I asked questions to the RFL about the Bulls and other stuff a few weeks ago. To their credit they replied. This was my email I sent.

Dear Sirs,

I spent many years following Rugby League in the United Kingdom; I have recently been following the plight of Bradford Bull with some interest. I have used many different types of media to try and form a grasp of what was happening. This has included fans forums, to gain the fans of all clubs involved in the professional form of rugby leagues, point of view, I have read many newspaper articles written from people who know about rugby and them that probably do not know a great deal. I had contacted Bradford Bulls but have had no response. I thought it was time to contact the governing body of the game, to ask some of the questions I have.

I understand that just before the Bulls, (as I will now refer to them) went into administration the RFL bought the ground from them. Was this to secure the ground for all member clubs to have the use of? Will you be playing cup finals local and national, internationals games, can anybody rent the ground from you? I think having a centrally owned ground that can generate profit that can be distributed for the good of the game is a fantastic Idea. If you are not going to do this, will you be selling the ground back to the new owners of the Bulls? Will you be making a profit, or selling it back to them at the same price as you bought it? If this is the case then didn’t you just help them out of a “hole” they had dug for themselves, as has been suggested in many areas.

I do not understand the licensing system, which you use to determine the suitability of clubs to enter Super League; I suspect from reading the forums many supporters do not understand it also. From reading the forums it seems many of the supporters are suspicious of it, from reading comments the feeling is that the criteria changes to fit what the governing body wants in Super League. I believe that at the start of the licencing era if you had entered administration this meant you could not apply for Super League, I have also heard that your grounds should have a certain standard for you to apply for a licence and that some clubs have been promising “new grounds” for the last two licence periods with nothing showing for. Should these teams not lose their licence for not complying to the licence agreement? I understand that an impartial panel of people / companies look over the applications to guarantee that they comply to the criteria set out for a Licence to be granted. I believe it is felt that these people have more involvement in rugby league than an independent panel should have, but how did they miss the financial irregularities in the Bulls application? Was it overlooked because the RFL wanted the Bulls in Super League? Did the Bulls fill out the licence application incorrectly? If so is that not a good reason to kick them out of Super League.

The RFL have helped out the Bulls tremendously and you should have some credit for that, you have paid the players wages and helped out with organising a bid from the league they play in!?? to buy the club stopping it diapering from the game, fortunately I think for both the Bulls and you, this kick started more bids to be placed. Would you have done this if it was Doncaster, York or Rochdale? I would hope so.

I know you now have a big decision to make, keep the Bulls in super League, they are an Iconic club that have had success for a few years. Some may say that they have bought this success, spending money that they did not have and if they had spent the money they did have they may not have won anything but would not have nearly disappeared into Rugby League folk law. They have a huge following no other club has such a high following, not every club has sold their season tickets so cheap that it could not cover running costs and at the correct price how many season tickets would they have sold? Would these so called supporters move to another club such as Halifax if they were in super League?

Then you have the moral questions, if we let the Bulls stop in Super League do we leave the gates open for every Super League club to go bust / enter administration, leaving creditors flapping like dyeing fish behind them, with no more than a 6 point deduction in a league that you cannot be relegated from. That’s like a slapped wrist from a feather.

I look forward to the answers to my questions



Thank you for your time

This was the reply.


Thank you for your email.



Please see below some answers which will hopefully answer your questions. If there is anything that is missed out, or doesn’t make sense, please come back and we’ll do our best.



Regarding the Bradford Stadium, it was purchased by the RFL after the then owners of Bradford approached the RFL stating they were willing to sell. It was purchased to ensure the stadium remained as a rugby league venue going forward and was bought at a competitive price. The sport has lost some of its most important venues over the years due to cash flow problems (Central park, Station Road) The purchase guarantees that rugby will be played on Odsal and that it will not be used a ground for housing development etc.



Regarding licencing, it is a process which is not infallible, as every system has its own specific issues. The implementation of licencing was based upon the idea that;



· Licensing allows clubs to realise realistic ambitions. Many sports have experiences of clubs who have been seriously damaged by chasing the dream: one of the purposes of licensing is to help clubs grasp the consequences of chasing unsustainable dreams.

o This is something that previously plagued Rugby League, where upon semi-pro Championship clubs who earned promotion to the Super League would expend huge financial sums in contracting a completely new player base in an attempt, sometime futile, to remain in the Super League for more than one season.

· Licensing allows clubs to plan in the medium to long-term, which is something that’s often sacrificed in the short-term thinking of annual promotion and relegation.

· Licensing is not a panacea: it cannot protect clubs from poor quality decision making at Executive level.

o It is not the RFL who run the clubs

· Licensing is an evolving process: it changed between 2009 and 2011 and will change again before the next round in 2014: the consultation process with clubs is already underway.



Bradford’s situation is most unfortunate but it’s important to remember that;



· Sports clubs are not immune from the pressures of the economic climate – like any small business, they are susceptible to economic downturns.

· Four of the 14 Super League clubs (Hull FC, Wigan, Leeds and Warrington) reported a profit in their last accounts.

· Unlike football and rugby union, Rugby League clubs are not bankrolled to the same level by wealthy benefactors. The sport will always welcome benefactors but the goal is for all clubs to be sustainable and managed on sound business practices: they shouldn’t be dependent on the largesse of a rich owner.



What competition Bradford compete in next season will be decided upon by an independent board and will be made after consultation with the Super League clubs (Super League is a semi-autonomous company which exists to protect the rights of the competition and it’s member clubs) and will be made with the best interests of the game as a whole in mind.



Kind regards

I was waiting for the decision before I asked other question.

such as who was the independent board?

I have other items I will put in the email I just wondered if anybody had other questions.

'' Licensing allows clubs to realise realistic ambitions. Many sports have experiences of clubs who have been seriously damaged by chasing the dream: one of the purposes of licensing is to help clubs grasp the consequences of chasing unsustainable dreams.
This is something that previously plagued Rugby League, where upon semi-pro Championship clubs who earned promotion to the Super League would expend huge financial sums in contracting a completely new player base in an attempt, sometime futile, to remain in the Super League for more than one season.''

Which clubs are these. The promoted clubs are Wakey, Hudds, Hull, HKR, Salford, Widnes, Cas and Leigh. All bar Leigh are currently in SL and I know that statement doesn't apply to Leigh who made a profit that season - so I assume this doesn't mean overspending when in SL.
I therefore assume it means part time clubs shouldn't have the ambition to join SL, EVER. In which case the licencing objective is clear. In turn this means expansion must come from a FT base, and SL must be 2 divisions to do so