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.

Some people have some very short memories of just what a state the game was in a few years ago.

And after the millions pumped in by Sky what state is it in now? We've had Crusaders and Wakey go bust whilst holding licenses. There is a question mark over Bradford's financial health. There's two clubs at least that are massively discounting their product with cheap ST offers (which is going to be bloody difficult to reverse). How many other clubs are trying to drink from a dry well? Before you jump on my back with the old straw man bollax - I realize I'm just fishing with my questions but if I was a betting man I wouldn't be afraid to slap down a few notes on the presumption that the game (SL clubs) is far from being in rude health.

compared to where the game was 10/15 years ago? Its in massively better health

Phew!

Everything's alright.

Thank goodness.

What does this have to do with Wakefield? Are the RFL buying Belle Vue?