How is it a punishment if Bradford, as you have just said above, OFFERED it? Bradford were on the edge and the only way they could see their way out of trouble was to buy themselves out of trouble. It's their fault the other SL clubs are 50k each better off this and last year, nobody else's! They overspent (AGAIN) and the only way out was to spend some more.....genius it isn't!
Hindsight is a great ally, but in reality, the "new" owners knew that they were safe from relegation last year and rather than approach 2013 with a back of a beer mat strategy and hope fans turn up, they should have cut their cloth accordingly and at worst, finished bottom, but without the same level of debt they find themselves with now.

The real damage for 2014 and onwards is not the SKY money being halved this year. The real damage was the total and utter fiasco that was the clubs management in 2013.

All of these has been overseen and approved (multiple times it would seem) by the RFL......because as they helped bankroll it, they have a vested interest in its outcome!

There does seem to be a large proportion of the bradford faithful, who, instead of accepting cost cutting measures need to be taken (and in reality needed to be taken 5 years ago) still insist that raising capital is the better option. Whether it's holding concerts, or getting the charity buckets out, anyone who doesn't look at the situation bradford is in and say they need to accept a lower standard of playing for the sake of the existence of the club is mad. You can convolute matters all you want with attendance figure drops and speculation spending and any number of reasons why it's okay to carry on spending more than you can afford on players, but you can't escape the inescapable. Until the significant cut is made, Bradford will continue to teeter in this way (or they can find a competent, patient and funded individual.)

Oh and lowering 40% or even 30% of a clubs turnover is absolutely HUGE and I'm sure if you walked into business offering a way to reduce costs by that much they'd bite your hand off

It was a strange and unhealthy fudge.
It should really have been a case of:

Plan A. Strike a deal with the creditors.
Plan B. Newco means new start from the bottom. When licensing was so heavily predicated on the business side of things, it was ridiculous to say the licence resided with the club and that was separate from the company that owned and ran it.

It was complicated by Wakefield 'getting away' with a newco. No many cared because everybody thought they were on borrowed time - until Crusaders went under. Plus the RFL now had a vested interest and had bitten off more responsibility than they could chew. The flip side of granting licences was wielding the scythe and I don't think they had much stomach for it.

With hindsight, it seems bizarre that they took a £1.2m 'fine' over 2 years. Surely the creditors would have accepted less than that, rather than chuff all. More likely, it seems, the new venture was undercapitalised to the point that that wasn't an option and it underestimated costs and/or overestimated income.
People might say the money should have stayed with the Bulls or gone into the grassroots of the game. Certainly, rather than bribing the other clubs, a payment to the creditors would have been the honourable thing for the sport to do.
Obviously we don't want to put off new investors, but it doesn't create much trust in the sport if we provide so little incentive for them to pay any of a clubs outstanding debt.
Hull KR have had significant problems in the past and we're acutely aware that we rely on benefactors to survive as a full-time outfit still. So it's not my intention to kick them or any other club, it could be us all too easily. But you can't pursue a desired outcome in the face of reality. Well, you could but it'd be doomed and anyway, if it were all pre-determined we might as well just watch the wrestling.

Yes you didnt use those words, but you suggest with other words that this wasnt the problem

So what is Bradfords problem? , what has happened at Bradford that has resulted in them aquiring considerable debts?

So a Bribe then? Fair enough

You do that buy cutting the quality of your raw materials and try and sell an inferior product, your customers may no longer buy your product. If you keep cutting your cloth accordingly, you might find you have a piece of cloth too small to be of use

True, but there's a big difference between an inferior product and no product at all

As I said, there's lots of ways to convolute reasons, the fans won't come to watch a poor team etc but the simple fact is, if the product was selling well enough in the first place the cuts wouldn't be needed.

I would also argue bradford are probably down to the diehard core of their supporters now, anything they had done in the last year wouldn't of affected the numbers too much for this year. In fact, if they had removed all contracts in the off season last year, played the entirety of last year with an u18s team, came bottom, but with a few promising players showing, and a much stronger financial base, which could be built on, made signings over the off season (and not had to wonder whether they'll actually ever play in the shirt) and had more positive news, I'd argue they'd off probably sold a whole load more season tickets. Alas, it's not an option now with relegation being reintroduced (though London seem to be reading from that play book)

No, once again, and this is as clear as it could be so if you don't understand I really can't dumb it down any more for you.

You said Bradford had spent more than they brought in.

I said it doesn't follow that Bradford had been operating above their level.

You once again show you are really the most pathetic individual on these boards

So again, what is Bradfords problem if in your opinion it isnt spending more than they earn?

Be aware ,nobody thinks you are clever by avoiding and trying to twist words, just pathetic

Are you drunk? Stoned? Had a stroke? There are only so many times I can explicitly say to you again, I haven't said Bradford didn't spend more than they earned. How much clearer can I make that for you? Bradford did spend too much, they were run poorly.

It just doesn't follow that because they spent too much in SL that they were operating at a level above themselves or that that they would fair better in the lower leagues.

and? It should have been the lower leagues then.

They overspent then they offered to spend some more (half their sky money) so they could continue overspending...and the RFL, having bailed them out by buying their ground lease from them to prevent further disaster, were quite happy to give this overspending plan the once-over and approve it.

There is a pattern developing here.....do I need to spell it out for you?

You need to take another look at your timeline.

Without the insults, how did Bradford end up with substantial debts?

It's already in there. I'm not repeating myself again for you. I have said it enough times.