Oh really, that's disappointing as ifallwerelikemumby is saying the same. I haven't posted on it in years but it always did have a different 'crazier' tone to it - more funny though and not the stuff you're reporting.

Haven't seen this linked elsewhere yet, sorry if it has been, but in answer to the op question, looks like Nothus was right;

[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/9946617.Bradford_Bulls____Super_League_spot_secured_by_RFL_funding_cut/SL spot from funding cut[/url

"[iMr Sutcliffe insisted the loss of the cash wouldn’t affect its ability to spend up to the Super League salary cap, but told the Telegraph & Argus: “It’s true to say that we have given up some of our central funding to guarantee Super League status and it’s likely to be a sizeable portion.” [/i

So its our penace for being naughty, and a deterrent to others, and placates other clubs who will benefit from a weaker Bulls for the next 2 years.

I also found this article whilst wandering around the web which is a well written piece on the subject;

[url=http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/rugby-league-general/other-rugby-league/2012/09/22/bulls-look-safe-but-trouble-lies-ahead-100252-31883811/Bulls safe, trouble ahead for SL[/url


[i"Up until quite late in the piece, it appears there was a fair number of clubs ready to give Bradford the bum's rush.
But by the time the final show of hands was taken, there was only one chairman who felt the Bulls should get the boot


But in the end, the rest decided Bradford should stay.
The most vocal of the majority was St Helens chairman Eamonn McManus.
He too believes Super League should be reduced to 12 clubs, but takes what might be considered a more pragmatic stance.
He points out that under the right ownership, Bradford has a better chance of being a viable commercial entity than most.
To sum up McManus's position, he thinks the Bulls should be part of the elite, even if it was cut to 12.

The RFL's position is a sticky one. They have the clubs that are trying to get into Super League keeping a beady eye on them.

Suppose they stick to their word that a Championship club gets promoted for 2015 AND there is a consensus to reduce the top-flight to 12 teams!

That would mean losing THREE from the current set-up.
In the words of the song – there may be trouble ahead.[/i"


May we live in Interesting Times.....and thank you very much indeed Mr McManus.

If the article is correct then come the next licencing round then either mergers are back on the agenda or the fans of Salford, Wakefield, Cas and maybe those in East Hull should be getting nervous

I still cant work out how a club that previously was losing a shed load of cash and has now had its funding cut, apparently significantly, can still afford to spend up to the salary cap. Not unless the owners were prepared to fund enormous losses or our previous non playing staff salaries were off the scale, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Better management?

So in effect we are getting punished twice?
Not only do we get a 6point deduction this season, we get punished for the next two seasons as well. One rule for Wakefield, etc. One rule for us.

Indeed, to me there does seem an almost inevitable move towards reducing the number of SL clubs, plus the rfl have said (and put in the current operational rules and by laws) that one non SL club will be admitted in 2015, so in a 2015, a possible 12 team SL with the irreplacable clubs plus a current non sl club it leaves us and a few others with some work to do for what could be 3 or 4 spots;

1 Wigan
2 Saints
3 Warrington
4 Leeds
5 Hull
6 Catalan
7 Shuddersfield
8 (non SL club)

9 Widnes

10 Wakefield?
11 Bradford/Hull KR??
12 Castleford/Salford???

I suspect the rugby league landscape will have changed significantly before then though, with some aspect of promotion and relgation brought back at the very least, so any licence considerations now for 2015 might as well be a work of science fiction at the moment.

Bit off a difference between new owners saying full cap is available and actually spending it. according to one of hoods interviews we were 100k under cap last year. Combine that with 17 players leaving should give you an idea of our cap spend so far for next year. Admittedly a lot of the players retained will be at higher end of pay scale but should still be possible to guage how much of cap we're spending when we quality and number of players added to squad in coming weeks. Despite the public comments from new owners can't see us being anywhere near full cap spend next year.

I agree, and just cannot understand why they are saying it. It would be perfectly understandable if they said that we would be spending well under the cap for the next two years. The risk is that people buy their seson tickets, see that the squad is relatively under strength and feel conned.

Other problem we have is we're coming into player market very late this year. Most of quality players will already be sorted. Inevitabily we're going to have sign some average players just to give us squad depth but beyond that do you carry on and sign below average players just so you can say you've spent full cap?. I'd say its better keeping any money available in reserve for any decent players that become available during season, which always seems to happen, rather than filling squad out with dross.

I definitely hope we're not going to be signing 'dross', however the truth is that, outside the top four or five, squads are bulked out with solid super league players who could not really be called 'stars', and I'm sure we'll have a few of these.

I agree with the argument for 'keeping some powder dry' for later in the season though, it seems common sense in our position. We can never know just when or where we are likely to need to bolster the squad but if a decent player becomes available in a position where we need quality (or even just bodies, given recent injury levels) then it would be good to be able to go ahead.

I wonder how close the amount of withheld TV money is to the amount of rent the RFL are owed?

rent for odsal has been mentioned as approx 72k a year. so unless their covering themselves for next 15 or so years then seems unlikely. Plus RFL werent listed in administrators account as a creditor so seems likely the rent is one of the few things we did keep up with ( or RFL deducted it from tv money before handing it over).

Why would the RFL be owed any rent? They will have deducted it from the Sky money every month.

The statement of affairs showed nothing due to the RFL.

We were anyway told the rent is £72k p.a.

EDIT: And sorry, looks like Mat said same while I was posting...

The rent is only 72k a year?! Wow.

The funding cut is simply a fine then isn't it?

I think bribe is a more accurate term.

I do believe that is what I have been describing it as for a while now, yes.

But "only"? If the stadium head lease was worth £1.25m, and commercial property is [url=http://www.cbre.eu/uk_en/news_events/news_detail?p_id=7755&title=UK_Prime_Rent__Yield_remains_steady_in_Q2=#800000yielding returns of around 6% p.a.[/url then the rent is about right.

Yup, that's how I am viewing it at the momen.

I understand it's money to pay back "some" of the creditors. (the ones which could have scuppered any deal for the buyout).

The companies are two different entities, this company have no historic creditors.

Which is irrelevant if perchance the RFL had "voluntarily" chosen to settle certain creditors of the former company, for whatever reason.

If have no idea whether or not they have, although if the RFL has not been put under a shedload of pressure from Sport England, as a disher-out of public money, regarding losses incurred by the collector of public monies, after the Rangers debacle especially, I would be very surprised. And of course the RFL could well be seen by some as a soft target compared to say the FA or the RFU or the TCCB or even the LTA. But I honestly have no information in this regard.

I would be pretty surprised if the RFL does not settle the small amount of rugby debts, maybe out of the Bulls' fines, but given its the RFL who knows?

It's fair enough that any rugby debts are settled when membership of a rugby competition is involved, I just fail to see why the reasoning has to remain secret.

It's the RFL.

Innit.

if thats the case can we have 2 points back ala Wakey??

Well they're no use to the current season, so maybe they could add them onto next year?