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.

If the RFL do the right thing, there won't be ANY Bulls fans coming to BV this year!

You shouldn't be anywhere near SL.

Bradford got six points and OFFERED to take half of central funds for two years. It wasn't forced - it was offered by your then Chairman.

Let's just hope that they don't OFFER the other half this time.

You do realise your going to be accused of being small minded?

Fair minded is the term you are looking for.

I'm happy to pay the lost ticket money for you not to attend, it would indeed be my pleasure.

I see that the West Yorkshire folk have descended into in fighting.


Please continue


In the normal world, I can't see the argument for kicking the Bulls out on any level. It makes no sense. Points deduction sure, but kicking them out????

Whilst we are at it can we kick Wigan out for a laugh. No reason required, as it seems to just be fashionable to want to kick any old club out at the moment.

Whilst we are at it can we slap a points deduction on Catalan for being too far away.


I'm all for points deductions, but it must be within the rules. I think a lot of this is in fighting as there are too many West Yorkshire clubs to divide into 12 SL clubs.

If that 4 - 6 points ends up relegating Bradford then so be it, but at least it's in the rules.

I don't understand why some fans think we should thrown out. I still don't know any sporting organisations who have thrown a team out for going into admin. Points deduction and let's move on.

In reply to the posters about our rent, I think it has always been extremely cheap, we just look after running costs.

The rent can be cheap, and it can be a good rate of return for the RFL.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

If the RFL got the lease at a knock down price, then they do not need to collect exorbitant rent to get a good rate of return.

Personally I would have preferred repayment in 10 years, but 15 is not terrible. The question is would they get more money from sticking it in the bank.

£1.2 million invested just at 2% would take 27 years to recover at £75,000 per year. At that level it does not look as good an investment in terms of just pure money.

I use 2% as my example because £1.2 million invested at 3% with compound interest would never be beaten.

So as a money investment alone, it's not a good rate of return for the RFL. Given that it stabilized the Bulls enough to keep them bobbling along, then it may have other financial benefits, through keeping other partners on board.

If they had let the Bulls fold and the lease was part of the assets, then anyone could have bought the lease. The Bulls could have had no home and dirt bike racing could now well be on the way at Odsal, with no guarantee that the reformed Bulls would be allowed to play at either Odsal or VP.

The RFL would have been down one team for 3 years and sponsors may have been less likely to invest in a league with teams disappearing left right and centre.

In the end it is probably a good deal for the RFL, but in terms of the lease alone, it's not a financial wonder. It's more a breakeven policy at best with the hope the Bulls may one day buy it back at cost value, meaning the RFL just get profit off the rent paid.

You have never heard of Glasgow Rangers?? Demoted 2 divisions for their financial ineptitude.

Wakefield were told in no uncertain terms that admin would result in demotion.

Why is it different for the Bulls?

I don't know the full details regarding that but Hearts also went into admin and were only deducted points.

I've no idea why Wakwfield were told they would be relegated if they went into admin and it is wrong if they were told that.

Deduct the appropriate amount of points depending on creditors been paid and let's move on.