Hmm, I wonder if there will be any decision about our share of the Sky monies for next season?
Omar has mentioned quite a few times that he has been persistently trying to limit our funding cuts to this season only.

This year it was utterly scandalous but just the blackmail price he had to pay. Nobody has even remotely tried to justify it. The only justification would have been if the RFL had used the money to help creditors of the failed company, but instead every other team just had it large at our expense. There is no way and no chance of robbing us again. Either we get the licence or we don't. I don't think for a minute they will suggest another "tax" but if they did then Omar can tell them to feck right off with my blessing.

Don't think there is much to be fair, but as I pointed out previously they did only give us the one year so, however clear cut, they [ihave[/i to issue some kind of statement. Given our exemplary points deduction and loss of earnings maybe the statement should finish with something along the lines of, "The Bulls are now clear to boldly go where no club has gone before"...

Ross T&A has just tweeted that Bulls are meeting RFL tomorrow to discuss the licence application

It ought to be a formality.

Wonder if next year's TV money will be discussed too?

Thought that had already been discussed - and we were only getting half, same as this time?

I had hoped we might persuade them to let us have it next year.

Agreed, but if we dont get the money for next year the club need to issue a press statement itemising where the money has gone instead....assumung the RFL tell the club, and if they wont tell us that needs explaining too. Much more transparancy needed with this process.

It's a done deal. Bulls to forfeit 50% Sky money which is to be distributed equally between other SL Clubs.
It is outside of the RFL,s hands and upto SL.
Asking all SL clubs to rescind next year's distributions is like asking turkeys to vote for two christmases in a year
Why would any other SL club want to promote a move to loose their extra £50,000 Sky income?

If I was at a club that had, or expected soon to have, an unsustainable debt structure then I might be envious of the the way the Bulls were able to get rid of theirs in one stoke of a receiver's pen whilst still being able to remain in Super League.

Out of everything I had read about it, that was only for the current year. I also do not believe that it would even be possible to have agreed this for next year, as unless and until the RFL say different, we only have a probationary licence for this year. Do you have any link for any such decision?

I had doubts whether we could realistically sustain the operation on half-money and the loans etc have suggested times must be exceedingly tight, but can we really afford to do a second year on half money? I would be seriously worried.


I think we've done this rather spurious one to death, but the answer is, do what we did if you want to, and see what happens. We had no guarantees, in advance, and so anyone else going down a similar route could not receive nor expect any assurance, however as I think you know the reason we were able to remain in SL is exactly because SL and the other clubs need us - i.e. we were kept in out of self-interest by the RFL and the majority of the other clubs, albeit at a hefty price. Many other clubs do not carry the perceived value to the competition that, whether people like it or not, we do.

Other, lesser clubs may carry a "do not resuscitate" tag, but that is not our fault. ATEOTD if another club is placed in a similar position, then like in our case, it will be the other SL clubs that ultimately decide their fate.

FA
I am sure that the Sky restriction money was for two years and will look back for confirmation.
As you say the provisional licence given to the Bulls was for 2013. If this is confirmed as a full licence then it would be automatically extended for 2014.
I share your concerns about bearing this loss of income through 2014, but if, as I understand Omar was aware of this in his purchase of the club then plans for financing are or will be in place. Clearly it will be a difficult year.
Perhaps sponsorship and commercial opportunities have been included in his 2014 budgets

I agree that the brand of Bradford Bulls carried weight within any decisions made by the RFL, Super League and the ultimate bankers of our game - Sky Sports. Whilst the latter were never mentioned in negotiations it is inconceivable that they did not have influence on this major issue.

I still hold that the perception of other clubs with debt problems could be miffed.

Way I understand it is that the reduced sky money is tied into the fact we're on a provisional license. Various articles have said we're negotiating with RFL about next years money. I can't see why we would say that if the reduction was set in stone. I'm guessing we can either be upgraded to a full license next year and get full sky money OR remain on a provisional license until end of current licensing period at end of next season and also remain on half money. There really needs to be some clarity about situation from RFL so we know where we stand and also so other clubs in trouble know what there options are. Maybe a good question for Saturdays forum?, assuming a announcement re: license isn't the reason for the forum anyway.

We're on a provisional licence for one year. Why would we have to give up Sky money that we might not even be entitled to if we do not get a further year?

Whichever way you look at it if the RFL keep some of our Sky money next what are we going to do! leave Super league ..I think not, it i will however just go to show how the RFL can blackmail teams in SL, they should be concentrating on their own goals, like getting a paying Sponsor for SL