Every competition is run on an ‘it depends’ basis. Any competition which ties its own hands and deals with situations which are blatantly different in the same way is just damaging itself.

And yes the RFL have rules set down. They are following those rules.

They don’t care, the bleating of a minority of vested interests makes next to no impact on them.

It seems very strange that you are demanding Bradford be relegated, why not Wakefield aswell then?

Sheffield have released a statement saying they will not be taking part in any "mini" licencing round.

There are no fall guys. If a club put in a manifestly better application, but were refused despite their application being a far better prospect than Bradford, then they would be a fall guy.

You are not thinking straight. Either there is a better bet for SL than Bradford, or there isn't. This does not put the whole priociple of "licencing" in question, on the contrary, it is the whole firkin point of licencing, to get the best 'applicant'.

But you are also arguing that by definition of it being a Newco Bradford don’t have a licence at the moment and this process would involve the RFL granting a new one. If by that definition Bradford are a newco, then Bradford haven’t shown any lack of skill in those departments, another different club did. Surely you can accept it would be wrong to remove Bradfords licence for what another, different club did?

Or, Bradford are the old club, which is keeping its licence having been bought and carrying on.


Yet they were before, as Widnes did, then they weren’t in the last round (and this stopped 0 clubs who were eligible applying) and then they were again. Why only this time the outrage?
There are rules, just not rules which make us make a decision that everybody seems to accept would lead us to a conclusion nobody seems to think is for the best.

No , the WHOLE FIRKIN POINT OF LICENCING IS WE SHOULDNT BE HAVING A MID LICENCE PERIOD APPLICATION PROCESS YOU FIRKIN NUMPTY

WE ARE BECAUSE YOUR FIRKIN USELESS CLUB MADE A FIRKIN MESS OF HAVING A LICENCE IN THE FIRST FIRKIN PLACE

HTH

Do we know if they were asked to?

Within the criteria , they are/were as entitled to do so as much as Fev and Leigh

bang on!

Nail. On. Head.

To use a real world analogy, its like having an employee who has committed gross misconduct but deciding to delay a decision on sacking him/her until you have interviewed potential replacements. If there's nobody better qualified or more experienced who applies then he keeps his job, despite his gross misconduct.

Awww, don't take on so!
Its me who's patting you on the head sunshine , you made quite the most ridiculous statement of this whole sorry mess , the fact you tried to pull some grammar just makes you more pathetic , you admit you dont understand the point I am making , that just adds to the impression of your stupidity

Hmmm. Please list OK Bulls Ltd.'s "gross misconduct" as to why they should not hold a licence, and I'll give that some thought.

You do actually know that BBHL, ie the people who were running it ie Hood and the former board, are no longer there don't you? Your analogy doesn't work, because neither Omar Khan, Gerry Sutcliffe nor OK BUlls Ltd were at any time in the employ of the oldco. And the people who were (principally the players, but also the rest of the retained staff, and the coaching staff) are absolutely not, on any view, the persons who did any "gross misconduct", if anybody did.

Your analogy fails as you are desperate to punish the people whose fault it is not, because you can't punish the people whoever they may be whose fault it is, but your are being unfair.

Awww bless.

I pulled the grammar point as the statement you made is a simple [inon sequitur[/i. Thus a non-point.

The thing is, you make so many incomprehensible or stupid points, it's hard to know which particular one you are now on about. If you tell me what your killer point is, I'll give it my best shot.

Good analogy. Any Championship side that gets involved in this farce deserves all they get. Don't legitimise it!