OK, i bet they have a 9,000 fan base that are prepared to pay full whack. Whatever figure we land on that's still miles more than any club that might be brought in to replace them. That's what you have in one hand. In the other you have the option to punish by relegation. To send out a stark warning to other clubs that, no matter how big and flash you [iwere[/i - you aren't so big that we can't despatch you to the lower leagues. The Jocks did it with Rangers and that's more financially critical than kicking the Bulls out. It's the RFL's decision ATEOTD. They'll choose to keep them in no doubt.

Believe me, the SPL will come to regret the short-sighted decision they took there.

From a business point of view for the Bulls it might be more beneficial to start lower down and build some strong foundations. If and when they do come back into Super League they could have the 'Hull KR' effect and build up some excitement about their return and get that buzz back.

Id suggest that losing hundreds of thousands a year would come under their ' structure and governance ' , so wether they were aware of challenges is irrelivant, they were already fooked

As to what they should have done about it? , admitted it and lost their licence would have been the honorable thing, but the consequenses of that is an even bigger problem, tgat is the real problem we have, and the failing of the sport

Selling season tickets for £60?
Spending £200k a month on staff costs when clearly the income wasn't sufficient?


Do you think a bad debt fairy came down to Odsal in March and sprinkled fairy debt about the place or do you think the BOD have, over a period of years lost control of financial sensibilities. Is there nothing wrong with a club that loses £100k a month?

No doubt.

Regret it they might for a couple of years, but the integrity it displays is worth much more than the cash they will lose

As a HKR fan I think they should go, unless a white knight comes along & pays all debts now , It would be sad to loose them as they bring a good following, but so did KR but we had to start again. It may be the best for the fans to clear the decks build from the bottom & come back stronger, we suffered in east Hull but are now reaping the rewards of building again & seeing rewards for sticking with our team, KR are not secure or able to beat the best but the signs are there & I would add that if we were stupid enough to go bust again we would deserve to be chucked out.

You think that Bradford were losing £100's of thousands a year because of their operating structure/governance? So You think if they had a different operating structure they wouldnt have lost £100's of thousands a year then?

And i asked what operating structure/governance are you proposing would have been 'better' than the one Bradford had which you believe to be poor? Appointing some more non-execs to oversee the governance? And do you really believe this change (or whatever one you propose) would have prevented Bradfords problems?

I just called my electicity supplier and tried to pay my bill with integrity......it isn't a currency they were prepared to accept.

' Sticking with your team ' , so where were the other 6,000 hiding?

No, i think the board, and the people working for Bradford made a cluster of bad decisions of a number of years which lead Bradford to be unprofitable leading to a situation where a large payment and a few unexpected bills caused administration.

I just dont think that has anything to do with P+R, franchising, or anything else. We cant legislate against clubs owners/directors running their clubs poorly. We dont run the clubs for them.

The problems Bradford face, and the situation they find themselves in is 100%, unequivocally, with no mitigations the fault of the people who own and run the Bulls.
Its not a conspiracy, its not corruption, its not down to franchising, the RFL, the Dalai Lama or anybody, its down to Bradford.

Im not sure what integrity they have shown in breaking the terms of their broadcast contract with the two major sports broadcasters in the country at the start of a new 5 year contract, meaning their broadcast contracts can be re-negotiated for much lower amounts, meaning less money coming in to their game and likely leading to clubs going bust throughout the league.

I don't want to see them kicked out and I would be happy with the same deduction we had. My only concern is that the new strict rules could be seen as a moveable feast, depending on which team is involved. Wigan/Leeds/Huddersfield/Saints/London/Warrington/Bradford/Hull FC can do whatever they want. Breach any rule they fancy and it won't be a problem. Salford/Wakefield/Cas/Widnes/Hull KR better not or you're out.

So no, I don't want to see them go. But, and this is a big but, it shouldn't be about a vote. It should be about what the rules say. So what do the rules say?

Nobody has suggested it is because of licencing or that it would be any different with P and R, but that still doesnt mean that the licencing application process shouldnt be stringent enough to highlight such a huge problem

Nobody has suggested that it isnt anybodys fault except the Bradford administration, so stop pretending anybody has suggested as such, you are once again changing the argument to avoid facing the truth