At least they have the guts to stick to thier agreed rules, whereas RL doesnt, we just make a new rule to fit some kind of masterplan.
Of course nobody wants to see any club disappear, or struggle financially, but neither should there be a clique that can do as they please.

If the rules aren’t achieving what they were meant to, then only a fool would stick with them.

Its not pass the parcel, when the birthday boy has to win !

No, it’s a multi-million pound business which employs real people, with real lives and real jobs. Compared to the people who have been made redundant, people who have lost their livelihoods, the players and their families who don’t know if they will be paid next month, Mick Potter using his own savings to keep the club together, frankly I couldn’t care less about the rules and the needs of those feeling slighted by the efforts to save Bradford.

Good job we've never been afraid to or we'd all be following Rugby Union clubs.

...and that says it all really, doesn't it, but more appallingly the SLE/RFL echo your sentiment.

What rules are the RFL not following?

They're not following the rules where Bradford a gutted, hung, drawn and quartered and Halifax are promoted by default.

Smokey was making the point that they shouldn't be relegated, even IF they had broken the rules, because they are too important to SL.

Oh so we're talking hypotheticals? Do the RFL actually have any crimes that would instigate removal of a license?

This might help.

“The RFL’s independent Board of Directors reserves the right to revoke any licence awarded for the period 2012 to 2014 if it feels a club is failing, or not fulfilling, its obligations to help the competition meet the objectives of investment and growth,” he said.

“This is not a new provision, but the RFL will be subjecting those clubs whose applications are largely predicated upon future undertakings or with variable performance against past promises, to more rigorous assessment during the next licence period. Membership of the Super League demands high standards.”

Vague enough to be pointless, didn't expect much different.

None of which says they should, or would be relegated, simply that they could. Relegation is a possible punishment, it isn’t the punishment.

As we have come to expect this statement is not in plain simple English. However, it's difficult to imagine how a club could have a larger degree of financial failiure than the Bulls.

Its also difficult to see how replacing a club currently averaging about 14k with a club who will average maybe 5/6k at best [iis fulfilling, its obligations to help the competition meet the objectives of investment and growth[/i