www.superleaguefans.com/ This can only be a good thing, if the administrator has confidence in ABC saying they will stay at odsal then maybe the rfl will.

www.superleaguefans.com/ This can only be a good thing, if the administrator has confidence in ABC saying they will stay at odsal then maybe the rfl will.

Sounds good. Stay at Odsal, stay in SL and a points deduction. Will the other clubs vote to keep Bulls in SL though? Could a "Yes" vote also spell the end of franchising?

if its yes or a no the RFL has the power to overrule the clubs decision anyway seems pointless in letting them vote

I agree, unless its overwhelming one way or the other, which from the leaks/rumours dosen't seem to be the case (about 50/50?). I'd rather the rfl took a view from each club then made their own decision based on whats best for the game.

I'd rather the rfl took a view from each club then made their own decision based on whats best for the Bulls.....................oh and let's just forget about the points deduction shall we

Except that it isn't really a "£3m offer". That's just the losses that they expect to make in the next couple of years. The key question is how much they're prepared to pay the creditors, which we haven't been told

It could, because if the Bull's business failings don't warrant forfeiture of license (and I'm not saying they do) who else is likely to be in a sufficiently worse situation to justify expulsion in 2014?

Except there will be no expulsion. The RFL and the clubs will first decide on how many SL teams they want in SL, and then whatever number that is licences will be given to those making what are deemed to be the best bids.

Playing Devil's Advocate,

I don't agree that RFL should give ABC the lease back as part of the conditions. I agree they should get some assurances that Bulls stay in SL ( like Wakefield did) at least until the next round of licenses and apply again with the rest of SL but what is to stop ABC in a couple of years saying no it didnt work we are selling the ground to pay of the debts and going to ground share elsewhere.

Didn't the last BOD give the lease to the RFL to pay off the loan they owed the RFL, so effectivley they would be receiving a big handout from the RFL and other clubs are in Debt and not getting anything from the RFL.

no ones suggesting the RFL 'give' the lease back. The consortium want to Buy it back. So there is no big handout. Whether the amount the consortium want to pay for the lease and the amount the RFL are prepared to sell it for are in the same ballpark is I guess where negotiations are involved. As for consortium selling the ground in a couple of years, they cant as they dont own the freehold. All they can do is sell the lease ( which I think only allows the use of the site as a sports stadium).

wakefield only stayed in sl because crusaders dropped out

Yawn.

Please back your statements with facts, not frivolous hearsay and rumour.

I'd hope that the staff and suppliers are paid what's owed them. I'm hoping that's the case and they've been tipped the wink given that they're all back "voluntarily".

But the tax man and the bank provided it doesn't impact on our superleague licence going forward I say screw them TBH!

But there doesn't [ihave[/i to be " a situation", nor does there have to be any "justification"; simply not being in the top 14 applicants for the 2015 season is sufficient reason not to be included in SL. It's down to which 14 clubs the RFL believes are likely to bring more to the table than the others. Simple as.

That clearly includes the possibility that one (or more) clubs which have met all the basic conditions might not get in. There is no 'reason', to be given; they just weren't in the RFL's 'best' 14.