We don't know anything about the £1.5m "offer" though - if they are offering £1.5m straight up in cash, fair enough, if they are offering it over 5, 10 or even 20 years then it becomes much less attractive, and carries more of a risk to the RFL.

Similarly it was made clear at licence time that clubs could have their licences revoked at any time, they can't now give a guarantee that Bradford's is safe when others don't have that same security?

Just what I was thinking. I'd be amazed if the £1.5m was being offered in one lump sum.



I suspect some are safer than others though. If the RFL have doubts about the bidders then they'll be more reluctant to guarantee SL status.

Mirfield bull-- I agree entirely --that's what I would expect of the RFL . But I think the last month has revealed their limitations and perhaps their definition of what is reasonable and pragmatic is different than ours.
I don't think there is any alternative at this late stage for any bidder to going public via the media. If what is presented is a bunch of lies or half truths the League can rebut the statements. And it's not only the League which know the contents of at least the first bid-- it was circulated according to Sadler to ALL the clubs. I doubt that some of the leaders of the other franchises would be backward in coming forward to challenge ABC's claims if they are misleading.
It's over to Mr Solly and Mr Wood.

PS I look forward to seeing Rod Studd interviewing one of the current Bulls players after his comment which implied that because they were being paid they had no right to be worried and his sneering dismissal of their chances of reaching the play-offs.

I agree, but we can only go on what we're told, if the 1.5 is paid in stamps over a 100 years then the rfl is right to reject it. I suspect thats not the case, and rightly or wrongly this is now a matter of public record, if its wholely inaccurate to the actual deal on offer the rfl need to say so.

Licences can be removed at any time, I don't think anyone has a problem with that, I suspect the problem is if that decison has already been made already but not announced. If I was ABC I'd be asking for our current licence to be guarenteed until the next licencing round...INCLUDING the clause about removal at any time. So are we out now? If not we will have a licence until the next round by default (which could be interpretated as "guarenteed") but subject to the same rules as everyone else [uincluding [/uremoval at any time.

This is a pure red herring. I doubt the bidders have even asked , not only for them to keep the ongoing licence, but additionally some weird requirement that it would not be revoked [iunder any circumstances in the future whatever they do[/i. Nobody would ask for that, nobody would grant that, and if such a ridiculous condition had been put, then even from the ROFL, we would have heard about that.

We've been plainly told they just want to know if they are keeping the SL licence. Which would be "sold as seen". They aren't asking for a better, gold-plated one. Plus, how remote are the prospects of the Bulls newco being given the remainder of the licence, and then the new club doing something so bad that it merited revocation being considered, and the ROFL actually getting round to making a decision on it within the current licence period, and the RFL being prepared to summarily execute a member despite the chaos that would cause in SL? Million to one?

Don't watch Backchat anymore for that very reason! So if the offer was circulated to all the clubs, very disappointed in the RFL journalist community that they can't find out what was the conditions which caused a rejection - going to 13 clubs plus the RFL plus ABC plus the administrator means a leak would be very difficult to identify - same lazy journalism as Backchat.
Agree on diffculties on reaching play offs, I think we need to win 4 out of 5 given the other fixtures and how HKR and Hudds play teams around us (including each other!)

Surely Maurice Watkins is now in charge albeit on a temporary basis, certainly could mean the RFL taking a more than tougher stance than of late!

Undoubtedly.

I'm amazed at how people are willing to take up the side of a mystery consortium who seem to have no intention of revealing themselves, never mind what their plans are. Going on the evidence of previous administrations I have followed I have no doubt that the RFL will have their hands tied in what they can say in public due to confidentiality clauses in the bid. If, for example, their plan to pay for the lease involves the RFL witholding portions of the SKY TV money for the next couple of years and taking that as repayment how will they finance a half-decent squad? I'm not saying that's the plan, but it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility.

At the end of the day we have no idea what the mystery consortium have asked for, or have planned - they can leak little things out through certain people which pins the blame on the RFL as it seems people are happy to unquestionably go along with it.

Correct, but the alternatives don't look too rosy do they?

If someone hands me a parachute as I'm plummeting to the earth I'm not going to refuse it because I don't know how he got hold of it or what the stiching is made from.

The way we are being bullied into fulfilling our fixtures i would be happy for the players to simply not perform for the rest of the games ensuring lopsided scorelines and thereby screwing the league table.
If the coaching staff leave maybe the RFL could loan us McBanana, that should ensure a string of inept, effortless performances.

You missed a treat. Supposedly people who understand the issues but coming up with incoherent arguments.

The one thing that they agreed on was that the overriding concern is for rugby to continue at Odsal even if that means the bulls going bust.

We should be liquidated and then sell our players.

We should be relegated to the bottom tier where games against Halifax and fev will draw huge crowds.

We just need a figurehead to lead a supporters trust and it will be a doddle


I know that Stubbs' role is to stimulate argument but his flippancy was outrageous.

While Backchat does indeed resemble an amateurish circus, full of pretentious views.

I find you're criticism of Rugby League journalists to be harsh and unfair Mirfieldbull.

People like Ross Heppenstall, Gary Carter, Ian Laybourne - even myself and others, have worked tirelessly since the news first broke on the 27th March.

Unfortunately acquiring information has been excruciatingly difficult to obtain and substantiate, with so many key contacts and players no longer on the scene.

One of the reasons given on Monday evening for the rejection of the Second ABC consortium bid, was that they wanted to buy the Odsal lease from the governing body - in installments made over a number of years - crucially interest free.