We agree on one thing - I have no idea who Awford is.

Whilst the Bulls were holding Orfords registration they had the ability to negotiate. They gave that away for nothing.
What you are say is that the Bulls paid Orford severance pay for him breaking his contract. That I seriously doubt. I would put it to you that the Bulls stopped paying their marque halfback as it started to become clear he had no intention of returning and the monies referred are infact salary payments which were withheld - that's how it reads to me and that would be appropriate for the situation the Bulls found themselves in.

Onto the fault of recruitment/youth:
At that time the Bulls had recruitment policy of big name, big expense signings such as Orford in preference over blooding their own talent. That policy had to have been defined somewhere by someone. Bulls have lost some great local talent by pushing Aussies infront of their fans to the detriment of the long term development of a production line. Im not saying the Bulls are alone on this front. as the old adage implies, Bulls bought in Fish rather than the Fishing Rod. But as is now apparent, there wasnt a long term plan.

Well he lists 6 but in any case he didn't say Bradford have only produced the above mentioned players. Of the young lads coming from the junior set-up, those are the highest profile people to move on.

But in any case we were losing young uns even when we were doing ok. I can think of Chris Bridge, Ryan Atkins etc off the top of my head as fairly young lads that have moved on and done good. And now Warrington are being kind enough to lend us back some of theirs in our hours of need.

I like how you've deliberately conflated Grade B and the finances. The financial element of the licencing process was only one part of it. The report even noted that there were some challenges, but the club, overall, was a B based on that, as one of a number of criteria.

The licencing process overall was not a financial audit, nor anything like a financial audit. It was an assessment of who were the 14 best clubs based on a bunch of criteria. Even with financial challenges, few doubted then that the Bulls were one of the top 14 - or, indeed, the top 10. Hell, I'd probably still make that analysis today given the dross and drivel, to borrow a phrase, cluttering up the bottom of the league.

Whitcuts office has been cleared out and they found these.....

...explains a lot!

Well I tend to find myself looking at Leeds for inspiration #cough, splutter#. They have a fantastic youth structure and it seems that once that structure reaches a critical mass, it not only populates your first team but actually generates a surplus. Leeds can now offload young talent that many of us would be delighted with (Mcshane etc?).

We were years behind Wigan, Saints and Leeds in terms of creating these youth set-ups but I did think we were beginning the catch-up. Sadly upheaval at the club tends to set this back because staff are diverted or made redundant and local amateurs look elsewhere for security.

It is hardly 'conflating' as a substantial part of the license process is an evaluation of finances. It has been both times and also the time the Bulls were checked half way through 2013. That is one of the reasons that KPMG are involved.

Unfortunately the RFL and their assistants have been dire when checking club finances.

Getting a license in July 2012 and then seeking several sky advances from Sept shows the rfl checks were inept. Buying a ground In January and then having the sole tenant begging for £1m in March also shows the RFL to be severely lacking.

Finances were but one of five criteria - and not the deciding one by any means.

A firm like KPMG is able to independently review both financial and non-financial information - their review was not for the finance side alone. Given you seem to think that, if financially in trouble, a club wouldn't get a licence, I can see how you can misunderstand the Bulls' subsequent problems as being indicative of a failure of the licencing system.

You do know that Bradford weren't the only club to receive an advance that offseason don't you?

I disagree. There's no point being bloody minded and forcing a club over the edge, for the sake of not giving them a couple of weeks advance. But they went beyond that.

If the governing body of this country helped out Sainsbury's, then Tesco, Asda and Mick and Ange who run the little local convenience shop would play merry hell. If you help one, you have to help them all or you're distorting the system.

Also ultimately their efforts failed. Or rather were wasted. Fair enough, Bradford made it through the season and have lived to fight another day, which is great. But as a newco, so buying the Odsal lease and all the fundraising was for naught. Now to have made it clear they'd accept a newco earlier would have been controversial, and this is being wise with hindsight, but it'd have avoided a lot of wasted cash and effort. Plus we've had to bin off licensing. With hindsight they made an enormous of it all and it has been a great advert for a less interventionist approach, moving forward.

but they were the only one to receive it and then return begging for more, then more again still without cutting their cloth accordingly.

At least in soccer Leeds United got it over and done with quickly.....if the Bulls were real Bulls, the RSPCA would have stepped in with a shotgun by now

Barman and now Bedboy are no longer the saviours of Bradford Bulls!
rlhttp://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/10920109.Moore____no_longer_a_director____at_Bradford_Bulls/rl

So, removing Moore and Whitcut will in some way placate OK and his desire for re-payment? This farce has a few months to run yet methinx

The government assists certain businesses and industries regularly. Either through tax breaks or government grants to incentivise the behaviour they want to see, or through direct assistance when a significant company is in dire need.