WHY?! Why tell a lie nobody is going to believe? Put the Bulls in SL, if that is what is best, but be honest - the alternative isn't even a conspiracy; we can see you!!! FGS.






The message that will send is that the Bulls will never be at risk. Okay, if the go to the wall again in the next 18 months it might be given up as a bad job, but if dieing don't kill you... they haven't, [ufrom what I can gather[/u, been rescued, but revivified. And that's great - the sport would be poorer without them, but giving them a licence like this would undermine everything licensing was meant to stand for.

Downgrading them to a "c" license is a massive punishment. The new owners will be banging the boardroom table at that punishment, along with the massive 6 point penalty they received. And the fans - well - if i know their fans like i think i do then they'll be devastated at these harsh punishments. The shame will be with them for years.

It's a warning to other clubs who dare to risk financial mis-management.

I totally agree but its been made clear by people like McManus that the big clubs in SL would like Bradford to remain in SL for purely commercial reasons. Unfortunately in this day and age the commercial aspect will override the moral aspect, which is why I think they will be allowed to retain SL status.

The RFL, on the other hand, have to be seen to do [isomething[/i and if SL status is retained then the only real punishment open to them is a downgrading of licence.

Is he? Are the Wakey fans paying the full price for their ST s, or is he trying the Bradford/Huddersfield method?

Maybe he as littlerich has pointed out just still got money to put in to cover losses?

They are at risk now, as they should be.

The conspiracy theory, which you seem to be falling for, have it all backwards.

It isnt a case of the RFL giving Bradford extra-help, so they get 10k, they have an acceptable if not great stadium, they have a great youth development history, high visibility, big fanbase etc etc, Bradford are getting the help they are getting not to get those things because they have those things.

The only reason people are cynical about Bradford being demoted is because of the quality of competitors to take their place.

If there was a club capable of having what Bradford have now, in the lower leagues, Bradford would be demoted. What saves them is that most clubs in the lower leagues are, right now, totally unsuitable for SL, in the same way Bradford would be unsuitable for the lower leagues. Not better, not worse just different.

What is your evidence for your theory? What proof do you have?

Or is this just cynical speculation that you need to be true to fit with your 'the sky is falling' narrative?

I dont get the need for this 'punishment', what is this symbolic bloodletting actually achieving?

The people who caused bradfords problems are long gone, those responsible arent involved and any punishment of the Bulls now isnt going to be a deterrent to people making those same decisions because they arent the ones who are being punished.

In reality all we are doing is punishing someone who has rescued an RL club for the actions of the people who caused it to be in need of rescue

Sorry I hadnt noticed the huge crowds Salford,Cas,London and Widnes are pulling in, as there are now more play off places than previous, I would expect more clubs to qualify

You are getting mixed up with ' finger lickin Chicken ' , you are Nigel Wood and I claim my 5 quid

The increase in the number of teams that are qualifying to play in the playoffs is due to the increase in the number of playoff places.

Either the gross missmanagent that Bradford have committed deserves demotion, or it doesnt, there is as you point out no club in the Championships that can get to anywhere near what Bradford have, you know that, I know that, every single fan at every club knows that, even the Red Hall cat probably knows that, so why do the idiots in charge not know that, and if they do, what in gods name do they expect to find out any differently by having a ' mini licence application ' ?

Once again Mr Wood and Mr Rimmer, grow some balls and do the jobs you are being well paid to do, make a simple decision instead of passing the buck

Except for the fact that he made clear at a recent fans forum that the club had made a modest operating profit under his stewardship. An inconvenient truth maybe, but the truth nonetheless.

Its not so much about punishing Bradford, its about setting an example to deter others from making the same rash decisions. The RFL has an opportunity to set a clear precedent here, if it fails to do so then it is being negligent in its duty to ensure that clubs act responsibly.

So the fact that Crusaders improved from 14th to 8th is down to their being more play-off places? the fact Catalans went from 14th to 6th to 5th is because there are more play-off places?

under franchising, no club has finished bottom twice in a row, no club has even finished in the bottom two twice in a row, only 3 of 14 clubs in 4 completed seasons havent been in the play-offs, this isnt because we now have 8/14 qualifying rather than 6/12, it is because the teams at the bottom are closer to each other, and closer to the middle. This is a good thing, somethign we should celebrate.

Fine, im comfortable with punishing the gross mismanagement at the Bulls, but actually punish those who mismanaged them, not those managing now.

Punishing Omar Kahn for the actions of Peter Hood, wouldnt deter Peter Hood from making those decisions.

Then he should be congratulated, my question about ST prices was from a post I read on the Wakey board, if I am mistaken, then apologies , not wanting to criticise Wakey, especially if they are operating fairly

1. Omar Khan isn't being punished, Bradford Bulls as a continuous entity are. Corporate responsibility.
2. Peter Hood is no longer in a position to make those decisions, so thats irrelevant, but..
3. Punishing Bradford Bulls may well deter Richard Wright, or Andrew Glover, or any other club chairman from making those decisions in future
4. When Widnes were denied SL at the first licencing round with their period of administration being cited as the major reason by the RFL, what had the actions of the previous management got to do with the Steve O'Connor management team ? They were judged on the actions of previous incumbents, so there is already a precedent for it.

Or we can simply do nothing and send out the message that its fine to practice gross financial mismanagement and suffer no consequences.

So in 3 years of franchising we have 1 club finish bottom and disapear, then the club that replaced it disapear, so its not really surprising they havent finished bottom twice, is it ?

So Crusaders didnt go from 14th to 8 th as they were tottally different clubs

Fair enough Bradford are a completely new club, no fans, no players, no SL wins, no Challenge cup wins, no history, bring on the mini licence appliation, everything in their application is speculative and should be treated as such

No, Omar Kahn and his new company are being punished for the decisions of Peter Hood and the actions of his previous company. In this context corporate responsibility achieves precisely nothing.
Why? If the same thing happened they wouldnt be involved and wouldnt suffer any punishment. It isnt a deterrent to say 'if you make mistakes, we will punish the person who replaces you'
No they werent. Widnes werent 'punished' by not getting a licence because of administration. They didnt get a licence because they couldnt prove they were financially viable, going in to admin was simply part of the evidence for that. Bradford right now are having to prove the new co is financially viable, its why they havent been given a franchise yet.

or we could ban Peter Hood, Chris Caisley and the major shareholders of the previous Bradford company from having any involvement in RL, whether that be as an agent, a Chief Exec, a CEO, working behind the bar, a silent partner, whatever. Lets actually punish the people who did wrong, rather than the people who rescued the situation.

please explain your logic. It seems very confused.

How is not holding Omar Kahn responsible for Peter Hoods actions because it doesnt achieve anything akin to pretending there was never a Bradford Bulls?