I don't think its a case of the consortium wanting to carry on with the Bulls current license with all T&Cs as they are now. If that was the case then the RFL could say yes you can have the license then at the end of the season, kick them out of SL. The consortium are asking for the RFL to guarantee them SL status until the next round of bids. This is where it becomes tricky because if the RFL accept the consortium's conditional offer then they would also have to guarantee every other clubs license until the end of the current license period. This would mean any of the other clubs could just go into admin, do whatever they want and not have to bother about being kicked out of SL.

The RFL have to keep their integrity and just tell the consortium that they won't guarantee them safety from SL expulsion. They need to tell them that they can carry on with the current license until there comes a time when a decision is made by the RFL Board and the other member clubs about Bradford's SL status.

Its not a catch 22, it’s a simply question that goes like this,

If we buy the club then it must be an SL club at least for the next two years barring another financial meltdown, here are our plans for the next two years to put us in a position to keep our licence, here are our plans after that. Can we buy the club and keep it in SL for at least the next two years barring another financial meltdown?

The RFL’s answer of not yes, not no, but ‘buy it and then we will tell you’ is as pointless as it is moronic.

That is the problem. The RFL have an obligation to apply the sanctions regarding an administration event. This was now over 5weeks ago now.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

They have partly applied sanctions already (the points deduction) without having all the information (the amount of money paid to creditors should be taken into account when applying point deduction).

They are just refusing to determine the other sanction which is possible (the license).

I assume there is not a time limit in the operational rules regarding this? I couldn't see one.

The only condition the consortia should apply is this :-

"No bid will be forthcoming until the RFL fulfil their obligation under their own operating rules to determine the final sanction for this administration event."

The RFL board have been meeting regularly - it's been 5 weeks.

A very good point.

Whilst I was obsessing with the lease stumbling block, the precedent would have been set if they gave the consortium a cast iron guarantee for the next two years. It could open the floodgates with clubs who are on the brink casting off their debt, yet keeping their licences.

The RFL would be very foolish to agreeing to set a president regarding a licence guarantee and reckless giving up the lease on the promise of future payment instalments for it.

No-one is asking them to set a precedent.

All they have to do is follow their own operating guidelines and determine the final sanction in a timely manner. As they do for player misconduct every Tuesday.

I was under the impression that they (The RFL) had stated that any licence could be reviewed & removed on an annual basis?

If they gave Bradford a cast iron guarantee of a further two years, surely a precedent would have been set?

All teams except Bradford called to Red Hall for an urgent meeting.

Any link for this? Pleased that this is happening though, there's clearly stuff to discuss so sit round a table and do it!

rlHere's onerl

The RFL should issue one of the following 3 statements. Having taken into account assurances provided by the bidder, the RFL confirms that the club's Super League license will not be revoked at this point in time. Any future breaches of the license, or failure to comply with the assurances provided to the RFL, will lead to a review which may result in the revocation of the license. If the club submits an application for a Super League license when the current license expires, it will be dealt with in accordance with the procedures appying to all applicants at that time"

OR

"The RFL has reviewed the bid(s) received for the Bradford Bulls and has also inspected the club's financial records. The RFL is unable to confirm whether, if the Administrator accepts the bid, the existing license will be revoked. Applications for a Super License will be invited in October. The club will be free to submit an application at that time".

Cheers

Where has anyone from Bradford or ABC said ABC want a cast iron guarantee? They want to know they can continue with the current licence to the next franchise round, same as every other current franchise. No-where, absolutely no-where has it been said that they want a different set of rules to everyone else. If they did demand that they clearly shouldn't have it, but as far as I'm aware that is not what is being asked.

They want to know if we're being booted out before the start of next season, and if the clubs are meeting this aft, it might be us and ABC are about to get an answer.

The phrase in bold itself is the consortium asking for the RFL to guarantee them super League status until the next round of bids. The RFL can let them run with the current license but they can not say that the consortium can run with the current license until the next round of bids. If they did that then they would have to guarantee other member clubs licenses until the next round of bids.

As I have previously stated, The RFL can only say that the consortium can carry on with the current Bradford License until a decision has been made by the RFL and SL member clubs on whether any new Bradford franchise can hold a license

But, here’s the thing.

To continue to the next licence is to agree to a further two years, whereas the RFL have allegedly stated they can review a licence on an annual basis.

Therefore Bradford would have an assurance of two years, whereas other clubs would only have one.

But thats not the RFL arbitrarily demoting people, that is clubs failing. Its not like the RFL are going to decide this off-season to kick Wigan and Leeds out just for the hell of it. Im pretty sure the Bulls would accept that there are proviso's for keeping thier licence and that keeping them in SL doesnt give them carte blanche for two years to do whatever they want.

You also have to remember that Bradford are asking for two years to prove they are capable of another 3 years after that, thats a pretty big stick to start with and Bradford are behind the 8 ball for the next set of licences regardless.