This is bizarre.

Am I correct in thinking that Blake Solly's comments on the debt mean that the SLE bid would have cleared the debt giving the club the chance to stay in SL if the new buyers covered said debts?

If this offer is now worth more than SLE does this mean the creditors will be paid and the key stumbling block to the keeping the SL license is removed then?

Or, just maybe, once the SLE bid had stymied Caisley, Mr new bidder felt confident enough to come in?

That was my take on the situation. Though the fact the RFL/SLE were prepared to put that cash up front does suggest they [iknew[/i there was another offer in the wings, as they will take a fairly hefty hit if the club remains unsold.

So this might be the same bidder as the SLE had in reserve or it might be another group altogether.

Buyers of bankrupt SL cubs, they're like buses.....

Full of folk you would prefer not o associate with?

I think the important distinction would be that the SL(E) have said they would allow all our players (even the ones contracted to 2013 and beyond) to move to other clubs if they took control.

If a new buyer can satisfy enough of our creditors directly from administration then the players contracts with us remain valid for next season. (I think)

If Bradford remains unsold the other 13 will have the Bulls TV money for 2013 instead - which I wouldn't mind betting is the exact amount they bid.

I should clear that particular one with the bloke at Sky who writes the cheques first, if I were you.

rlhttps://www.superleague.co.uk/article/25871/new-buyer-found-for-bullsrl

The language sounds more positive given there aren't any quotes from the RFL repeating the word "conditional" ad-infinitum.
Looks like we're just waiting for Nigel Wood to get his breakfast before they'll give a decision one way or another.

Why does the RFL have to ok a deal anyway?

If a new bidder doesn't mention the words "conditional, licence or Odsal lease" then the RFL don't have any legal input into a procedure between the appointed administrators and a bidder- do they?

Yes I agree, that is very likely to be the case, but it would still be money lost to the game and money that they didn't (legally) need to spend.

If no-one comes in I'm sure the club would be revived in some form, but the company, which is what they are bidding for, would be dead and worthless, given that SLE clearly don't want to run it. This is why I think they knew that something was in the offing, otherwise they would have let the business be wound up and let the creditors take the hit. Otherwise it's either altruism of a high order or just that they wanted to preserve the good name of rugby league - though I suspect the good name in that sense died some time ago as a number of clubs have gone down the CVA/admin/winding up route over the years.

I'd guess that the administrator could sell the company to whoever he felt made the best offer to the creditors - in fact I also guess that is possibly his legal duty. If it were sold to an owner who would be unlikely to satisfy the RFL it would make running the business a bit risky as an investment though. I suppose Guilfoyle could just say it was a case of caveat emptor and just take the money, leaving the purchaser to stew.

Unless anyone knows different?