Why is it bollox? Explain.....

You cannot rely on ' on field ' success to finance a sports club

That’s a nice sentiment. But I never said you could rely on on-field success to finance a club.

I said that the people running the club when successful weren’t those running it when it struggled. So why would we assume that the club was run in the same way when it was successful as when it struggled. So we have no reason to assume that the club was run in the same way, and no reason to assume that the only difference between successful Bradford and unsuccessful Bradford was success on the field.

Coming from Mr Deliberate Stupidity

Paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5 of the Administrator's report....

[iDespite success in the first decade of the SL competition, during which time the club won 4 SL titles, 3 World Club championships and 2 Challenge Cups, the Company has struggled both on and off the field since 2009 during which time it has routinely finished outside the SL play-off places. In addition to the on-field difficulties, this has led to the company underperforming financially in the 3 years preceding the appointment of Administrators, suffering accelerating trading losses. Commercial income has been significantly affected by the poor on-field performance, despite increased investment in the playing squad. [/i

This would appear to contradict your point somewhat.

This is talking about the period from 2009 to 2012. Bradford’s last trophy win was in 2005 (2006 if you count the WCC) and the ‘successful’ regime left in 2006 handing the reigns over to Peter Hood in 2006, who ran the club from then until 2012.

So im not sure that contradicts what I am saying at all. What it says is the club experienced success in the early part of the decade, but for three years from 2009 to 2012 (3 years after ‘success’ and 3 years in to a new regime) the club under-performed on and off the field. Which if anything backs up my point.

In fact Chris Caisley (and I appreciate that he isn’t the most trustworth source but…..) said at the time of Bradfords administration that the root of Bradfords problems was that there had been “a serious departure from the strategy that underpinned what became known as the ‘Bulls phenomenon’ over the first decade of Super League” which is pretty much exactly what i said.

Put simply, there is no reason to assume that Bradfords business models in the periods up to 2006, and between 2006 and 2012 were the same, (in fact one party involved attributed the failure to the fact that model changed between those two periods) so there is no reason to assume that Bradfords sustainability using the pre 2006 model was only sustained due to on the field success.

Our 'pre 2006 model' as you put it was based around the settlement monies received by the club from Bradford Council, in exchange for the club maintaining the upkeep of Odsal stadium.
The exact details and figures involved escape me, but basically the council gave the Bulls a shedload of money which was supposed to be used to maintain the Stadium for the forseeable future.
However instead of being prudent with their newfound wealth, Caisley and co pumped it into other areas of the business - including the playing squad.
This is why the club saw so much success during that period, but the long term effect was that once this money began to run out, the club were pretty much screwed.
Caisley saw it coming and got out of there pronto. Peter Hood took the reigns and did what he could to salvage the situation. We ended up with a poor squad and an even poorer coach at the helm.
That lead to the downward spiral of reduced crowds, and subsequent reduced income.
After that follows Peter Hood's brain farts (cheap season tickets, the secret rfl loan, selling the lease etc.) and we all know what followed on from that.

That’s your reading of it, and an interesting one. My issue with it is that ignores the huge drop in Bradfords income outside of any council money. Now im not trying to defend Chris Caisley, he is a t0sser. But I find it difficult to pin the blame for Bradfords problems on him, when regardless of anything else, He left a club which were WCC, which competed at the top of SL for another few seasons, whilst his successor saw attendances (and you would assume that sponsorship, commercial, corporate and merchandise revenue followed this trend) drop from averages ranging from 11k+-14k+ under the Caisley era, to 8k in the Hood era.

Lets not forget that in the first three seasons of Hoods reign which were also the first 2 and a half of McNamara’s reign, Bradford finished 4th, 3rd and 5th, and got £450k + for Fielden and Noble. That money was spent by Hood, in three seasons he took a squad from 4th to 9th, in 4 seasons the attendance dropped from 12k+ to 8K.

I think we also need to factor in the Harris lawsuit, and possibly even the Orford disaster to some extent (although that might have come later).

Certainly.

I think its safe to say it took a catalogue of errors from numerous different people, each compounding the last, to get Bradford in to this position.

What was the Orford disaster? Not heard that mentioned before?

Was always said when the Harris lawsuit was lost the impact on the club would be huge, didn't appear so for a while but something got rocked