It is because ABC won't bid without that guarantee, i doubt they'll sell back the lease without "terms" and i doubt ABC will accept those terms.

I can't see any way out for Bradford at SL level, they'll have to go under and start again.

But we were not guaranteed a franchise. That's why Steve Parkin pulled out, he wanted a guarantee of a franchise and he even offered to sponsor the World Cup but the RFL would not, indeed could not guarantee us a franchise. It was the new company, Spirit of 1873 Ltd that applied for and successfully won a franchise.

Similarly if the RFL give or sell thelease back for anything less than what they paid for it (£1.25m) and place covenants on Odsals use then they should have a great deal to answer for to the the member clubs which includes the Championship Clubs as we all contribute to RLF funds through the levies I believe.

If the RFL give in to the ABC Consortium they may as well come out and admit that franchising is a joke and a waste of time and tell all those Championship Clubs that aspire to SL that they have not got a chance. Similarly they may as well tell us, Castleford abd Salford to prepare for the chop because we're going before the likes of Bradford whatever they do or debts they run up.

This may sound hypocritical after our administration but we were given no guarantees and we and Andrew Glover had accepted that we may have to drop down to the Championship. As it happened we secured a franchise but I belive that was due to Andrew's stewardship.

By the way, nearly finished Beyond Evil, another cracking read.

Not quite the same though.

Allegedly, Parkin wanted a guarantee of a licence 2012-2014, back in 2011, the last year of that licence period.

Presumably, the Bradford consortium wants assurances for the remainder of this licence period.

As has already been alluded to, the lease conundrum is the main sticking point.

When the deal is agreed (I’m of the opinion that it was never in doubt) I wonder if we’ll get to know how much the RFL sell it back for & what’s the timeline for the said repayments.

Maybe, they’ll give it back free of charge, many people will squeal for a while & it’ll just get put in the album with the rest of their calamitous faux pas.

Phrase of the week!

I’m running out of superlatives for the Red Hall crew

.

www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/25 ... e-6-points

www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/25 ... e-6-points

Won't really hurt them.

As I said before, if they don’t get liquidated then I have no issue with Bradford remaining in SL, just as Trinity and the Crusaders were allowed to do. If they are liquidated then that’s another question and would draw parallels to the Rangers fiasco.

The main issue for me is the lease. The RFL must hold onto it unless they receive full payment back from any suitors. It still grates that when Trinity were struggling financially the RFL loaned Bradford £700K on the QT which then led to the iconic venue preservation cover up a year later. Should they sell the lease for anything less than what they paid it will only serve to exacerbate my annoyance.

I think that could well be the sticking point; the RFL painted themselves into a corner with all that 'iconic stadia' nonsense, so if they go on to sell it for anything less than the purchase price, they'll have a PR disaster on their hands.

ABC might come up against a brick wall in that particular area of the negotiation, unless the RFL are so desperate for the Bulls to remain intact that they're prepared to suffer the slings and arrows.

Occasionally having a low profile sport can be a good thing. Many of the people who are aware of RLF and their delaings already think they’re inept at best, so a few more moans from the RL public won’t be too much of a hindrance to them. ‘Water off a ducks back’ springs to mind.

The talk is they have a six points deduction because the offer by the potiential buyers doesnt include paying any creditors which wakefield did and should meant the offer turned down and Bulls will end up liquidated...

If liquidated then should be all points but that won't really matter as players that would finally get swooped on would make then so weak that they wouldn't be able to challenge the top eight.

The transfer deadline has now passed so players can be signed but can't play for the new club so they would probably be "loaned back" to Bradford to the end of the season.

Does that include HMRC? ... if so they haven't a prayer

A little thing called dispensation would probably be given if Bulls were liquidated. The best interests of the players would come first if Bulls went pop and if wanting quick employment through other clubs i am sure RFL would sort this no problem.

New bid on the table www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... buy_Bulls/ the plot thickens, guess this means another extension to the extension that was extended from the original extension

New bid on the table www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... buy_Bulls/ the plot thickens, guess this means another extension to the extension that was extended from the original extension

Once again a conditional offer. The security of remaining in SL I can understand, but the insistence of the lease being, I assume, sold back is the one that gets me. They would still have to pay Bradford Council the going rate for the land which from the guff given at the time ‘iconic-stadiumgate’ would be the same as what the RFL charge, unless they are wanting the lease so they can subsidises their bid by humping a new loan secured against Odsal. Much like Craig White using a loan secured against future season ticket sales to fund his takeover of Rangers.

The Asian businessmen offer rejected by rfl, what next for Bradford???

Not looking good for them! www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19003931

Not looking good for them! www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19003931

Thank God - in terms of some integrity shown by the RFL.

Oh poop in terms of the Bulls fans and players, let's hope one of these one/two alternate bids are appropriate.

What are we, about a month on from the Bulls going into admin?
Two offers both conditional and both declined.
Surely this needs bringing to a head now, and stop Guilfoyle from ringing any more milk from this terminal Bull (that is a very unfortunate Freudian slip I know).

Only 1 bid declined so far..

But if they're wanting the same terms and conditions it should be the same answer.

only 1 bid made so far!!!

Light the touchpaper and off it goes...