Wrong just so wrong, conflict started when RFL bought the lease, although I think they part own keighley too.

I can only see this going towards a sell off after the season has ended.

Just a big sorry mess and a bit of an embarrassment to the sport.

That will be the legacy of the Bradford Bulls, not what they acheived 1996-2005.

I think it means they will not get a licence. They will get to the end of 2012 and more than likely be dropped to the championship. Expect to see their players sign for other clubs over the next few weeks.

When Widnes were refused a licence first time around it was because of the Administration they had previously gone into. Even though the current chairman said he could demonstrate real liquidity.

Will the same criteria apply to the Bulls next licence application?

Not only that G O'conner actually wrote the RFL a cheque covering the whole seasons running costs to secure their place which was declined.

What do you think mate? It stinks

A conflict of interests is not necessarily a disaster, provided it is declared, transparent and governed properly.

However, the idea of the body that issues the franchises owning one of the clubs applying for them really does seem more than a little iffy.

It will be interesting to see how this is actually going to work when the further details of the operation of the scheme are revealed....

Have to agree it is a disgrace.

Can only imagine majority of club chairman agreed to go along with this farce because of threat to their own clubs finances and the whole host of problems caused by the Bulls vanishing iminently.

Lots of questions to be answered on this still,while im glad for Bulls fans that they seem to still have a club this cant be right can it?

There are some level headed posters on the Bulls forum.

They seem to think the Bulls will be sold off at the end of the season or moved to Championship 1.

This is a result, but the way we might get to that result is not right.

It does a couple of positive things though it gets rid of the administrator and his wage, plus it puts an end to the ABC consirtium " money for Noting" bids, with conditions of course!!

They will have to lose the franchise otherwise it looks very wrong because:
1) the body that owns them is involved in making the decision!
2) the surety of keeping the franchise wasn't given to other bidders - who may in fact have produced a better offer?
3) the organisation making the offer to buy is linked to those rejecting the other competitive bids!

Lets just remember what matters here: What's right for the sport of rugby league.
I don't think there is any doubt that the presence of the Bradford Bulls in SL has always been a positive, with typically higher than average spectator numbers, playing success and production of youth players. To see that go (or reduced) would be a detriment to the sport.

Governing bodies owning clubs is not unprecedented, and I believe to have happened in the NBA and NHL - I need to go look that up now.

Should they have preferable treatment to others?

RL fan default position = "it's a joke and a disgrace!"

The way I see it this is only a temporary stay of execution. I can't see the Bulls starting 2013 SL season owned by SLE. It should remove the threat of imminent liquidation and also clear the path for new bids to buy the club.

If anybody is so infuriated maybe they should complain to Gary Hetherington who was one that apparently voted for this to happen...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Coyotes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Coyotes

What makes you call it preferable treatment?