Super league clubs have voted for The All New Bulls to stay in SL next season www.yorkshirepost/bradfordbulls/superleague It seems that some clubs are indeed buullet proof, would the same rules apply for the "less fashionable" clubs ? One can only speculate !

Super league clubs have voted for The All New Bulls to stay in SL next season www.yorkshirepost/bradfordbulls/superleague It seems that some clubs are indeed buullet proof, would the same rules apply for the "less fashionable" clubs ? One can only speculate !

That's come as a massive shock, no really it has!!!

Quote ="wrencat1873"Super league clubs have voted for The All New Bulls to stay in SL next season www.yorkshirepost/bradfordbulls/superleague It seems that some clubs are indeed buullet proof, would the same rules apply for the "less fashionable" clubs ? One can only speculate !'" The answer is a simple yes. That is very similar to what happened to us in 2000 when Pearman bailed and we entered a CVA. The clubs voted and we stayed, just. Of course we were not bankrolled in such a way by the RFL to allow us to keep out best players but other than that it was the similar, though we never actually went bust. Also Ted put up a Million of his own as security (yes evil Ted) - whether the Bulls have to do the same I don't know but there seems to be little pressure compared to what we received to do so and there lays the double standard IMO.

Quote ="wrencat1873"Super league clubs have voted for The All New Bulls to stay in SL next season www.yorkshirepost/bradfordbulls/superleague It seems that some clubs are indeed buullet proof, would the same rules apply for the "less fashionable" clubs ? One can only speculate !'" The answer is a simple yes. That is very similar to what happened to us in 2000 when Pearman bailed and we entered a CVA. The clubs voted and we stayed, just. Of course we were not bankrolled in such a way by the RFL to allow us to keep out best players but other than that it was the similar, though we never actually went bust. Also Ted put up a Million of his own as security (yes evil Ted) - whether the Bulls have to do the same I don't know but there seems to be little pressure compared to what we received to do so and there lays the double standard IMO.

disgusting would they have done it for us.how did we vote was it a fix up all along?. just shows how bent the sport is

Superleague two coming up, 10 teams in each. They will never let the big clubs go

Are we now going to see a flood of "iconic" clubs entering administration and clearing their debts in the certain knowledge that no sanction can or will be made against them?

How can this be justified against the (some) SL clubs wanting a reduced SL???
Golden opportunity missed!!

Because the RFL never wanted it - only the fans and owners of a few clubs who now see themselves as 'big.'

Two tiers of SL is a nonsensical idea, as our recent run of giant-killing form has shown; take a snapshot in time, make huge decisions about the future of the game based on that snap-shot, and close the door on future Warringtons, Shuddersffields and Wigans. Not very clever.

I'm not too fussed about the Dulls being in SL next season; I am very fussed indeed though with the way they've been mollycoddled by the governing body and allowed to keep teams out of the play-offs using players they shouldn't have available; the RFL have set a dangerous precedent for the future - if I were the Chairman of Salford or another struggling club, I'd be calling my friendly neighbourhood insolvency practitioner forthwith, to take the easy way out of my financial woes, maintaining a squad I couldn't afford, diddling the taxman and local businesses and getting a clean sheet for the 2013 season.

Sorry Bren, but there does seem to be an increasingly loud voice suggesting a cut in SL numbers (without timescale) and sure as night follows day, the All New Bulls will be safe as houses and the likes of us,Cas, Widnes and maybe KR will be under threat of relegation, never mind the poor souls in the CC.

It's the clubs that have decided to keep them in, it's either a victory for the smaller clubs who don't want change or hypocracy from those that do.
In any other walk of life this would be a nail in the coffin for those seeking a reduced super league, however in the muddled world of SL it probably isn't and just proves its who you know not what you know (or something like that!!!).

It was mooted by Lewis at the last round of licences announcement on sky that the number in SL may have to be looked into.
Weather that was the RFLs view or he was pandering to the clubs is anyone's guess.
Either way this is a slap in the face of a reduced number SL or at least it ought to be!!!!

Just a thought but could this decision be setting a precident for some other SL Clubs.

I don't know if the HMRC/Image Rights issue was ever settled but there may be other SL Clubs in a precarious financial position and this would allow them to go into Administration and immediately come out through a pre-pack deal and retain SL status with HMRC and other creditors losing out.

If the Bulls had been "relegated" it would mean that any other Club going into Administration would be out of SL which would not have been acceptable to the majority if not all SL Clubs.

I know there is talk of reducing the size of SL but we know that means certain teams being secure and others not being so secure.

I think this is a very real possibility, although how this will be received by HMRC and how our game would be viewed by the wider sporting world is a real worry.
The reputation of our sport would be in tatters if this situation occurred and such a blaze wholesale Phoenix from the flames resurrection of some of our largest clubs and a large proportion of SL re-emerged debt free at the tax payers expense.

I still don't get why we had to sell players for admin costs, but bulls are being fully funded

Join the queue on that one!!!!

But Blake Solly recently said that there are no plans to reduce the number of teams in SL.

It's a stupid idea being put forward by blinkered people with no eye on the longer game; they mistakenly believe that if the number of teams were reduced, Sky might not notice and would continue to fund the sport at the same level, thereby leaving a larger slice of the pie for themselves. And Jamie Peacock, who might be able to squeeze another season out of his tired old bones if there were fewer games per season.

Quote ="wrencat1873"Super league clubs have voted for The All New Bulls to stay in SL next season www.yorkshirepost/bradfordbulls/superleague It seems that some clubs are indeed buullet proof, would the same rules apply for the "less fashionable" clubs ? One can only speculate !'" As much as there has clearly been special treatment dished out here, Bulls at Trinity is a guaranteed big house. From a purely selfish and cash point of view, it's good business for us; hence the vote. Cartels....we're all in it together!

Quote ="wrencat1873"Super league clubs have voted for The All New Bulls to stay in SL next season www.yorkshirepost/bradfordbulls/superleague It seems that some clubs are indeed buullet proof, would the same rules apply for the "less fashionable" clubs ? One can only speculate !'" As much as there has clearly been special treatment dished out here, Bulls at Trinity is a guaranteed big house. From a purely selfish and cash point of view, it's good business for us; hence the vote. Cartels....we're all in it together!

And with apparently a good few clubs hovering on the brink of a bradford-esque situation why would those clubs want to set a precident by voting out a failing club? It could be them next.

What I don't get is all this iconic big club nonsense, they had a successful team for a few years but are not what I'd call a big club. The problem with Bradford is Bradford without sounding racist alot of people have moved out of Bradford and have been replaced by non RL public hence Bradford not being a RL playing hotbed & the bulls having to throw their money at youngsters from Wakey cas fev batley etc. I'm not saying that if bought out of admin they should be relegated, we weren't and they shouldn't. But if it's a newco they should go down, it wouldn't make much difference to us if they were replaced by fax or fev and at least they produce more players

The last 3-4 seasons Bradford support at Belle Vue hasnt been up to much in my opinion

total and utter disgrace

We were granted a Super League licence for 3 years in the same year that we went into administration and bought out of it. I'm not sure we can preach double standards. If the Bulls are bought out of admin and remain in Super League, I can't see the difference with us, apart from the fact that they have been allowed to retain a full playing roster, but was that more to do with the fact that it was mid-season. We had ours sorted by the time it got going and so maybe the same would have happened to us if it had been mid-season.

Farce from start to finish! In what way has the club been held responsible for this situation? They lost a few points, wow but what else? It looks to have been a very positive thing for the Bulls going into admin and it shouldn't be!!!

Did Glover/Elston vote in favour? And regardless, how can a democratic vote be classed on here as bent?

You may not agree with the outcome, and I'm as sick of the whole thing as anyone, but you can't call it 'bent' and such like.

Again, there but for the grace go we.