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.

Thanks for clearing that up, looks like balls in the RFL's court then as I would be very suprised if the other clubs vote to oust you.

The RFL have already said they will not accept conditional bids - this is a conditional bid. Not sure that we have much progress

The consortium holds all the cards here!

The RFL will lose out when the ground is sold back at a much reduced price, which means in turn we as supporters lose out as that is effectively our money!

The consortium can hold the RFL to ransom, and this is exactly what they will do, they would be stupid not too.

The RFL (Richard Lewis) has a lot to answer for, the RFL should have never have got involved.

I only hope when the next SL club goes to the wall the RFL are there with a pot of money for them!

what is your source for that? the TnA article clearly states "£3m offer to buy the Bradford Bulls", not "£3m business plan for assets and losses for next few years". I would guess that the lease buy back is included in that at whatever value.

but its what they see as the scope for increased revenue that I find interesting. all that car parking space would cater for much more than the coral stand, 7 days a week.

If you ignore the headline and read the meat of the article I would agree with Cibaman