The rent can be cheap, and it can be a good rate of return for the RFL.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

If the RFL got the lease at a knock down price, then they do not need to collect exorbitant rent to get a good rate of return.

Personally I would have preferred repayment in 10 years, but 15 is not terrible. The question is would they get more money from sticking it in the bank.

£1.2 million invested just at 2% would take 27 years to recover at £75,000 per year. At that level it does not look as good an investment in terms of just pure money.

I use 2% as my example because £1.2 million invested at 3% with compound interest would never be beaten.

So as a money investment alone, it's not a good rate of return for the RFL. Given that it stabilized the Bulls enough to keep them bobbling along, then it may have other financial benefits, through keeping other partners on board.

If they had let the Bulls fold and the lease was part of the assets, then anyone could have bought the lease. The Bulls could have had no home and dirt bike racing could now well be on the way at Odsal, with no guarantee that the reformed Bulls would be allowed to play at either Odsal or VP.

The RFL would have been down one team for 3 years and sponsors may have been less likely to invest in a league with teams disappearing left right and centre.

In the end it is probably a good deal for the RFL, but in terms of the lease alone, it's not a financial wonder. It's more a breakeven policy at best with the hope the Bulls may one day buy it back at cost value, meaning the RFL just get profit off the rent paid.

You have never heard of Glasgow Rangers?? Demoted 2 divisions for their financial ineptitude.

Wakefield were told in no uncertain terms that admin would result in demotion.

Why is it different for the Bulls?

I don't know the full details regarding that but Hearts also went into admin and were only deducted points.

I've no idea why Wakwfield were told they would be relegated if they went into admin and it is wrong if they were told that.

Deduct the appropriate amount of points depending on creditors been paid and let's move on.

The precedent has been set and we have to have consistency!

If Wakey faced relegation, so should Bulls and anyone else using admin as a way out of financial mismanagement.

Yeah, this "offer" of half the central funds, it seems that it was pretty much offered in the same way your valuables are offered to a mugger.

You do realise Wakefield also benefitted from the RFL not setting a precedent. They seem to always forget that they stayed in SL when they went into admin and also got a license after they PROMISED to make improvements on their stadium. Reducing capacity is not improving it.

Anyway as far as I am aware the rules on admin are 6 points deduction reduced depending on willingness to pay creditors.

Have you any articles or statements regarding the RFL saying Wakey been told they would be relegated if they went into admin as I don't remember seeing anything. Cheers!

The chairman of the club announced it himself at a fans forum.

I would think a 6 point penalty would be appropriate, but how does that stand with the precedent set?

There has to be consistency. And remember, the RFL leadership announced that, as a part of the whole game review, that penalties for financial mismanagement should by MORE punitive!

Fair enough. If there's nothing in the rules of kicking a team out though then it's not going to happen.

I don't do Chinese whispers and Chairmen will say anything to supporters (look at the Bulls) so the Chinese whispers do not set a so call precedent. The only Precedent set is the ones we have where clubs have been in Admin and they have always been points deductions. There is a difference also between admin and liquidation. I've checked the rules and there is nothing about administration that I can find. But interestingly the appendicies are missing??? www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/o ... s/sectione

I don't do Chinese whispers and Chairmen will say anything to supporters (look at the Bulls) so the Chinese whispers do not set a so call precedent. The only Precedent set is the ones we have where clubs have been in Admin and they have always been points deductions. There is a difference also between admin and liquidation. I've checked the rules and there is nothing about administration that I can find. But interestingly the appendicies are missing??? www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/o ... s/sectione

Don't the new company have to apply to take over the bulls licence? If this is the case then the application could be refused and the bulls relegated.

However the RFL appear to have propped them up until the eve of the new season to make any notion of demoting them out of the question.

Because apparently they have 'iconic status' (that means ramming bull mania down everyones throats and winning a few titles in the early 0's).

Apparently the game will be in oh such a terrible state if they weren't in super league, we just can't do without them.

Not a week goes by they aren't dragging rugby league into the new for all the wrong reasons.

GET RID.