Fair enough, but it is too obvious to maintain the pretence that the framework of licensing has meaning or value.



Fine - give New Bradford a franchise (as distinct from a licence). It'll be a whiffy retcon, but if there isn't a better solution, then so be it, so long as they don't maintain the pretence of due process and an attitude of 'carry on as we were'. I've got not a problem with Bradford, I don't want to 'punish' them. But talk of 'demotion' for a newco of this type is preposterous under the system you're trying to prop up. They didn't just go into admin, they failed to emerge from it and just started over (it seems from the limited info available).

The point of 'punishing' them in these circumstances is twofoldcan't[/i have both.

As for the lack of suitable replacements, that is a structural issue that is unlikely change until the structures do. If necessary let's admit that and choose the least unpalatable course of action.

I'm not arguing particularly for or against any system. I'm not even arguing for integrity - just honesty when the truth is obvious, and against an illogical and doomed effort from those in charge to have their cake and eat it.

Surely the 'due process' is the fairly simple and obvious process of seeing if firstly Bradford are capable of being an SL club in their new form, and secondly to see 'if there is a better solution'. We all (it seems) assume Bradford are, and that there isnt. But what is the harm in the RFL doing a bit more research in to it? If the cynicism is removed and we dont start from a point where the world is bad and the RFL corrupt they seem to be doing the obviously sensible thing.

Bulls want it both ways...no punishments, cos that was the old club, that was.

But still want to claim the history and records.

Is it a new, debt free club or is it the iconic old Bulls that we all know and love?

Which is fine, if you have a system predicated on 'sensible', just doing what is best. But licensing is (supposedly) about a consistent application of a detailed and comprehensive framework and doing what is right within the context of it. An ad hoc, make it up as you go along approach renders the principles of licensing obsolete.



Of [ifranchising[/i, yes. That is subtley but significantly different from what was advertised though, so this would represent a change, whether they admit it or not.

They are many arguements for and against the current farce that is unfolding yet I would hold your breath whilst waiting for an answer from the RFL. They will bottle it like they always do hiding behind some smoke screen ( that appears their only consistency)
I sure no real rugby fan from any club will want to see any club fold but Bradford have to pay the penalty for the mis mangement of previous board and subsequent going into administration.
The RFL should take a leaf out of the Scottish Footbal Assoc in the way they dealt with Rangers. They showed that there is no one club bigger than the game relegating the mighty Rangers to the lower regions on the
Scottish league, akin the dropping the bulls into the conferece.
So come on RFL show some b4lls and make a decision.

I'm sure the creditors that receive their 10% are over the moon with that.

Actually, it says that if Bradford ARE one of the best clubs in SL then SL itself is sheeeeiiite. But it doesn't because you're wrong.

Bradford WERE one of the best clubs, until they spent money they didn't have. Keep spinning your bullsheet though, it's an entertaining read.

from what you are saying it seems that you see some process within the franchise framework which isnt being adhered to, i dont know what process they arent following. And I would think it a stretch to argue that (from the RFL's point of view) licensing/franchising isnt a system predicated on doing what is sensible and what is 'best'.

Its almost as if people are criticising the RFL for there not been a rule stating outright, no equivocation, administration equals demotion, then criticising them for not following this rule which doesnt exist, then criticising them for taking an ad hoc approach, even though they accept that there will always be a necessary element of an ad hoc approach.

It is a change, but there would always, and will always be subtle changes to whatever system is implemented.

As i said, the three year time period was a mistake, it should be gotten rid of. It is unnecessary and arbitrary.
I also disagree with the 'competition' element of the way it has been advertised. It again was unnecessary. The franchising process shouldnt be a 'competition' between the clubs. It should be a pathway for each and every club. I think that if Leigh, or Halifax, or whoever were capable of being a Bradford, a Leeds, a saints, a wigan etc, then they would be in SL, we would expand SL to accommodate them. For all the arguments of there being too many clubs, i would argue we dont have enough, we need more, but they need to be up to standard.

That is the attitude the game needs to have, you are in SL on your own merits, because you add to SL, because you add more value to SL than you take out. Not because you are better than clubs x,y and z.

If we were to promote Halifax, Leigh, Featherstone, or whoever else it should be because of what they bring to SL, not as a default for Bradfords failure.

Im sure whether Bradford are in SL or the Championship it doesnt make a blind bit of difference to the creditors.

I'm not saying administration equals demotion in licensing. If the club had [iemerged[/i from administration then it would be possible to say everything was above board. A newco is a step too far, IMO. If even under these circumstances a phoenix club can gain a licence, then the bar is set so low... well there isn't a bar. A club can fail utterly, despite all the advantages of its SL status, and start fresh with a clean slate - so long as the other members of the club decide they are wanted. All the independent scrutiny, and measurement against criteria are meaningless. Perhaps they always were - but now we know.



I don't see it as subtle, but perhaps I wasn't cynical enough from the start. 4.2646484375:5