i reckon bradford should be handed the same treatment rangers have just been given and be dropped down two tiers so they can re build if they are as big a club they can re build stronger and hopefully get a good backer in the l;ong run

Money paid to the HMRC in taxes (by most people/organisations) goes to funding the public service sector - FACT

so if this money simpy does not get paid to the HMRC then who pays the nurses at Bradford Royal? (simplifying it for you there)

i dont see what your issue is with these FACTS?

if Bradford go into liquidation and avoid paying this owed money to the HMRC (just like rangers) then why should they be allowed to continue in the top division?

regardless of fan base etc.

Answer- morally they shouldnt, but like i said in an earlier post, it is the some would say 'corrupt' RFL that we're dealing with.

No meltdown there, just stating pure FACT.

If Bradford were liquidated then they would be a new company startup with the same name as Bradford, but a new owner could buy whatever assets they have left and start again. Would this include a SL franchise? If so then the cash would go to the creditors and the contact to the new company and they stay in SL? Now would the league allow a moved contact, probably due to ownership of the ground.

If they don't liquidate having negotiated a way to not pay the tax and HMRC take a longer term view of ignoring this lost revenue to get more future revenue then they stay in SL with a points hit. And stay in SL?

Who did Halifax owe in 1990...I cant remember, honest




RFL precedent?




So you can prove the RFL is corrupt and you get a little chubby on when thinking about the demise of a Rugby League Club....

You've already stated your immoral joy at the possibility of a SL club dying and by that the loss of employment for those working at said club. So for you to even TRY and take some sort of moral stance on this is quite frankly offensive.

Crusaders and Super League licensing – club statement

Crusaders Rl Tuesday 26 Jul 2011 11:42am

The Board of Directors at Crusaders have today confirmed that the club has not sought to renew its Super League licence for the seasons 2012 to 2014.

It is with regret that Crusaders have had to withdraw their application to the Rugby Football League for a three-year extension to their licence.

The club’s directors will now meet with Rugby Football League officials to discuss the future of rugby league in Wrexham and North Wales following the end of this season.

Crusaders Chief Executive, Rod Findlay, said: “This has not been an easy decision but after a lengthy and exhaustive examination of the club’s finances, our view is that Crusaders is not sustainable as a Super League club at this stage. Every other aspect of the application was strong and we now need to work to ensure that we retain those elements, particularly the community and player pathway programmes in North Walesd, an area where no rugby league was played 2 years ago.



Seems not to me.

It matters not that Cru withdrew the application it was weaker than another clubs, of course thats just my opinion and Cassandra disagrees.


The point is that just because they bailed out does not mean they would have been in.

No offence the Cru but the RFL got this one right.

So they were skint and had very few fans then, that stacks up against Wakeys bid just how.

Jeez they walked before being pushed, and i for one hope they become strong again.

Thats part of the problem though isnt it, they were never strong to begin with, revenue and attendances were never aligned or sustainable, getting people through the door is not the same as having full paying customers.
Its why people find it frustrating that the RFL prefer clubs to have benefactors rather than realistic sustainable business models. Bradfords problems are highlighted more than others because the profile is bigger and so are the numbers, but there is a wider issue for the RFL to try and grasp. They seem to skim over questionable business plans as long as someone picks up the tab each year.

________________________________________________________________________________________________


Every other aspect of the application was strong and we now need to work to ensure that we retain those elements, particularly the community and player pathway programmes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The BoD seemed to think they had a good chance of getting a licence IMO.
It's good to know they were going to be pushed before they told the RFL they were not going to re-apply . London was skint Bradford are skint they will stay. The Crusaders did the right thing and got demoted two divisions.

Sadly Wakey have been skint far too often but at the time of the last franchise Wakey presented a strong case, it would have been a nightmare for the RFL if they refused us entry only for Cru to fold in a matter of months, they already gambled with London and Bradford and possibly a few others.

Anyway its been a pleasure to discuss this with you and i think i'm guilty of de-railing a Bradford thread

No problem, always nice to have a bit of banter. That's what makes the world go around.

No, they got it wrong, right from the start

you should know better



London are assured a bankroll up to 2014.....there was no gamble involved.

P&R failed for many more years than franchising has been in place. It will fail again if reintroduced now. Probably best to give franchising a chance before going back to a system that we know doesn't work.

We are in the world of licenses, the RFL should have the power to transfer the license from one club to another. Meaning either Bradford get bought out and the Bulls wound up, if the RFL think the new club will add to SL they get the old Bulls license or scenario B they don't like the new owners, think the new Bradford club needs time to build and the license is either suspended or given to another club to come into SL next year. Isn;t that the point of licenses?

The RFL have a fairly simple question to deal with

Which is more important

The short term future of Bradford Bulls

The credibilty of the franchise system

A simple question, but a very difficult one to answer, either way they will upset a large part of the RL community

Good piece on RL from the BBC Website...

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/georgeriley/2012/07/bradford_bulls_cloud_hangs_ove.html[/url

Depressing. They shouldn't use the word "invest" though. No-one "invests" in a sporting club (well, not many in this country anyway). The "money men" are benefactors or hobbyists.

Bradford need to get back to basics and build up slowly again. Charge the going rate for their matches and cut their cloth accordingly. After this meltdown no-one expects them to be billy big-balls anymore so the pressure to be a top club is off.

For the RFL - they're going to have to take a hit unfortunately. The last two years have been pretty costly on the central funds, what with Crusaders and now the Bulls. Ah well, you live and learn .......

Because they don't get to gloat at Bradford fans if the Bulls aren't kicked out of the league.

If the Bulls are bought, then why is there a problem with them continuing their franchise? Newco or not, it's fundamentally the same club.

Far from a good piece. Don't talk about a cloud hanging over the semis, talk about the semis! There's enough Bulls articles out there without another adding nothing new to the story. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

The inevitable result of living in the fantasy world where our game, uniquely, can manage without wealthy backers. We introduced a crude system to deliberatley shut money out of the game with the idea that Wakefield would become Wigan, if only given a level playing field. Nonsense then, and nonsense now. Before i get flamed, i'm not saying scrap the cap, i'm saying design a much more intelligent system that lets rich people come in. Squad limits and debt limits is all you need. Yes, some clubs will dominate. Tough. Concentrate on what you can do to get your club into the 'elite' instead of asking for others to be handicapped.

It isnt a problem , but it does then mean that financial issues will never see a club have its licence removed, and the licence process is a complete sham, not that we didnt already know it

Is this the same standard that saw your club go bust whilst holding a license? The same standard that Bradford are currently setting? I have no doubts that Halifax are NOT up to a good enough standard to be able to compete in a "proper" Super League but there's some clubs up there that have frantically polished themselves, but as the saying goes . . . . .

Why can't you do both things at the same time? Who said that it has to be one or the other? The important thing is to safeguard the future of the game. The licencing issue is key but we can't just pretend this is as simple as "somebody broke a rule and now we must crush them".