No, you don't see. You never have, all you have ever been is a poor wind-up merchant. Personally I just find you sad.

But, referencing the particular post that prompted your rapier wit, I simply pointed out that, going forward, if the new owners (as was) had taken their sanctions and shut up, then the new owners who had not provided a credible business plan, apparently, and in whom the RFL had no confidence, apparently, would have nevertheless been allowed to continue in SL.

So it was a comment, on what the RFL state as a fact.

Now, where in that post of mine that you quoted, is the concept of "blame" mentioned, or even referenced?

Re your graphic, of what does your addled brain believe I am "in denial"?

Do try harder. Your output will inevitably still be drivel, but if you want to have a go at me, then at least make it superficially [ilook as if[/i it is relevant to something I actually wrote.

Aim for a better class of drivel, and go from there.

I thought we had agreed that the rfl hadn't ratified this yet? Maybe they were just waiting for the full details to come from the administrator as opposed to (heaven forbid) making assumptions about the offer? We will never know if the rfl wouldn't of ratified the deal as it's been presented (all to publicly) to us. Whilst arguably slightly unprofessional it's hardly uncommon to go "always knew they were shady" after a deal goes south! That said, after the comments mark Moore made, it's hardly surprising.

The only about face has come from mark Moore, ignoring a signed contract to buy the club. If he had honoured this, none of this would of happened.

Edit: also what help did the rfl give this consortium, beyond business curtesy? As far as I can see, they just behaved like anyone hoping for investment in what is basically a subsidiary ...

just because you have invented a situation in your head about how leeds should just magic crowds twice as big as anyone else doesnt mean it has any basis in reality. It is just something you pulled out of your to defend your circular arguments.

I'm not sure at what time you mean, but why would I have done that? If the new owners don't provide the business plan and funding details that they need to, after having the requirements made clear, then why should the fans - who don't forget financially prop up the business of the new owners - be left in the dark about this alleged failure?

Plus, it isn't a question of "foul". If you have to produce evidence of funding of £x, then you either can, or you can't. If you have to produce a business plan acceptable to the RFL, then you either can, or you can't.

It would be reasonable, if there were issues with what had been provided, to try to address these in private with the owners first. It would be reasonable to go public if that failed.



This decision, according to Moore, was communicated at a meeting on 12 February.


On the face of it (and the rest of Moore's statement), that was hardly was being helpful to the consortium trying to rebuild the club.

Is it time to give the Bulls the boot from Super League? I really don't see how long the RFL can keep supporting what is obviously a failed business. Relegate them and London now, give Leigh and Toulouse the time they need to get ready for next season.

no, what has happened is that the offer has been accepted, the players and staff had been moved over, the business had been transfered, due diligence done, fit and proper persons test done.

The difference was the administrator insisted that he wait 28 days to see if there was a better offer so asked the RFL to grant a 28 day licence to facilitate a sale to someone else if that opportunity arose. It didnt.

The offer had been made, it had been accepted, the reason the transfer wasnt complete at that point wasnt down to the RFL but the administrator.

The RFL can't not ratify the deal, the club and its assets dont belong to them, they could refuse to transfer the licence but they had already transfered it for 28 days.

Now there is a possibility the RFL could have refused to turn that 28 day licence in to a years licence. But that they would need to justify refusing that transfer legally and that would be done next month which would have left us in the ridiculous and simply untenable position of mid-season having a club called Bradford Bulls with all its assets, badge, kit, sub-lease etc, as well as player and staff contracts and registrations owned by Mark Moore and co, which had no licence to operate a club and nobody having a licence to operate that club. To refuse the transfer of licence at that point, when the sale fo the business has already been completed, would have simply guaranteed that the club went under, mid-season (which it has anyway)

Why has the game dug itself a hole. Clubs are businesses, if run badly they fail. If they are incapable of cutting their cloth accordingly and fail. So be it. My sentiment has been well and truely worn out by people thinking certain clubs have a right to be in SL.

Got to agree with you on this.

Writing Leigh without some condescending or derogatory remark attached to it....whats wrong with you

The chip on shoulder victim complex in RL really is a sight to behold.



It has nothing to do with certain clubs having a right to be in SL (though if you listen to some smaller clubs it is they who think they have the right to be in SL) it is to do with the fact the RFL have allowed a club they had no confidence would finish the year, to start the year.

A club going into admin and coming out doesnt destroy the integrity of the competition, some games being counted and some games not, some losses/wins being wiped, competition rules being changed mid-season, competition numbers being changed mid-season, they destroy the integrity fo the competition and that is the hole the game has dug itself.

Say you are a Cas and your club is relegated by 1 point from Wakefield. Are you going to simply accept that they had a loss against Bradford wiped out?

Say you are Wakefield and are relegated by 1 point, are you going to accept that everyone got a bye for a game you lost?

Say you are Salford and you miss out on the play-offs by a point, are you going to accept that everyone else got a bye whilst you had to actually go out and win that game?

So Caddick wouldn't invest in property if he didn't own Leeds? What planet are you on?

Club owners [udon't make money from RL[/u. If you believe that they do then your stupidity surprises me even further.

Quote ="littlerich"So Caddick wouldn't invest in property if he didn't own Leeds? What planet are you on? Club owners [udon't make money from RL[/u. If you believe that they do then your stupidity surprises me even further.'" Really? club owners dont make money from RL? this seems a very misleading statement then [iThe operating profit for Leeds CF & A – Rhinos’ parent organisation – rose by £100,000 to £667,385 in the year to October 31, 2012. [/i www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-5517372

Quote ="littlerich"So Caddick wouldn't invest in property if he didn't own Leeds? What planet are you on? Club owners [udon't make money from RL[/u. If you believe that they do then your stupidity surprises me even further.'" Really? club owners dont make money from RL? this seems a very misleading statement then [iThe operating profit for Leeds CF & A – Rhinos’ parent organisation – rose by £100,000 to £667,385 in the year to October 31, 2012. [/i www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-5517372

That's just a tad disingenuous - the statement came out from the RFL after the somewhat provocative comments issued by Mark Moore on the Bradford web site - agreed that was after the board had removed their bid but come on!!!!

Quote ="SmokeyTA"Really? club owners dont make money from RL? this seems a very misleading statement then [iThe operating profit for Leeds CF & A – Rhinos’ parent organisation – rose by £100,000 to £667,385 in the year to October 31, 2012. [/i www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-5517372'" Didn't you sell the cricket ground that year which meant you made a profit

Quote ="SmokeyTA"Really? club owners dont make money from RL? this seems a very misleading statement then [iThe operating profit for Leeds CF & A – Rhinos’ parent organisation – rose by £100,000 to £667,385 in the year to October 31, 2012. [/i www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-5517372'" Didn't you sell the cricket ground that year which meant you made a profit

Although to be fair, in your head, I suppose all these things happened

I think you misunderstand my complaint about it. im not complaining that the RFL made these comments in response to a fairly strong statement from Mark Moore, im complaining it wasn't made before hand.

The issues and concerns the RFL state are far deeper than simply a response to Mark Moore's accusation, if they are a true and accurate representation of the RFL's view then Bradford should never have been allowed to start the season and this statement should have been made weeks ago.

The trigger for that statement should have been the RFL's need to take action to mitigate a pretty grave set of circumstances, not as part of a PR war. It leaves us with the impression that had the Bulls meekly accepted that penalty the RFL would never have made these concerns public, and simply hidden the fact they allowed a club they had no confidence whatsoever would finish the season, to start it.

no, that was years ago,

Leeds make a profit most years

no be fair, he has changed his predition now that all players will play for 30k rather than 50% of their current contract.

That also hasnt happend but.................

No that was in 2005 IIRC.
Thanks to a £9m loan from Leeds City Council. The same Leeds City Council that is so ridiculously unhelpful when it comes to planning permission for rugby league clubs. The Wakey fans will be familiar with their work.

I think in recent years, out of the 30 professional clubs (both codes) only Leeds & Leicester have made small profits. A few clubs break even (those with low maintenance/high corporate spec newer grounds). Everyone else is on a sliding scale of loss making.

Wire and Wigan have both reported profits, so have Hull FC.

Also Leeds profits arent that small, admittedly they arent apple but £600k a year profit isnt an amount to be sniffed at.

Comments from Richard Lamb in local rag:

Seems like a breath of fresh air.


The RFL say they are speaking to two interested parties and Mr Lamb last night he told the T&A: “I contacted David Wilson today and confirmed that while the process has undoubtedly changed, my position has not.

“When the process is confirmed I will look to make an offer to buy the club and would be delighted with the opportunity to take Bradford Bulls forward.

“I have no qualms with the points deduction because the governing body has been very clear about penalties related to the trading company entering into administration.

“While it is very hard on players, fans and sponsors who have not been involved in the commercial running of the club, the rules are the rules.

“I would not seek to challenge this position and would look to continue to build for the current season. As I have always said this season is going to be tough but everyone needs to stick together. If the season ends in relegation then as many clubs before have done, Bradford Bulls will need to rebuild and move forward.


“I hope the upcoming process is transparent and whoever is lucky enough to own this great club will support some of the game’s best fans.”

Sounds good. Trust nobody.

for all we know they probably didn't make the statement beforehand because the newco board had suggested that they had "investors" lined up, the RFL may have asked to see these confirmed in writing for the meeting on 12th Feb. The details were not produced at the meeting and the newco were then apparently told the business plans were insufficient and notified of the impending penalties, to go away and put a better financed plan together for yesterdays meeting..

The RFL saw no improvement in the plans so imposed the sanctions.........

The hard part is if the finance plans were insufficient why didn't they just say "sorry" but we cannot grant you the SL licence to carry on.....

That seems to be the dissonance. The sanction isnt because the RFL dont trust the bulls business plan it was because of the administration.