Does anyone really have any idea how it actually works?

I know i'm confused, theres conflicting information from all angles.

-[iOH it's the RFL they have carte blanche over any rulings should they see fit
-It's the super league clubs, they vote and ultimatly decide
-No it's both, the clubs and rfl all vote
-If the clubs vote and the rfl don't like it they can veto it
-The only time the clubs can vote is if they liquidate and eventually need to be voted back in[/i

Theres just so much uncertainty and confusion about the whole debacle. God only knows what the players and staff must be thinking, this is how they earn their living and it's all up in the air.

What happens with the fixtures if bulls liquidate? What is the process for voting them out/in? is that even a possibility if they don't liquidate?

We need some answers from the RFL. No one knows what the hells going on. They've just sat there and watched this whole mess unfold.

They need to come out and say look, this is the procedure for this eventuality, this is what happens should that come to pass. At least then everyone knows where they stand.

It seems like they are just going to make it up as they go along 'cross that bridge when we come to it' (which wouldn't suprise me at all.

Your interpretation differs from that of the club chairmen. I'm betting they have a better grip on things than you do.

The club chairmen will decide on the admission of a Bulls newco to SL. Just as they did with London.

Chairmen, the RFL, the fans, the players, nigel wood....its being banded about that everyones going to get to sick their 6 penneth in to the Bulls Newco debate... I think we're all losing sight of who really pulls the purse strings when it comes to SL.....BSKYB or whatever they call themselves these days.

Someone mentioned that Bradford is the 8th biggest city in the UK - assuming thats correct, theres a huge potential for selling sky subscriptions and renewalls and I dare say that not having Bradford Bulls along side Bradford City would see a dip in sales for sky.....

....Just throwing that one out there....

Why?

As a deterrent for other clubs to stop behaving like a chav on a pay day loan cycle.

I think there's a case for looking at the current penalties for admin and seeing if they need increasing, but applying that reasoning retrospectively to Bradford seems harsh.

Agreed. New rules after this debacle is over.

Nothing retrospective here. After Cru and wakey's problems last year RFL/SLE changed the rules. The 'up to 6 point' immediate penalty remains but it was made clear that options including expulsion and dropping a club 1 or 2 divisions were available. All clubs entering SL in 2012 knew this.

There has to be some discretion in the decision making. For example if a major sponsor went bust and did not pay a SL club and this caused problems then the RFL would probably cut them some slack. However a club that continually took advances / loans and could not or would not repay them, a club that continued to wrack up 'debts' to the HMRC, A club that got its fans to raise £500K then went into administration may not get so much slack.

Well simply put Kosh,surely if you run any business and it goes tits up there has to be some form of comeback,otherwise everybody could go bust knowing they can carry on as normal.

Bradford should suffer the same punishment as any other club.
Regardless of whether it was Wigan or Wakey, Saints or Salford.
The phrase about no sentiment in business springs to mind.
FWIW, I think the Bulls will remain, but the problems come when, heaven forbid, another club goes into admin.
There would be no tears shed if this happened to Cas, Salford, Wakey or London.
If this were the case there would be a clamour to reduce the numbers in SL.

My problem is with the idea of 'retribution'. It has an overly punitive feel to it for me, especially when you remember that the people you would be punishing had nothing to do with the state that the club is in now.

Sure, there should be serious consequences for going into admin. In fact there already have been and there are more to follow. I'm not sure that kicking the club and fans while they're down is the way to go though.

A lot of people who may have advocated sympathy for the Bulls are likely to have hardened their stance following their 'only for as long as it was convenient' transformation into SL's most worthy charity case - players, fans, commentators and even the governing body joined in the emotional guilt trip to 'save' the Bulls, contributing to a level of hyperbole that was positively sick-making and could even be considered irresponsible.

Going into admin a short time later was a kick in the knackers for all those people and a massive two's up to the RL community.

If the RFL weren't complicit in the cover-up job that's been ongoing since the SL applications were scrutinised, I'd expect them to impose a severe penalty on the club; as it is, they'll smooth the way for a return to business as usual next season, and keep their fingers crossed that it doesn't happen again.

No, and they need the points deduction now they are in Admin

No one deserves to stay in super League if they cannot run their affairs correctly - Just look at RANGERS for tham one - Kick them Out, thay are living beyond their means