They've actually got a rule saying there is no rule. Credit for foresight at least.

The Bulls should of course be re-admitted to membership of the RFL. Or continuance or whatever you want to call it. Even to SL, but... yeah I'm boring myself.

The decision to give the ' new ' Bulls a SL licence should be a decision based purely on the Bulls , not on how they compare to any other clubs

Once that decision is made , if there is a vacant licence then and only then should any other clubs get involved

That should be the case not for the 'new' Bulls, but everyone.

which removes the need for the 2nd part.

Well considering he seems almost happy that a large number of people have lost a huge amount of money because of gross missmanagement in his clubs name , nothing he believes or thinks has any credibilty

And yes , the Gutless RFL and its administrators dont have the balls to face up to the mess they have colouded in making , they are now going to find scapegoats to apportion blame to

It really is quite obscene

That's kinda the point of rules!

Okay, accepting your version, would you at least acknowledge that the system you describe was mis-sold to us as:

1. Rigourous, consistent, fair and equitable.
2. Meaningful.

And, further, that the discovery that it isn't would be damaging to its credibility and likely to make adherence to its pretend principles or rules difficult to enforce - for big clubs because there is no need and for small clubs because there is no point?

Maybe he knows a builder.


Not "and yet", this is the fact, and the only thing I've said. The business was, and the business is. It was sold as a going concern. The changing of companies is not "irrelevant", but what it is, is a change of owner. Like if you sell me your chip shop. It used to be your chip shop, and maybe you ran it into the ground, and got into loads of debts. But now it's my chip shop. It has a new owenr.

I didn't buy YOU, and I didn't take on your debts.


No, the new owners have asked the RFL whether they can take over the SL licence, and so far, no decision has been made. Unless you never read any news, you must surely already know this?? If the licence was "carrying on", the "farce" as some have called it of a mini licensing round would not be taking place.


I don't believe Bradford are certainties to be in SL next year, but no, I absolutely do NOT believe that another club from the Championship is going to replace Bradford, and find it hard to see how one could even make a case for that, at the drop of a proverbial hat.


Except that whether they do do some such exercise, they are damned, but if they did not, then the same people as are damning them for doing it, would be damning them for NOT doing it, and for NOT giving anyone else any opportunity.

I agree that in reality the chances that any of the Championship clubs could present a convincing case for SL, within a week or so, are nil, but don't agree that the Bradford SL decision has already been made, those whining about the RFL are mainly those with the "bradford should be out on their ear no questions asked" axe to grind. Which btw is a not unreasonable axe in the sense that while I don't agree with it, there are certainly significant arguments to be made. It's just a pity that very few on here are bothering with significant arguments instead descending to knee-jerkery and dribbling venom. (which isn't aimed at you btw)

Isnt this just the same as what happened to Wakefield? The only difference being that the new Wakey paid some of the debts of the old Wakey?