Blake Solly's ethical stand is all well and good but it essentially means one BoD can destroy a club forever. The RFL are insisting on something that isn't insisted on in any other business or in law. The only case that can be made is if the financial probity aspect of the licensing system is so efficient it flags up any issues and club are faced with and emplys serious sanctions prior to ending up in this state such as signing embargo, the resignation of directors and RFL intervention in the clubs finances. In this case the RFL lent them money when we can assume the bank said 'mo more'.

Solly's 'moral' position is all the more surprising when considering the lease which was to become a key stumbling block. When the RFL bought it they told us it was to safeguard the future of the stadium. This raised eyebrows at the time as it is owned by the council who have recently said there is some kind of Sport England condition that means only rugby league can be played there unitl 2019.

Solly's position is here
www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... League___/

On the whole I'm not against imposing standards of financial probity which are higher than the law. However, I don't see how you can insist on such if
a) your own process of financial governance has failed
b) you have ignored further instances which should have alerted the RFL to the financial situation at Bradford.
c) you have lent the club money and failed to act in any way when they failed to make payment
d) you have bought the lease on their ground and in explanation told a story which was untrue.
e) you conducted c and d in complete secrecy thereby not only not enacting a process of scrutiny but allowing the club and its directors to escape any reasonable scrutiny from the supporters or shareholders
f) you have taken no sanction on the club's former directors
g) you are aware that the clubs supporters have raised 500k in order to pay debts that you were aware of and took no action to curb many months previously

Blake Solly's ethical stand is all well and good but it essentially means one BoD can destroy a club forever. The RFL are insisting on something that isn't insisted on in any other business or in law. The only case that can be made is if the financial probity aspect of the licensing system is so efficient it flags up any issues and club are faced with and emplys serious sanctions prior to ending up in this state such as signing embargo, the resignation of directors and RFL intervention in the clubs finances. In this case the RFL lent them money when we can assume the bank said 'mo more'.

Solly's 'moral' position is all the more surprising when considering the lease which was to become a key stumbling block. When the RFL bought it they told us it was to safeguard the future of the stadium. This raised eyebrows at the time as it is owned by the council who have recently said there is some kind of Sport England condition that means only rugby league can be played there unitl 2019.

Solly's position is here
www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... League___/

On the whole I'm not against imposing standards of financial probity which are higher than the law. However, I don't see how you can insist on such if
a) your own process of financial governance has failed
b) you have ignored further instances which should have alerted the RFL to the financial situation at Bradford.
c) you have lent the club money and failed to act in any way when they failed to make payment
d) you have bought the lease on their ground and in explanation told a story which was untrue.
e) you conducted c and d in complete secrecy thereby not only not enacting a process of scrutiny but allowing the club and its directors to escape any reasonable scrutiny from the supporters or shareholders
f) you have taken no sanction on the club's former directors
g) you are aware that the clubs supporters have raised 500k in order to pay debts that you were aware of and took no action to curb many months previously