They arent just asking though Richie they're seeking guarantees which the RFL are right in refusing and not only that once they were refused they still came back with the same demands f##* em.

What guarantees do you believe them to be asking for? All I have seen as an assurance that they won't be kicked out of SL at the end of this season for the existing financial issues.

They are offering the T/O on the back of guaranteed SL franchise and getting Odlsum back.
Now if they are wanting to buy back their crater fair enough but who are they to demand they keep the SL franchise after all this sh##?
The RFL didn't guarantee Wakey or help Halifax with their ground issues ,the same with Widnes when they were in the brown and smelly so why should they get special measures??
Also IF they are so close to going under why isnt the adminstrator selling assets??
This farce has gone on long enough and too far if they are due Sky money then fine give them it to pay the wages but other than that the RFL can't and shouldn't do what they haven't done for other clubs in the past.
Id also question where is the White Knight Caisley?? seems hes gone quiet after his and Nobles (alleged) master plan back-fired.

That's not what I heard. All I heard was that an SL position was to be allowed in line with the licence the Bulls currently have. Do you really believe ABC asked for an indefinite licence? For ever?

Wakey, Fax and Widnes were all different circumstances.

What assets do the Bulls have to sell? A group of players about to become free agents aren't assets.

I think you have very much misinterpreted the simple clarification potential buyers have asked for.

If its a simple clarification why was it refused point blank twice?
I never said they demanded a SL franchise forever either the RFL have already said it will be reviewed at the end of the year which is spot on so why should they give any guarantees from that review before its taken place?
They had offers for players earlier in the season by their own admission which they turned down did they not?
If not they should have and made clubs aware players with any market value would be available for the right price if it meant saving the club.

I don't know why the RFL won't clarify their position but suspect they haven't decided their position. To fix this, they're going to have to. No one is going to buy the club and take all those liabilities with the risk of being ejected from SL in just a few weeks ahead of the club. The market value of those players now is currently effectively zero.

Again I can't speculate, on why Bradford didn't sell more players earlier, but it's "now" we're talking about, not the past.

Do you really think it wrong for any potential buyer to ask which league a club with a year to run on its SL licence will be in next year?

The question can be asked by all means but to use it as a condition of purchase or some sort of guarantee is wrong imo when the RFL have clearly stated a review is to take place when the season ends.
They didn't give O'Conner at Widnes any guarantees of SL nor Glover at Wakey so why this lot?
Its not ideal but the fact remains the club has been run by totally inept clowns who blame everyone and everything but themselves not only that they've lived a lie with dishing out big contracts to players they couldn't afford whilst others have been sacked and left in the sh##.
For me if the prospective new owners are "Bradford people" who want to save their club then they should put their ££££ where their mouths are and do what O'conner at Widnes did and Glover at Wakey.

pay up or shut up - ABC cannot hold the RFL to ransom eith there demands

ABC - Does A stand for Agar & C stand for Caisley ?

I don't have a problem with potential investors asking for that sort of guarantee at all, as being in/out of SL will massively affect the finances of the business.

If buyers of previously bust clubs haven't asked for the same then it simply proves they were investing without any regard for returns, which is their call, but hardly sensible business, and certainly shouldn't be used as some kind of benchmark for other investors.

The only problem with making the guarantee a requirement of the bid is that the RFL have already said they can't provide it as its up to a vote of the other clubs. If anything that's a bigger issue - the RFL is supposedly trying to help a club survive, but can't give any undertakings to the buyers. That's a baly flawed business model. IMO if the RFL is responsible for the award of franchises, it should also have the ability to provide such guarantees if it sees fit. A vote of clubs ('competitors' in a very real sense) is a ridiculous way to decide such a thing.

SL is an organisation run by its member clubs. Those member clubs have the final say on whether a newly formed company can come and play in their competition.

The issues around the transfer of the franchise and what happens if the club is wound up and starts again as a Newco are two different ones, decided by two different bodies. A Newco Bradford side would still need the approval of the other SL member clubs even if the RFL decided to transfer the franchise IIRC?

If that is the case, then the RFL cannot give the guarantees that are being sought about SL membership because it is simply not in their power to give it.

I can't help but think looking in from the outside that both Guilfoyle and Coulby are desperate to shift the blame for the failures of themselves or others onto the RFL just so they don't cop the backlash of public opinion when this deal falls apart.

Because everyone is desperate that a deal is done doesn't mean that this deal should be done. I can see why an investor would want assurances and I can see why the RFL wouldn't be able to give them. There doesn't have to be any one party in that scenario to apportion blame to.

It's just an unfortunate scenario both investors and RFL are placed in.

How hard can it be for the RFL to get that vote from the SL clubs now, today?

Don't know, presumably the clubs would want to know more about who or what they are voting to admit first?

will the players for 'New Bradford' also demand that their wages will be guaranteed for their full contracts I wonder?