Think it is a case of not having the terms scrapped for the current situation which if they invest in the club they will be solving (as long as the RFL and Administrator do their job to inspect finances etc) if they then go and do something against the terms of the SL in future they will be accountable as any of the other 13 clubs would be. Seems fair to me.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do more like?

Yes. Gareth Hock.

I'm supportive of Bradford's plight and especially the people who have lost their jobs but this deal may change my opinion.

It will be a loss to the league if Bradford go under and I don't want that to happen, however, if the new consortium are demanding things that will put them in an unfair advantage, or will damage the integrity of the league then I am much less supportive of the club.

At Wakefield, Andrew Glover put a plan in place to save Wakefield. He in fact had two plans, one was a model to support the club if they were "relegate" and one if not. That kind of attitude shows that he wanted the club to survive no matter what. It wasn't just about now but a long term plan.
These guys seem to be playing chicken with the rugby league to get a deal just because they know the RFL don't want them to be lost as a club and they don't want to have an asset of Odsal that isn't being used.

They should put a plan in place for the RFL to review and see if they are worthy of a franchise, not demand it or else.

The problem with the potential buyers asking the RFL to guarantee Bulls' SL place in 2013 and 2014 is that the transfer of the 2012-14 license to the new company hast to be approved by a vote of the other 13 SL clubs. And, of course, the RFL can't guarantee how clubs will vote.

Got to love all these deadlines Guilfoyle comes up with that are effectively meaningless. Other than to extend his involvement and enable him to milk it for more fees, obviously.

So what deal are this consortium offering the creditors then?

So basically its "we want to buy Bradford, but we wont unless you ensure they are kept in Super League". If I were the RFL I'd take exception to that, it sounds a bit gun to head.

Surely if they just wanted the club to survive they wouldnt mind the possibility of demotion, and starting back up.

Wouldnt shock me if there if the RFL just turn around and say "we cant ensure it, its your risk to take".

No it doesnt. RFL have already clarified that final decision is theirs and they can overrule any vote by the clubs.

Buying back the lease is fine but wouldn't guaranteeing their super league status damage the intergrity of the competition?

Would it be wise for them to do that though?

They'd be peeing off over half of the super league clubs.

l

I thought that, correct me if im wrong.

So, by guaranteeing one clubs super league status while every other clubs can be revoked at any time gives them an unfair advantage.

We all want bradford to survive as a super league club, but this can't be at the expense of the competition integrity.

The rfl are gutless though, I expect them to bow to the consortiums demands.

they cant.

because this would be unfair and wrong.



you sit back and watch them.

will the RFL put their desire to keep the bulls in SL infront of keeping integrity to the comp?!

i recon they will.

Its mentiond on BBC text (the old cefax style thing on the red button) and it states that the RFL approved the bid yesterday (Tuesday)

My ceefax says that the bid was "passed to" the RFL on Tuesday, not passed "by".

Quite a significant difference.