Quote ="ROBINSON"If the RFL wanted a national RL stadium, it would be brand new and it would not be in somewhere like Bradford. You can't have a national anything in Bradford for Christ's sake.'" www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/

Quote ="ROBINSON"If the RFL wanted a national RL stadium, it would be brand new and it would not be in somewhere like Bradford. You can't have a national anything in Bradford for Christ's sake.'" www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/

I've never quite worked out whether twitter or the North Korean Press Agency is more reliable.

rubbish to all this papering over the cracks, the fact remains that Bradford are not going to lose their franchise because the RFL have a special interest in them, their stadium is awful but this doesn't matter anymore. I think you can look at this from every angle possible and try ad justify this and that, but it remains that Bradford are tenants to the RFL.

We can have our opinions on whether Bradford were bailed out or not, but that isn't what interests me, it's the franchise bit.

Bulls should move the games against Wakefield to Bradford City. See if they keep moaning when they have to put up with the small pitch and awful stand behind the sticks.

I'll gamble that the B.C. pitch is flat, all the way into the corners

Could you not approach this situation from the polar opposite and say it is more likely that the Bulls won't get a license as the RFL can then cash in on the long lease when the Bulls fold?

I think both extremes are nonsense by the way and the reality is far more mundane and straight forward.

Besides, as if the Bulls would lose their license when they can sell 10,000+ season tickets. It's pie in the sky silliness.

Because we all know that is not the case, if people want to play devils advocate just to make a point then fine, but the rest of us will carry on living in the real world. Obviously this doesn't apply to yourself as you go on to mention...



You go on to mention season tickets...



For me this is not the point (even though the Bulls are skint despite selling a bucket load of cut price season tickets). It's the fact that the RFL by doing this have now got a financial investment in Odsal, and as such Bradford Bulls, they are no longer seen as impartial. How am I supposed to believe in the franchise system and the RFL (I had little faith before) when the RFL have done a deal to help a club (not just Bradford) and leave others to their own devices.

I understand the RFL objectives very well, they want a high profile league for larger TV deals and better sponsorship, more money ect. However their methods in achieving these objectives are abrupt and unfair at times, especially to the bread and butter of professional sport, the supporters and the clubs on which the Northern Union was built upon.

But you arent living in the real world, you have made up a situation just the same as FearTheVee did you both just approached from the opposite side.
You go on to mention season tickets...

You're not, your trust and that of a fair amount of other fans was lost long ago. There is a large section of the RL fanbase who seem to be genuinely convinced the RFL are intent on destroying their club and the game. You can't reason with that level of paranoia and circular thinking, it would be a dereliction of duty for the RFL to not run the game completely ignoring it. The fact is, even if Bradford were playing in a stadium identical to Belle Vue, in almost every other meaningful measure they are a better run club than Wakefield (+ others).
Some people like to pretend that the stadium part of the criteria is a cop out for the RFL to simply choose the clubs they want, they have it backwards. The stadium part of the criteria allows failing clubs to hide behind the 'big shiny stadium' argument rather than addressing the fact that the clubs in poor stadiums, arent only failing because they are in poor stadiums.

The Northern Union was built on one principle and one principle only, to make money, thats what the RFL are looking to do, and lets be honest most of the bread and butter of the sport, the clubs and supporters benefit greatly, a few, a small minority, havent.

Without being too partisan, I need to take issue with "they are a better run club than Wakefield". With respect your talking a load of Bull.
Yes Wakefield have had their problems, some caused by inept management, some by circumstance and some by the beloved franchise system.
However the poor management is firmly in the past, with regard to the new stadium, the club could not possibly do any more than they are doing and the franchise system is beyond their control.
ST sales are well up, average crowds last season were well up (despite the uncertainty that was present for the vast majority of last term) and they are trying to accommodat the RFL criteria despite the fact that the stadium issue will hopefully be resolved within the next 3 moths.
Wakefield and Cas are in a quite unique situation, with most of the rugby world trying to force a merger "or else" and this is the doing of the franchise system.
At least Wakefield as a club have growth in every department (apart from our league position last year) and this element will improve this time around.
Altough I've read many books on the historical beginings of our game, I certainly haven't seen a mission statement stating "one principal of the Northern Union is to make money".
I think you've been reading too much Enid Blyton.
Yet again we come back to the franchise system, where new clubs have tried and failed, Paris, Gateshead, Crusaders, Harlequins (i know there still breathing, but a long way from successful) ant the heartland clubs have suffered.
Expansion is a great idea, but has been ill thought out.
The game was spreading slowly, but it is the RFL's insistance to keep "planting trees in the desert" that is harming the game.
We should have had a strong Cumbrian team by now, but the desire at the highest level is not there.
Clever people will know the reasons why, but mere mortals certainly dont.

It's ridiculously paranoid.



It really makes me laugh when people accuse the RFL of conspiracies against their club or in favour of a rival club. As if. These people are muppets, they simply don't have the level of competence required to organise even a very small conspiracy. The muddle they've got themselves in on this Bradford deal says it all. Evil geniuses they ain't!



They're so inept that if the RFL did set out to destroy the game, it would probably go from strength to strength!!

Destroying my club, no, never really thought that but I do think the people running the RFL couldn't organise a up in a brewery.

As I don't have the time to pick apart the rest of your comment, I have highlighted the stupidest part.

I don't think the RFL are destroying the game, as I said before I understand their objectives but their methods are poor. The fact that the RFL would have happily handed the Crusaders a 3 year SL franchise ahead of Wakefield (and lets not pretend it would have been any other way) highlights how short sighted they are. The Crusaders were doomed to fail, when everyone said they were doomed (us 'flatcappers'

) we got loads of stick from people like you.

Special dispensation has been handed out to many clubs in the past, and whilst I understand the reasoning behind these decisions I do not agree with the principle, if you think the RFL are fair and transparent in their dealings (like letting the Crusaders into SL in the first place) then fair enough Smokey. As for the RFL being competent as an organisation, that is another story altogether!

Anyway, back to the thread.
Now we've all had chance to "compare notes", Bailout or Investment ?

Seems to depend on whether you are a bitter Wakey fan, unable to get their head round the fact that their chairman sold THEIR stadium to developers, so it was lost to the club and the game, whereas ours sold OURS to the RFL.

Neither.

A piece of real estate has been sold. RFL happen to have bought it. No one would give a flying one if a venture capital firm, the local council or a rich individual had bought it.

And if they have the money, who cares who the buyer is, so long as everyone's all right?

Adey, whilst you have admirably endeavoured to explain the situation regarding the purchase of the lease, you are now reverting to comparisons that are irrelevant.

I don’t care the RFL has bought Bradford’s lease, I don’t care how much they’ve paid for it. Nor do I care why they’ve done it.

However, with regards to future licence’s, would you not agree that Bradford are now gold plated with the RFL as their masters?

No.

And the RFL are not our masters; just our landlord.

As you will probably hear from the terraces this year:

"Richard Lewis, he's OK...
he's OK, he's OK;
Richard Lewis, he's OK...
he's our landlord."

I would say that it would be highly embarrassing for the RFL if Odsal was to fail the stadium criteria; but it is highly unlikely that those criteria would have been set so that Bulls would not get a licence just because of the stadium anyway! Don' forget that Bulls were NOT one of the clubs warned about their stadium in the previous round, and they were not put on any particular warning this time. The stadium is stated as being in need of some improvement, but we start from already having over 6,000 seats and a large covered stand as well as extensive modern corporate facilities and large on-site car parks and other boxes ticked. Nothing said we were at serious risk on the stadium for next time round. Maybe the time AFTER that, I'll grant you. But a club with a B-grade licence (as we have) is should be OK next time round, all other things being equal anyway.

People seem to forget that there are loads of other criteria that are applied. If Bulls get the crowds, develop the players and perform OK on the park, (and don't go bust...) there is NO WAY they'd lose their licence, any more than any of the other SL clubs. If the Bulls fail at the first two and the last (they have conspicuously failed at the third in recent years) then they become very very vulnerable - and rightly so.

In such a situation, the worst case scenario is that the RFL surrender the long lease back to the council and maybe take a hit on the amount of the original payment that they have not recovered through rentals. But remember, the RFL have a charge on the Bulls' assets, which includes e.g. the (removable) Coral Stand, so you would expect that in any insolvency they could recover a fair bit even of that.

The way I see it, the RFL are taking an element of commercial risk that the Bulls may eventually not be in a position to pay the rent, in exchange for picking up a huge site with (despite what the naysayers would believe) very considerable future potential for the RFL.

This does create the potential for a conflict of interests on the RFLs part when licence applications are considered. There's no denying that.

Potential, for sure. The actual - I think more could be done by the RFL to clarify for people why this will not actually be the case.

Don't get me wrong, I'm with you. There are many criteria for licensing applications and the Bulls were, what, a B last time? I doubt they'd be in danger of not getting a licence any time soon.

It's the RFLs problem, not the Bulls, and it's the RFLs potential conflict, not the Bulls.

Besides, the grounds for licencing decisions are pretty clear so anyone with half a brain can determine and interpret the decisions and reach their own conclusions.

But I am sure the conspiracy theorists will use the potential conflict to cite favouritism.

Correct, they wouldn't, but since what actually happened was that the governing body a) bought it and b) issued a spin-tastic press statement in an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes, people do give a flying one, and rightly so.

There is an undoubted and irrefutable conflict of interest going forward in terms of licence decisions; to deny such is stupid. There is also yet more damage done to the trust and confidence of RL fans in the RFL; to deny that is stupid. Finally, I would imagine there are a number of SL Chairmen who are incensed by this decision, and that will damage the RFL's ability to administer the game going forward.

It's a mess, a self-inflicted and easily avoidable one, but a mess nonetheless.

The conflict of interest is wider than simply in relation to whether the ground will be treated less harshly at license application time than other stadiums.

The RFL as landlord receive rent from Bradford and have an interest in continuing to receive that income, so it is not in the RFL's interest for Bradford's income to go down (as a result of a failure to win a license, for example). Will the RFL step in to bail them out should Bradford get in financial difficulties?

The RFL also have an interest in enhancing the value of their asset, which means that Bradford may benefit directly from investment by the RFL whereas the rest of the league will at best benefit indirectly through the increased asset value. We may well see for example the RFL doing a deal with Bradford to upgrade Odsal in return for a higher rental or a share of revenue.

Not a good situation for the game as a whole, good though it may be for Bradford in isolation.

Yes we can - Crusaders, Wakey, Cas, Widnes....

Whats up with Widnes' ground ? and does Odsal have the required number of covered seats ? Same foe HKR ?
Cas & Wakey know ther are things to be done, but maybe others are unwilling to acknowledge the fact !

You say the mismanagement is in the past, but that has yet to be proved either way, and I cant think of any of the problems associated with Wakefield which you could say were down to the Franchise system. Wakefields problems existed in spite of the franchise system not because of it.
And yes, season ticket sales may be up at Wakefield but they are still much lower than Bradford, and yes average sales may be up but they are still much lower than Bradfords. Yes they are making impovements to Belle Vue but these improvements have been a long long long time coming and Belle Vue even then, wont be as good as odsal.
We only come back to the franchise system because you have brought it back to the franchise system, thats the kind of circular thinking I was talking about. Wakefield as club played in Belle Vue, had masses of overseas players, poor crowds and were by any realistic measure a struggling SL club before franchising had been put in place. And if the correlation between the entrance to SL of clubs like Paris, Gateshead, Crusaders, and London proves they are responsible for the struggles of the heartland clubs doesnt it also prove they are responsible for the massive improvement which has put about 10k on Leeds attendance? the attendance increases at Warrington? St Helens? Hull FC? Wigan? Bradfords attendances are historically pretty good is that down to the expansion clubs aswell? Huddersfield? Nor is there the desire in cumbria, hence their struggles.
If you want to look for a conspiracy, you will find one wherever you look. If Wakefield drop out next time and you want to find a reason which doesnt blame that club, use this. But it will do no good. The fact is, Wakefield are in danger come licence time because they havent made themselves indispensable, If they do everything they have promised, if they get a new stadium, get 10k attendances, stop giving playing positions to so many overseas journeymen, give more chances to youngsters you have developed and you wont be in danger.