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

definitely, the costs were huge and the bulls didnt have the cash to cover it and have probably been playing catch up since then.
Harris being terrible on his return just compounded this!

If Bradford had have opted for the dropping down the league system what do people think would have happened for the rest of SL?

Would we have brought say a Halifax or Featherstone up?

Would we have reduced the league numbers?

Would the result have impacted other clubs or would they have managed without Bradford?

I know that Bradford have never been big travellers to Saints, but the impact on other clubs closer to home may have been more significant!

I thought this thread was about how the RFL treated Bradford with favouritism and not a debate as to how they became the shambles of a club we have today? Or is it easier for some to ignore this and instead muddy the waters by hypothesising as to who is to blame for the financial meltdown at the club over a selective period of time?

London have cut back their squad to the extent that they are odds on to finish bottom in 2014, Wakefield have slashed and burnt across their playing roster so as to keep their heads above water but Bradford seem to have retained 90% of their squad, laid off back office and support staff and still have little in the way of a resolution to their exact ownership or a business plan other than a summer concert extravaganza! The RFL are pandering to the club because without Bradford in Superleague, they run a real risk of owning the lease on a ground that the tenants can't afford to pay rent on....a lease they should never have bought and a transaction that has now become a rod for their own back!
It would seem that once the ownership issue is resolved, Bradford will continue to spend based on flawed predictions of income from ticketing and other events, purely in the hope of avoiding the drop.

All of this fiscal suicide is being overseen and approved by the RFL and yet people still question the SL chairmen who have doubts as to the fiscal abilities of the RFL in regards to SL.

Is it being overseen because the sl club chairman want it that way?,Macmannus pretty much made it clear bradford must be kept in sl at all costs.

Indeed, it seems a convenient ' drift ' has occured, which is probably not a bad thing, we established what happened in the pub , and there is little to add that will expand upon it

But just to again confirm the ' timeline ' ,it was a matter of just a few months after being given a B licence that the RFL were loaning them over half a million pounds, and then thinking up some ' cock and bull ' rubbish to justify it, is it any wonder that licencing has failed

Whatever the outcome of the meetings, this type of thing must never happen again

As a fan of London, I am well versed in the benefits associated with any particular club being IN superleague in regards to the fiscal consequences of them NOT being in Superleague.

Let us say Bradford Bulls bring an average of 1,500 fans to their Away games and let us assume that a ticket is £20. If we allow for a further spend of £20 per fan on residuals (beer/food/shop/program) then Bradford Bulls being in SL generates £60,000 in additional match day revenue foe each of the 13 SL clubs they visit over the season.

London Broncos, who I believe it is safe to assume have the lowest turn over of the current 14 clubs, used £4,385,000 to get through the 2012 season. Bradford's £60,000 is 1.4% of their turn over and whilst that 1.4% is welcome, it is hardly a catastrophe if it is lost.

SL clubs are 100% responsible for their own revenue generation methods. Away fans are the sugar on the cherry on the top.....HOME fans are the bread and butter.

MacMannus and the other chairmen who bemoan the lack of away fans do so to get themselves in print. In reality, 10,000 home fans would deliver £4,000,000 a year in revenue (using the generous figures above) and self sufficiency, but rather than go the extra mile and finding them (I believe HKR will get very close this year) then whinge about insignificant statistics. Away fans are a revenue stream a home team has little control over.....they should not be included in any projections or business plans!

Bradford need to increase their average by 17% to get to 10,000. Using the above figures these 20k extra fans over the season would deliver £800,000 in additional revenue and would go a long way to filling the holes that have appeared in their finances.

I accept that £20 a ticket and £20 residual spend may be out slightly, but the maths are sound.....more fans = more revenue. If you have a regular attendance you will also attract more sponsors and corporates. I also accept a winning team helps when it comes to attracting fans, but you need to have a balance in your expenditure and expectations.

I have already said what I was going to say about whether I believe they have been favoured or not and I don't think the lease is a factor in that.

I don't think Macmanus is very concerned about the 'away fans'.

As for the 10k average being enough to support a SL team, I think that is an over simplification.
Saints have hit over that figure for 2 years, but still not turned a profit yet.

I think the loss of Bradford to Macmanus is more about losing a large population base to the game, about losing an iconic team whether that be the Bulls or the Northern, about losing a large name and what that will mean to the sponsorship status of clubs.

Rightly or wrongly, you put a city like Bradford up against a town like Halifax or Featherstone and it's not as an attractive an prospect. But that's part of the madness of a system that's not based on competitive sport but running a cartel where the we look at licences which look at almost everything but on field performances.

Matt Orford got himself injured and buggered off back down to Aus to recover. However, once down there he was linked with every club under the sun. He refused to either admit he wanted a release from the large, long term deal he signed when he joined Bradford or confirm that he was intent to honour his contract with Bradford.

This was done in the off season when Mick Potter took over, meaning his recruitment was heavily impacted as there was an overseas spot a big chunk of the salary cap. Given that this was meant to be a new era for the club coupled with the first season of the cheap tickets, the uncertainty over the future of what was the club's marquee player added to the poor recruitment of half backs following it, mainly due to there not being any OCC players of sufficient ability, leading to continued poor on field performances didn't help the club turn around it's dwindling crowds.