No, but clearly because people do business deal that aren't 'bail outs' or 'scams' this doesnt have to be one of those.
Thats your false dichotomy.

because you dont need to be in financial trouble to be susceptible to predators

If that is the case, then surely having money is no protection either ?

Yes.

The predators only wanted the Bulls so they could get hold of the Odsal site and redevelop it. They wanted that to pay for buying Bradford City and Valley Parade. They were seemingly only interested in the soccer, and seemingly were satisfied they could cut a deal with the council over buying Odsal. The club saw a very very poor future under that setup. The problem for the club was that they lacked the resources to pay for development at Odsal and also to withstand any major cost shocks. The collapse of the OSV project together with the inability to get retail planning consent meant Bulls could not risk staying at Odsal but the only alternatives meant selling the club and consigning it to a very mediocre future.

So what do you do? Find an alternative. Which is what they did.

Incidentally, none of this would have been necessary had the Bulls been able to develop Odsal in partnership with a retail development like pretty well EVERYONE ELSE! That we could not was due entirely to the LAST time Bradford City was in the crap and there were plans to save it using Bulls again as the sacrificial lamb.

As I understand it, the predators expected to be given the club pretty well for free by the shareholders.

Now Odsal is safely parked with the RFL, the club is of no interest to the predators and is safe from them. The proof will be that you will not hear any more from them now.

Are you totally bloody deaf?

It was not the money that sodding well mattered to secure protection from the predators. It was putting Odsal out of their reach whilst still providing Bulls with a home.

Look him up. He's got a long list of failed attempts at buying sports clubs usually when they're in trouble.

Sorry, but this still doesn't add up.

Why would the shareholders sell out "pretty well for free". Who are these people? If it were me I wouldn't sell shares in a rugby club to a "predator" but if for some reason I were intent on selling, if I knew that the buyer was going to make a lot of money out of the deal or needed the shares as part of a bigger scheme, there's no way I'd sell up for next to nothing!

I'm afraid that as I've said before on this thread, unless the RFL publish a full and frank account of the reasons for and terms of this deal, it is going to attract criticism and suspicion.

And then there is the issue of what the RFL is going to do in the future with the site.

And then there is the issue of how the RFL is going to deal with the serious conflict of interest it now has.

Not good. Not good at all.

Does all seem very weird, surely Bulls could have got an agreement of a 100 year lease of the ground or something from the council, that would have safeguarded the future of their tenancy and prevented redevelopment. Wish the RFL had been as generous when Rovers were going into admin and the vulture Lloyd tried to buy the ground and us and close us down! Apart from conflict of interest you also have to question if the rent charged for usage is covering the upkeep of a ground like Odsal, if not then I would imagine not many clubs will be happy that RFL money is paying to upkeep one clubs ground.

The best analogy I can think of for the predatory threat the Bulls were under would be something like Manchester Utd being bought by the Glazers. To buy the club they took huge loans out which were secured against the club's assets which means that Man Utd now have huge debits because of this.

The main gist about the people trying to buy the Bulls is that they had no real interest in the club but wanted to move the Bulls out and down to VP so that they could get their hands on the land Odsal is built on to use for redevelopment to make a profit to be used to buy Bradford City.

Now, as the Bulls sold the lease hold to the RFL, that plan can no longer happen.

So all they had to do is say " No "

Maybe the board felt larger shareholders may not be so strong.

So the BOD of Bradford are not the majority shareholders?

Chris Caisley is still the largest shareholder isnt he?

No idea, thats why I asked, if that is the case, then it is more understandable why they would take this action, maybe if that had been made clearer from the start, fewer people would have questioned it

Yes he is. And I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Yep Caisley is the majority shareholder by some distance.

He is the largest at 26%. Not the majority.

The board collectively hold about 7%.

Not much ' control ' there then, who's got the cash? , the board or the shareholders ?

No control at all. Control as in who can appoint the board is in the hands of directors who retired last year and the Club President. They seem content to back Hood over Caisley.

Do you understand how companies work? Surely with your background you must? Neither got "the cash". The company was the party to the lease with the council, and the company will have received the consideration paid by the RFL. Assuming it has actually been paid and is not a loan from the Bulls to the RFL.

The board control the company. The shareholders decide on the board. But you know all that?

The RFL need to buy them a new team

All very strange, most companies/clubs have the directors as majority shareholders, or of course the shareholders elect the board ( but quite often would vote on issues like this ) in large companies

By who had the cash, I meant, was it the boards to use as and when needed ? ,or paid out as a dividend to the shareholders?

They're saving that for the 2013 season

That would certainly make Wednesday's fans forum a bit more interesting!

Northern/Bulls never have had one individual in control. The board used to have control but no longer due to retirements etc. The extent to which this reflects in the present circumstances is unclear. What is quite clear to me, and has been for years, is that the current situation is unstable and will eventually have to be rectified. In other clubs this has been resolved by the arrival of a sugar daddy or by insolvency. We seem unable to attract the former, just predators who would seemingly use the club as a means to an end and starve it of resources and investment. I was told how much one predator said could be spent of the salary cap. You would be apalled.

The club has already stated publically, and I have been told personally, that the funds will be retained within the business as additional working capital. There could never be any question of a dividend, for a raft of reasons.

So a bail-out then?