Cheers, hadn't seen that. I guess that gives us a few options then. The RFL process is indeed rubbish. We made a good sales pitch and/or actively misled the RFL. Everything was genuinely fine 15 months ago and has then gone all Pete Tong.

If its the latter it makes me even more curious about just what it was the pushed us over the edge all of a sudden.

Agreed, it penalises the clubs involved in this process which atm is Bradford but

rlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jul/26/wakefield-super-league-licence-crusadersrl

The relevant bit in that article is this

Lewis refused to explain the decision when pressed about Wakefield's failure to meet the terms of their existing licence. "The rules for licensing are very much that they can be revoked in the future," he said.

So in July 2011 the RFL stated that licences could be revoked and yet over a year later they haven't a plan in place to deal with that exact situation. Blake Solly is the compliance manager so they have someone in place who's job it is but still no plan.

When I started out in business it wasn't unusual for many organisations to have five year business plans which were normally fairly accurate , but in the current climate such is the pace of change, and uncertainty of demand, it isn't easy to forecast even into the next quarter. So while you can see the way the franchise system works in three year blocks the RFL will be reviewing the projections for the following years of the next license period and however diligently the plan has been put together there must be massive uncertainty in the 2nd and 3rd years.
I suspect the Bulls application would also have included items like the community program, youth developement etc - non-financial elements but which would have strengthened the overall bid in the eyes of the RFL.
What I don't know is what if any stress testing the RFL would have done on the plans eg what if you have a bad year on the pitch in year 1 and loose 30% of your fans, or cut your ticket prices in half in the hope that you double the attendences?

I think that's unfair, while it would have helped us if the RFL had acted quicker, I wouldn't think you could have a plan that would anywhere near cover what to do in such necessarily bespoke circumstances. Plus, surely that exact situation (whether or not to revoke a licence) is exactly what they are dealing with, and I suppose the nearest you could have to a plan is to look at what happened, look at the proposals and look at the new owner, and decide whether to continue or to revoke. Ideally it could have been done quicker, and the delay (plus the huge logistical problems no doubt caused by the "liquidation at midnight" ultimatum pressure and having to do the deal at the drop of a proverbial hat "or else", have significantly cost us - and will cost us - much more (in many respects, but not least in being unable to plan, unable to sign or renew contracts, while in limbo); but I don't dispute that it had to be done.

As to the existing licence, how could the RFL could have known that our meltdown from a highly successful club into a crap, not-even-playoff-team would persist for years?

Looking at the proposals and the new owner has already been dealt with when OK Bull's had to submit business plans, proof of funding and pass a fit and proper persons test to be ratified for RFL membership. All that's a clear path, prior to any decision on what division we play in, and appears to have been done in reasonable time scale once the OK Bulls deal was done.
What's missing is the process to decide what division and that could have been in place especially since the RFL were publicly talking about revoking licences in 2011 and they have known a decision would have to be made since June. It's not a linear process to complete 1 thing (RFL membership) before starting on the next.

<conspiracythoeryalert>Perhaps they're hoping Featherstone, Halifax and other potential candidates start selling season tickets for the Championship thus making it a non decision</conspiracythoeryalert>