Doesn't it depend on what Sky vote?

Basically

When in administration an administrator is appointed to run the club until a buyer / further investment can be found or until the club can no longer operate. If its the latter then it will be liquidated and cease to exist.

Obviously if a buyer is found and they can agree a deal with all the creditors the Bull would exit admin still as Bradford Bulls. if the are liquidated then Bradford bulls in its present form would no longer exist and a brand new company would need to be formed.

I understand the difference between them. My point is that if demotion to a lower league is punishment for failure then why not do it for admin? Liquidation is admin plus a failure to attract a buyer within the necessary timescale. The club has already failed if it's got to the point of admin.

because the RL has already set that president by not demoting other teams who have entered admin, but choosing to dock points.

also if a team is liquidated then the new company is no longer that original team. therefor they should apply to join the league like any other new team would have to do

Well durgh!!

So was there club votes to see if Wakefield and Celtic were allowed to remain in SL?

We weren't liquidated. We went into admin and were bought when in admin. We received the penalty for going into admin (which I note you haven't received yet) but the club never ceased to exist. A new owner simply took over from the old owner, sorted out by the administrator. In between, he lowered the outgoings of the club by dispensing of staff and some expensive players. You are hanging onto all of your players. If you liquidate, you cease to exist, and so I presume the clubs will decide whether to admit your fresh application for a new club.

For me, the difference is a bit technical and I would vote to keep you in.

(edited to make sense. note to self: don't post when drunk).

I think Cru for sure.

Not so. After the cru and wakey embarrassments RFL/SL changed the rules and all team signed up to it......punishment is 'unlimited'.

Quote: Slugger McBatt "We weren't liquidated. We went into admin and were bought when in admin. We received the penalty for going into admin (which I note you haven't received yet) but the club never seemed to exist. A new owner simply took over from the old owner, sorted out by the administrator. In between, he lowered the outgoings of the club by dispensing of staff and some expensive players. I note that you are hanging onto all of your players. If you liquidate, you seek to exist, and so I presume the clubs will decide whether to admit your fresh application for a new club. For me, the difference is a bit technical and I would vote to keep you in.'" Neither have Bradford yet, but this report seems to suggest Bradford have forfeited membership of SL from entering administration, and even if Liquidation is avoided it would be for the RFL in consultation with other SL clubs.(I thinking the consultation as a vote here) www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... over-bulls I was just wondering.

Quote: Slugger McBatt "We weren't liquidated. We went into admin and were bought when in admin. We received the penalty for going into admin (which I note you haven't received yet) but the club never seemed to exist. A new owner simply took over from the old owner, sorted out by the administrator. In between, he lowered the outgoings of the club by dispensing of staff and some expensive players. I note that you are hanging onto all of your players. If you liquidate, you seek to exist, and so I presume the clubs will decide whether to admit your fresh application for a new club. For me, the difference is a bit technical and I would vote to keep you in.'" Neither have Bradford yet, but this report seems to suggest Bradford have forfeited membership of SL from entering administration, and even if Liquidation is avoided it would be for the RFL in consultation with other SL clubs.(I thinking the consultation as a vote here) www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... over-bulls I was just wondering.

The clubs don't actually have a vote in this according to Nigel Wood. The clubs can vote on how many teams are in Super League, but our membership to super league will be decided by the RFL board, not the clubs.

It is a joint decision. If the clear majority of clubs want an option there is no way the RFL board will go against it.

Since the rfl bought the odsal lease without any consultation of clubs they have been put on the back foot for their decision making. The Bulls going bust 'despite' the purchase has weakened the rfl board.

Somebody might want to tell Nigel Wood, he seems to disagree!