I reluctantly agree with that. It's simply not credible to add a points deduction on top of getting only half the money. I don't care who the club is, that form of double kicking goes way above and beyond.

There needs to be some form of points penalty for going into administration even if it is only 4 points otherwise the game will be brought into disrepute.

[url=http://www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/news/article/8859/chairman-squad-is-ring-fenced?BULLS FIRST TEAM SQUAD NOW RING-FENCED. NO-ONE IS FOR SALE.[/url

Oh, and as an afterthought.....

[url=http://www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/news/article/8859/chairman-squad-is-ring-fenced?... sincere apologies to all Super League stakeholders for yesterday’s story, regarding the Bulls starting the new season on zero points, which was posted onto the club's official website. [i"I made my first mistake, by having a misunderstanding of the due process needed to guarantee starting the Super League [uequally[/u with all other clubs"[/i[/url

Were the playing squads of Wakefield and London equally ring-fenced and not for sale?

I know he's such a sinister character apologising like that and then going on to explain it in full. What a dodgy boiler.

How utterly arrogant of the Bradford Bulls directors:

a) "we're not going to pay a penny" (to the major creditor) and

b) we're not going to sell ANY of our first team squad.

For a club that's just gone into Administration (again), I can't think of a more clear cut case for a 6 point deduction.

Ha ha ha

I'm not overly bothered about the amount of points deducted. But there should be a points deduction for going into admin. It's part of the rules.

As for punishing the new owners. It's not really about that, it's about redressing the balance for the club buying players on finances that they could not afford.

Whilst the owners lose their money through loans or capital that is invested. A points deduction is the only way to apply that punishment to the club itself, which remains as it was days ago, except under new ownership.

We never went into administration.

with P&R back not deducting the bulls could set a dangerous precedent. Teams will go back to going bust to stay up

We never went into administration.

It might be a good return for the rfl but its real cheap rent for the bulls

Why are the bulls getting special treatment because of ''iconic status''?

They aren't bloody iconic anymore are they? They're a lump of sh*t. I'm sick of the whole fiasco and would be glad to see the back of them.

Points deduction and relegation please.

Plus it's only a good return whilst the bulls can afford to pay it, which only lends itself to the conclusion that it's in the RFL interest to protect their investment and not penalise the bulls.

Hang on, this can't go both ways - either it's cheap rent for the bulls, meaning that it can be afforded to be paid even in the case of relegation (especially given the circumstances of much increased funding for the championship clubs) OR the rfl have an interest in keeping Bradford in the top division because it's not a good deal. It can't be both.

78k pa is easily payable even on championship funding (given they're looking at spending over 6x that on the salary cap) so, the question is how likely are we to see Bradford drop down 3 - 4 divisions, to a point where by the rent becomes extortionate enough for them to move out, in the ~15 years it would take to break even? Ceasing trading is the biggest threat to this, but the rfl never hid the fact they were a last case purchaser when they were in administration so it seems unlikely (there are safety nets in place rather) - so to drop down to a point whereby the price point is unreasonable takes fairly major drops in playing standard which in the time frame, is, whilst not impossible, highly improbably - after all, who was playing 4th division 15 years ago and is now in superleague? (It's easier to go up than down!)

How can they drop 3 or 4 divisions?
Why do you think 78k is easily payable by championship clubs?.
Who was playing in a 4th division 15yrs ago and is now playing in SL?

2013 was my last visit to Odsal if the RFL dont deduct points as they did to Wakefield. We are supposed to have a level playing field. I am not the only one making this decision.

2013 was my last visit to Odsal if the RFL dont deduct points as they did to Wakefield. We are supposed to have a level playing field. I am not the only one making this decision.

2013 was my last visit to Odsal if the RFL dont deduct points as they did to Wakefield. We are supposed to have a level playing field. I am not the only one making this decision.

2013 was my last visit to Odsal if the RFL dont deduct points as they did to Wakefield. We are supposed to have a level playing field. I am not the only one making this decision.

Kinda my point, the point where central funding becomes less than the quoted rent is the league below championship 1 - the secured rent can be taken from what Bradford are paid, rather than waiting on Bradford to pay.



The proposed funding for championship clubs are well above those numbers? If the rfl are paying them more than they expect, it's seems secure.



Nobody I can think of, hence it seems unlikely for them to fall beyond a point where they don't have secured rfl income that's more than the rent hasn't happened in a long long while

78k seems cheap.

I guess that's just based on the roi the RFL want on their lease investment, as they don't own the freehold.
Is it also intended to pay back interest on the prior loan to the RFL? or is that just taken as the value of the lease? (1.2M?)

For comparison, the last figure I heard for Belle Vue was 100k per year rental from the BOI (or whoever is acting on their behalf).

Are the RFL a creditor of the Bulls?

If so, how much has this admin cost the game?

They owed money to more than just ok didn't they and were apparently going to be the subject of a winding up order by HMRC, so the question is how have they been allowed to enter a pre pack and come out the other side issuing a statement that the first team squad is now ring fenced?

I would imagine the players were the only assets likely to realise any value to pay off the creditors so how are the creditors gonna be paid a decent portion of what they are owed now?

This is the second time administrators have allowed a deal to be done that seems to be more in the bulls favour than that of their creditors. If talks were on going for certain players to leave, I would have thought the administrators should have allowed them to conclude and free up cash for the creditors?

I am asking these questions cos I don't understand the process fully, but have seen what happened at Wakefield when we were in admin and players were sold for a pittance.

The half super league money was an agreement to allow the bulls to retain their super league status wasn't it, so they had a choice at that stage to drop out and rebuild. Once they decided to stay in, they then had a chance to trim their squad costs likely we have done this year and again chose not to.


Wakefield were told and rightly so that if they went into admin in August last year which was Glover s plan, they would be out of super league so why should the bulls be any different?

Even with a points deduction they have still obtained an unfair advantage keeping their squad in tact.

This isnt the end of the saga though.

Where are the Bulls going to get the finances to complete the season?

Teams should be relatively flush at the start of the year with all season ticket and sponsor money banked, not going into admin.

It will cost around £300-400k/ month to run a SL club. and there wont be many suppliers or banks offering them credit.

Ok ok we get the point you don't have to repeat it 10 times!

Wakefield got a 4 point deduction. Bradford got 6 points and halving of central cash for two years so this notion if fairness by small minded supporters o other clubs is embarrassing.

By the way 2013 was my last visit to Belle Vue because you hae now got them place on my list of away grounds I'm avoiding.