If some of the CC clubs apply for SL status, to join SL next season, they do risk falling on their sword.
Year 1 (next season) they would do well to avoid the wooden spoon followed by a possible small improvement in their second season, which would be the third of the current licensing round, at which point they would probably be the weakest application for the next full round of applications.
At this point in time, it would be wise for them to keep their tinder dry and save everything for next time round, assuming a super league "cul" does not take place.

What does he think he'll get for 6 million quid? Has he any idea about the cost of sports stadia. It's a bit more expensive than opening a new restaurant.

A few years ago Halifax Council FINISHED OFF (Note: not completely built) the East Stand at The Shay.

That cost over 5 million.

And yet, on the Bulls forum you are claiming that the club is a continuous entity and the changing of companies is irrelevant. Make your mind up.

On the flip side of the coin you could argue that once your in club you have all the advantages that come with. I certainly think it helped us last year. Your always going to have a stronger bid from been a SLE member that anyone from the CC. Having said that it’s not going to apply because the Bulls will be in next season and onwards. For me that decision was made by the Grand Master of the inner clique Eamonn McManus when he publicly came out in support. Him and the 3 other top bosses of SLE clubs seem to have to biggest influence on what direction the game takes.

In which case the licence is carrying on with the same club.

It is one or the other. Bradford, new club, none of the issues of the old ownership are relevent, Bradford old club, Licence is theirs.

l had to laugh reading the Leaguer, Bulls appoint MP as hon. Chairman, yes, thats "Member of Parliament"
An MP is akin to a cheap chinese watch, keep your eyes on their hands, they both tend to lie ...........a lot
They also stated they are in talkes with Bradford PA with a view to joining them at Odsal, along with
uncle Tom Cobbley and anyone else who knocks on the door, they,ve only just got the rent book, and already
they are looking to sub let, maybe the leaseholder might have something to say about this.
Khan is going to spend 6 big ones on something he does not own, or have any right other than a tenant,
do they know something the rest of us don,t. The plot thickens.
Just keep yer eye on that "member".

The club [iis[/i a continuous entity. It's now owned by a different company.

Except that clubs are not legal entities. Companies are. The members of the RFL are listed by their company name, as each member company holds a £1 ordinary share in the RFL. Therefore the licence was awarded to the member (i.e. the company), which has now become defunct and so the licence can not be continuous as the proposed licence holder is an entirely different new member of the RFL (when ratified).

Then none of the old issues are relevent whatsoever to the new company, it is an entirely new member and new company.

According to you, Bradford Bulls, have no history, at all, in any way shape or form, a history of financial mismanagement, another company, which operated a club with the same name, did.

No. The [ibusiness[/i has a history, the [icompany[/i doesn't. They are not the same things.

Just on the continuation of membership, the rfl's articles of association make intertesting reading, apologies for a mass quote but it might be interesting to some;

[iARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE RFL (GOVERNING BODY) LIMITED
00000Articles of Association of the RFL (Governing Body) Limited – Issue 10 – February 2012 (extract)

4.7 In the event of a member ceasing to be a member upon notice from the Company by virtue of Acquisition, Change of Control or Insolvency Event, the Board, at its absolute discretion, shall have the right to readmit the member or admit a new member as a member on any terms as it sees fit, which for the avoidance of doubt, may include financial, administrative and/or sporting sanctions. In the event of membership continuing the Board may determine that membership shall be deemed to continue to subsist as if the member had not ceased to be a member at all. The Board will from time to time set out policy for the exercise of its discretion but is not bound by such policy or precedent decided under such policy or previous policy and the Board shall be entitled to amend any policy with immediate effect.

4.8 The Board has the right (but not obligation) to stipulate in advance of an Acquisition. Change of Control or Insolvency Event, whether or not a member will be readmitted or a new member admitted in such circumstances and to stipulate what terms it will apply.

4.9 For the avoidance of doubt a Club may participate in Super League without being a member (at the discretion of SLE). However, any non-Member club which participates in any competition referred to in the Operational Rules (including but not limited to Super League) must agree to be bound by the Bye Laws and in any event will be deemed to have agreed to be so bound by its participation in the competition.[/i

to paraphrase, the rfl will decide what they want to do and when regarding memberships continuing, starting or stopping, and its decided on a case by case basis, and they may or may not tell us why. And it specifically mentions not setting or following precedent.

On judging the Bulls on their past or present, I agree it is one or the other.

Either they are incumbents who have just washed their hands of a big pile of debt.

Or they are a totally new club with no right to even apply for a licence.

Either, IMO, makes them unsuitable for a SL licence. I know you think I've missed the whole point Smokey, but if you're right then the whole system is predicated on people missing the point and right now it is unignorable.

I am willing to acknowledge that they are likely the most suitable candidate for a place in SL, but that is different. The whole problem with licensing is exposed - following its principles leads to an outcome considered undesirable. If they think the mini-round will square that circle and save their blushes, they're deluded. It's come down to a choice of embarrassments. if they man-up (yuk, can't believe I just 'said' that) and choose one, then I'll actually have some respect for them. Not an easy choice - being honest, in their shoes, I'd keep the Bulls in SL and consign licensing to the history books. A second unpalatable choice then beckons, of course - what system to adopt?
If they go for the transparent fig-leaf of a mini-round then they've no integrity (overated, in fairness) or, unforgivably, intelligence.