like inviting a vampire into your home that is......

He Bulls would have had to pay him anyway until he left.

Maybe he did them a favour by saving them an massive wedge of Salary or two years?

Please don't bite the children.

What people also seem to forget is the time frame for Bradford going in to Admin. They did have problems, but nothing immediate until the problems with the bank caused a huge cash flow issue (as any one with half a brain will tell you Debt itself wont kill you, Cash is king) and Bradford went into administration from there. It may be an unwelcome fact for those simply looking to kick Bradford when they are down and have their usual bash at the RFL but Bradford went in to Administration on the 26th June. Their Ideas that Bradford could just get rid of all their players, or the RFL could have kicked them out, or replaced them are im afraid simply nonsense. We were 4 months in to a season.

By the time the next season had come around, Bradford had a new owner who could take them through the season (and before the RFL and Bradford Bashers want to jump on Omar Kahn, Bradford did get through the season with a better side and far better attendance than any of the clubs who could have replaced them. Christ Fev’s ground couldn’t even hold Bradfords average attendance last year) The mistakes made by Omar Kahn who seemed to have mistook the size of the job, were compounded by the disastrous decision to take some of their funding, and have left us in the position now. Where even with these financial issues, Bradford will still put out a better side, in front of more fans, than team in the lower leagues could hope to.

In their rush to see some kind of painful atonement from Bradford, where they want to see Bradford crucified to take away the sins of SL, certain people seem to have forgotten that Swapping Bradford and Fev or Halifax may very well have seen us with a bankrupt Bradford, and a Bankrupt fev/Halifax (especially considering how monumentally poor Halifax’s plan for SL was. Where a Bradford plan which clearly failed was independently judged not only massively better than Halifax’s, but where KPMG and the RFL felt the need to comment on how poor Halifax’s was)

There seems to be some sort of dissonance at work here, whereby people are wanting to castigate Bradford for putting on the field performance so high on their list, whilst also wanting to castigate the RFL for providing a system where they didn’t have to.

Its either one or the other really isn’t it. Either the on-field performance is the most important and deciding factor of everything Rugby League and the Bradford ‘business plan’ wasn’t only the right one but absolutely necessary, or Bradford should have pared back spending on players temporarily (and I would still argue it is a bit naïve to only look at one source of outgoings as the one to cut. Bradford could be closer to sustainable spending £1.4m on salaries than £1m because there is a correlation between the outgoings here and income) and the RFL should be praised for creating a system which gave them the time and space to do so.

It also interesting that people are looking to frame the RFL acceptance of Bradfords business plan as the RFL’s guarantee that it would definitely, definitely work. Obviously it was never such, but it does give some an invented stick to beat the RFL with. One of the problems with the licensing was that they picked the number and then the clubs. This left them picking the best 14 clubs. It is a perfectly reasonable assumption that Bradford were a better bet than either Fev or Fax. They were still a bet, and being a better bet than Fev or Fax does not make them a good bet. (there is also the matter of Bradfords licence being a B, which makes it somehow worse that they failed. Which ignores that the licences weren’t simply a business plan, but a whole heap of other stuff at which Bradford were clearly succeeding)

They would have had him though wouldn’t they.

We need to stop just thinking of players as a cost. They are our raw materials. They are what we create our product with.

As you must know, the question is facile, since who can ever know who may or may not have been recruitable / affordable from the early summer onwards had the Bulls been in the market same as everybody else? It does seem banal to state the options would have been much greater between July, August and September than how they stood as at 21st October, but maybe that truism didn't register with you.


Another nonsensical question. It is not about saving salaries but spending them wisely and effectively. But maybe paying someone who it turns out has no intention of ever coming back to the UK their substantial salary, whilst the best of the available halfbacks are signed by competing clubs, is a good use of money in your book?

And no, the Bulls didn't save his substantial salary the following year either, as it happens. The actual figures were never released but all that was said was that Awford had agreed to forego "some of" his remaining contractual pay to sweeten the transfer, (as Canberra refused to pay a transfer fee) which means the Bulls still had to pay yet more money to him even if not the full contract amount. And even the reduced sum didn't represent any "saving" as clearly him being under contract for another 2 years, under any normal circumstances we should have had a decent sized transfer fee for someone who was touting himself around as a marquee halfback. As opposed to £0.


Three nonsensical questions in one post. Well done.

First, how can a recruitment policy be "a fault"?

Second, what has "youth" policy to do with it? Do you think Awford was an academy lad or something?

Finally, until Awford said he was out of here, there wasn't a quota spot free.

There, that's more like it

So whats the problem ?, this happens to 1,000s of clubs in all sports all the time

as was explained, it was a negative thing that happened to the bulls that was a factor, along with many other factors, that resulted in their problems.

Before you do your usual bat nonsense. Nobody has said it was the only factor, nobody said was a major factor, nobody said it was the deciding factor, simply that it was one factor among many others.

Though im sure to you that will read that It was the over-riding, deciding, and major factor in the bulls problems, and though nobody said that, they really did because they used other words.

If the RFL wasn’t relentless in helping member clubs I would worry. If it wasn’t, why would it exist. There is absolutely no issue with this “We have paid market value for the stadium and the Bulls will pay market-value rental to the RFL to play their home fixtures at Odsal.” In fact this is a wonderful thing for the game. Money which Bradford would likely have had to pay to an external party now goes back in to the game and be reinvested. Frankly if the RFL could afford to do this with all clubs who rent their ground, it would be fantastic for the game,

Once again you what fail to understand, probably because all you are doing is trying to kick Bradford whilst they are down, is that getting a B licence is not, and never will be, and was never supposed to be a guarantee of financial probity. It was a judgement on all the things that make up a club. Not just that one single thing.

The fact you highlight the 24th of Jan as when Bradfords problems became apparent, as if there was something that could have been done at that point is hilarious. Kicking Bradford out at that point would have not only killed that club but hugely affected not only the SL competition, but also every club in there would, on the eve of the season, when all budgets had been done, had to deal with 1 less home game as well as the likely cancellation of the Magic Weekend which makes clubs some decent money.

Had Bradford been swapped for Fax or Fev, that club would likely have been bankrupted too. They would have no time to sign anyone, no time to get in sponsors, season tickets already sold for the championship. It would have been hugely damaging to them.

You then try to conflate what the RFL are doing to help Bradford (or more accurately, did do to help previous owners of Bradford) to denigrate what not the next owners are doing, but the owners after that. This current ownership of Bradford are free to run their club as they see fit, they aren’t either Peter Hood, or Omar Kahn, they aren’t to blame for whatever mistakes Peter Hood and Omar Kahn made. The fact you want to treat Bradford Bulls as some continuous Homogenous entity where the sons are punished for the sins of the father simply highlights that A) you are an idiot, and B) your opinion isn’t formed on a conclusion borne from an analysis of the facts, but because you are sad person who finds joy and happiness and the suffering of fans of a rival club. That I pity.

You may wish to pretend that it was obvious Bradford were going to go bust, you may wish to pretend it was easy to see. It wasn’t, it never is. Clubs run on a tiny turnover where a fairly small change can make a huge difference to sustainability. The Facts are that there are a good 7 or 8 clubs in SL who, if circumstances conspired, would have been the ones in Bradfords position. Huddersfield would have been far more precarious, they are fortunate that they can be Ken Davy’s plaything.

I can see now why several posters have highlighted your stupidity.

1.You are happy with the RFL helping the Bulls while not helping others. That is not their role as a sport governing body.

2. The licensing process involved a detailed financial check. The Bulls given a green light in July 2011 yet getting advances in Sept / Oct then selling ground in Jan then needing 1m in March shows the RFL checks were a shambles.

3. You clearly have a reading difficulty. I did not say the problems became apparent in January. The difficulties culminated in the sale of the ground in January. They were apparent far earlier. Try reading what has been written before jumping in then you will not look as foolish.

3. I have never suggested that the Bulls swap with fax or fev so you are tilting at windmills.

4. Your infantile ramblings about conflation suggest to me that you are a tad vexed, oh dear, what a shame.

5. Your suggestion that my comments are anti bulls are groundless and once again infantile. Once again try reading what I actually write rather than respond to the 'voices in your head'. My OP was about the RFL and several times since I have said that the fans and staff at the Bulls have been shafted, so get a grip.

Without Davy the Giants would not be in SL. He puts his money into a club. That is his private choice. This is not the same as a Governing body pumping the games money into a club. You simply do not understand the difference.

The RFL have been a shambles, live with it.

Is there a point in there, somewhere, struggling to get out? Are you saying that whatever enquiries KPMG made were negligent, and you know better, so if you had done it, you would have known that one year on the bulls would go bust?

Shame the RFL didn't just ask you, then, instead of using the resources of someone like KPMG.

I would like the RFL to help all clubs as best they can. Like they helped Bradford, Like they helped Rochdale, Like they helped Keighley, Like they helped Huddersfield when they merged Sheffield. That is exactly the role a governing body should play. If they don’t we can scrap the governing body and simply have a receptionist doing the admin, and ref to handle disciplinary.

No it doesn’t. You would need to be an absolute moron to think so. Especially when it has already been explained to you why this is the case.

Regardless the RFL did not do the financial checks, they worked off reports prepared by KPMG. If you have an issue here with anyone, its KPMG. Take it up with them. It would be funny to see how quickly they chewed you up and spat you out.

No they weren’t. You invented the fact that these issues became apparent in September the previous year and were only finalised in January

Yet you have said that keeping Bradford in and giving them the help that was given was a mistake. When judging if this was a mistake or not. Only a moron would not consider the alternatives.

The fact you couldn’t address those ‘ramblings’ suggest to me they were bang on the money. Again, That I pity.

The anger in the post suggests you are a tad vexed at being shown up for what you are. Oh dear, What a shame.

Yet Huddersfield had a million pounds of the games money pumped in to them to help with their difficulties post-merger. Ken Davy readily accepted that money. I hope he has paid it back to ‘the game’ lest he make you look like a massive idiotic hypocrite. What a shame that would be.