Yes really. The announcement was that the administrator had sold the "business & assets" of BBHL to OK Bulls Ltd. The "business and assets" is not the company. If Omar Khan had bought the company he would not need to set up another company to do it, he would simply take over the shareholding of the existing company.

The RFL are on record as saying that there is to be a meeting this week to discuss admitting the new company as members of the RFL, which is a bit of a clue really.

I'd thought that the RFL were still carrying out due diligence on Khan and that's the delay in transferring RFL membership. As for business and assets, most reports have just said either the club has been sold to OK Bulls or that the company (BBH) has, but as I understand it (which is by no means a good understanding!) I'd thought that a business and assets sale is basically just another way of selling the company instead of through a share sale. As for having another holding company well lots of clubs do/have done that and IIRC Wakey did out of admin, IIRC Wigan set up a new holding company when Lenagan took over and Leeds CF&AC are owned by Leeds Rugby Ltd.

Like Mild Rover says though, it'd helpful if there was a statement on it all.

If the club has been sold then it is still the same club, not a new one, in the same way Wakefield or Widnes are still the same club. In this case it's still the same old Bradford, well going back as far as 1964 obviously.
Ah 1964, a new Bradford club accepted into the league and a top 16 playoff - I bet some RL fans were complaining somewhere.

The trading company is not the same as the sports club. Back in the day they were one and the same, but many (all?) of the SL clubs at least now operate a trading company that's legally separate from the sports club - in fact the trading company may well own more than one sports club.

It's an odd thing to say when the Bulls are still participating in this season's competition. How are they doing that if they aren't members of the RFL?

All somewhat opaque and confusing IMO. We really need a definitive statement clearing everything up, but I won't be holding my breath.

If you sell a company it is surely a going concern and the debts move with it. I understand this is not the case so the old one is boxed off with the debts, incl admin fees , its assets sold to Newco the money from this seems to be being used for paying the Admin costs and the poor pie supplier gets nowt.
I am sure someone mentioned a figure of £150k for the assets, which I assume includes players, if so surely selling the players eg Bateman, would generate more than the £150k ???? This is getting smellier by the hour.
Could, say, Fax bid £160k for the assets and move the franchise to the Shay. If thats the case then it's a cheap way to get a franchise and I am sure there would be plenty bidders above the price paid.

They can play in SL without being members of the RFL - Catalan Dragons have done so for years - as per article 4.9 of the Operational Rules...

[iFor the avoidance of doubt a Club may participate in Super League without being a member (at the discretion of SLE). However, any non-Member club which participates in any competition referred to in the Operational Rules (including but not limited to Super League) must agree to be bound by the Bye Laws and in any event will be deemed to have agreed to be so bound by its participation in the competition.
[/i

All it means is that they have no voting rights or automatic entitlement to a share of central funding.

The administrator has sold the business and assets to a separate company (OK Bulls Ltd) for £150k. The debts and liabilities remain with Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd. Therefore Mr Khan has bought the good bits (assets) but not taken on responsibility for the bad bits (liabilities, hence he has not bought the company in its entirity. The administrator will now wind up and liquidate BBHL and its debts will die with it.

The creditors of BBHL are not going to receive a penny as the sale price of the assets doesn't even cover the administrator's fees. Indeed, they've already had a letter confirming that.

Whichever way you look at it its a newco deal designed to enable "the club" to completely shed its liabilities and re-start as a debt free entity.

Ah, right. Hadn't read that section before. So it's down to the other SL clubs to give permission rather than the RFL.

So ultimatley it is the Clubs that run SL , not the RFL . so why is it the RFL that will be judging the ' mini licence application ' farce , why not just ask the SL clubs who they want ?

Our sport is a joke

Because, as was obvious to everyone else except a moron looking for evidence of his circular conspiracy nonsense, the SL clubs gave that power to the RFL.

Our sport isn’t a joke, most fans aren’t even aware of this board never mind the continual moaning of those with vested interests.

If you remove the flatcappers spin and desperation to forward their interests by criticising the RFL, the process taken and the processes we have for franchising and P+R are obvious, clear and sensible. Not perfect, but far from a joke.

Why are they so embarrassed that they had to make up all that other stuff then?

Also, a joke that isn't widely known is still a joke.