Haven't this ABC lot said they're not interested in the Bulls if they drop down a division anyway so you'd have thought that the information they require will be on the proviso of the Bulls being at Odsal and playing in SL and if they could prove 100% that they had funds and a solid business plan with a way to take the club forward it'd be a goer, in theory anyway.

Absolutely. One review per single club level financial misconduct.

Bradford went into administration on 26th June....

The RFL is obligated to conclude a licence review. Where is it? How long does it take? Can it only happen out-of season? Do they have to start it within 2 weeks of the event? within 2 months?

Or do they just want to string along one of their member clubs, haemorrhaging cash & goodwill in equal measure until the season ends?

What if Bradford make the playoffs?

What if one business plan is perfectly viable and one isn’t? Do you submit one worthwhile one and oe which clearly isn’t?

Say for instance it cost £500k a year fixed costs for Bradford to lease odsal. They have a detailed plan where that fixed cost can be absorbed in SL, but in the championship their scaled back income doesn’t cover the scaled back spending including the same £500k fixed costs, meaning (for simplicities sake) Bradford lose £480k a year in the championship but make a £20k profit in SL. Are they then supposed to submit two business plans, one viable and worthwhile, one a surefire way to bankruptcy?

C'mon its the Bulls we are talking about. Fudge the figures

It does seem that the RFL want 2 seperarte business plans, one for SL and one for the CC.
Although, in some ways, this is similar to the scenario faced by relegated clubs, they dont usually start with nothing.

no, they submit 1 business plan based on the club staying in Super League. If they are not interested in running a Championship club they dont submit a plan to cover that. If the RFL is satisfied that the plan for Super League is suitable and going to work out, then they will undoubtedly decide that the correct course of action is to let the club stay in SL.

All seems fairly straightforward to me. If after all this time, the unknown consortium doesn't even have a business plan for the business they want to own and operate, then the RFL is clearly doing the right thing in not approving the bid.

This.

Andrew Glover went to the RFL with two business plans for WTW - plan A that would apply if they retained a SL licence and plan B that would see them rebuild in the lower leagues; perhaps that signalled his intent to rescue an ailing RL club, as opposed to, say, getting his mitts on a prime piece of real estate?

I thought that's what they had already done.

Seems crystal clear to me......make a bid, if its accepted, then the precedent has been set already to leave the club in the division it currently plays in....


I suspect the "mystery"board (Caisley anyone????) and back of a beermat business plan are a bigger issue....

While the situation at Bradford isnt what could be described as ' interesting ' , this thread is amusing , if the worst happens and the Bulls do drop down, who replaces them?

Fax are the only british club with an application already submitted for this licence period , or would they consider Toulouse?

Am I missing something? We have the following options...

1) Bradford Liquidate, like Rangers, and start again in Champ1. Liquidate and stay in SL is wrong.
2) They come out of admin and carry on in SL. If ABC can pay back what RFL paid for Odsal up front and have a plan to not lose money until the end of franchise term, why is this a problem? Did Wakey not do the same?

Don't be silly Mr Bug. It will be Toulouse - they were a roaring success in the championship and SL needs clubs like that!

At least, as a fax fan, I hope they put Toulouse in if they need to. We'd never survive with our poor application and speculative business plan - look what happened to Bradford with their grade "B" licence. No thanks

kick em out now, its so cruel to the poor animal to suffer like this

This subject header needs blocking - the Bid has NOT been approved

You are right, this is what happened with Wakey.

My feeling is that given a lack of a real business plan from the consortium, the RFL are worried that they may allow a new company to take over the Bulls, buy back the lease and then let them fail so that they can have access to the land. This is the reason the RFL gave for buying the lease in the first place.
I have no evidence for this it is just an opinion but I can see why that scenario would worry the RFL.