Not really. The fact that SL felt the costs vs benefits of buying the Bradford Bulls meant is was a beneficial deal for them does not guarantee that the costs vs benefits of buying any other club will appear to be a worthwhile deal.

I would think the main reason behind this attempt to solve the problem, is
the ownership of odsal. As far as I am concerned its just a big hole in the
ground which SL are stuck with.
I can't see much devolpment potential at odsal,so it is what it is a rugby
ground,albeit an old fashioned one.
Please don't tell me they could reintroduce speedway riding.

Having read some of the posts above, a few corrections, if I may...

It's the RFL, not SL, who own the lease to Odsal.
Its SL, not the RFL, who are bidding for the Bulls.
It's the RFL, not SL, who awards the franchises.
Reportedly, the SL clubs unanimously voted to make the bid.

We can't pin this bid on the RFL.

El Barbudo.
I stand corrected Thanks.

But the RFL have the power to block any bid for the bulls so even if they are not making it they have the power to prevent it

SLE is a company, don't the RFL own it in some way, isn't it basically there to help the RFL distribute money to the clubs?

The RFL as a governing body should set the rules regarding these matters, not a small number of clubs within the game - I do not know if this will turn out to be the right decision but if it does not the RFL should have further serious questions to ask on top of those already arising

So does that mean Bradford is now owned by the other "Super League " clubs ?

Should this assumption be correct how does the money Bradford owe get repaid and by whom ?

What happens when London Broncos/Salford and whichever other club losing money gets into financial trouble ?

How can clubs compete with a club they have a financial interest in ?

I think it has to be the RFL.

Oh by the way I want Bradford Bulls to stay in existence but this move makes a mockery of a pro sport with a supposedly level playing field.

Apologies to Batley and Featherstone of course.

If Bradford go over the salary cap, who will the fine go to?

Worse... How could it be worse?

All I said to my wife was "that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah"

Comparisons with other clubs and other industries are highly spurious. In SL terms Bradford are one of the 'big' clubs. With all due respect to Wakefield and Widnes (who weren't even in SL at the time they went bust) they are not in the same league if you'll pardon the pun. IMO SL simply could not afford to lose the Bulls at this stage - and it appears that all the other SL clubs understand this despite whatever bravado they may have come out with in the past.

Right now it doesn't matter one jot who is responsible for the current position - SL has decided that they had to step in or lose the Bulls.

I'd expect that the proposed ownership will only last until the club can be made stable and then SL will seek to offload the Bulls.

If it's commercial/financial concerns that drive this decision, you have to wonder why it's a great bit of business for SL when it is an investment nobody else will touch with someone else's ten foot pole? Where is SL getting the money from? Are the clubs really, as a collective, flush enough to take on an unprofitable business that has proved to be a supermassive black hole for people's money over several years?

I'm not saying the answer is no (I don't have that information) just that I'm surprised that the answer is yes.

I'm sorry but this I vehemently disagree with.

What are you basing this uopn?

If it's history and heritage than a comparison with Widnes might leave the Bulls falling short. Furthermore, your comments about which division Widnes are in seem somewhat harsh given their "artificial" relegation in the past.

Wigan got relegated once, when the game was a lot less healthier. The game survived.

There is no rational reason to place more value uopn the Bulls than any other club.

with the staff that have been let go and the lease of the ground not being paid the Bulls could be profitable in the short term, giving enough time to allow investers to come on board. I base this on the following assumptions

1. Coaches etc that are currently working for free will continue to help the club through to the end of the season
2. The lease payments to the RFL are suspended. whilst the RFL and SL are different bodies,the RFL would receive no revenue if the bulls were liquidated, on that basis I can see payments being suspended for a period to allow the Bulls to finish out the season.

The main issue now will be whether the bulls can continue in SL for 2013 and if so the player retention /recruitment policies that the club will have.

If they are allowed to stay in SL for 2013 I can see a number of loan players in the team and this could be an opportunity for Leeds to blood some of the youngsters that are potential SL players.

In which case;

1) There's nothing attractive to an investor about a business which is only solvent if it's staff work for free. [Dragon's Den mode] it's not a business I can make money on, it's ludicrous, and I'm out. [/Dragon's Den mode]

2) Makes the RFL's decision to buy out the lease in the first place a terrible business decision doesn't it?

Now I've had chance to mull this over I suspect that Superleague have just attached a parachute to the Bulls.

They are still going down but they have been bought a bit of time, and their descent can be controlled.