I have every sympathy for the loyal bulls fans, as I would for the small core of supporters that stick by their club through everything. I started watching Huddersfield when they were the bottom of the heap and the life support was about to be turned off and so I really do have every empathy for them.

That doesnt stop me from thinking they were foolish to give up their money to prop up the bad administration that had led them to that position.



Why? Chances are they will lose every single point.



Its up to the clubs to run their ships properly, the Bulls gambled on bigger crowds and uplifted merchandise sales. It didnt pay off and they didnt balance their books and are now paying the price. This is NOTHING to do with the RFL in any way shape or form.

Does the game need more money? Yes. Is this the same situation for EVERY OTHER sport? Yes, so can we please stop these ridiculous statements blaming the RFL or suggesting they do something outside their power?



McManus jumped on a bandwaggon that almost certainly had more to do with politics than wanting to improve the game.



No, he got a better offer and had done as much as he could probably - probably as much as anyone could until we took the power in the game away from club chairmen.



Attendences are up, viewing figures on TV are up, the league is even more competative than ever, the National side has genuine competition for places...yes, its in good shape.

So this weekend aren't they hosting London? If so who is actually running game day?

I'm guessing the security firms and stewards will demand money upfront. Will their be a bar open in the ground? Will the place even unlocked?

The Bulls statement implies they need RFL assistance to proceed with the season, whether that be player wages or otherwise the RFL have a choice to make, their statement appears to say they are not happy with what is happening so far so may be hesitant to not pass on that assistance readily

If the RFL need to pay for the Bulls to complete the season, they should.
However that means the Bulls are relegated at the end of the year.

The problem then becomes the lack of any club really in a position to replace them next season.

Though it is possible to run the season with 13, move to a 25 game season, spread the roughly 1.2m Bradford would get between the other 13 clubs giving them about 90k each in place of a home game.

You make that statement like you know it to be a fact. Care to expand?

every cloud and all that

why would SKY Sports still pay the same amount of money for less games?

I would imagine the money will be reduced accordingly for the number of teams in the comp.

Doubt that. They pay for the games on the screen not the number of teams in the competition. There may be a clause in the agreement that says otherwise but I doubt it because it's an unforeseeable situation.

They wouldnt get less games, they would get the same amount of games. We would simply have a round less.

Sky pay for 70 games, at most, all it would do is require us to split one round of games over 2 weeks

Plus it would allow is, if the details could be sorted out with the NRL, to have the WCC as the pinnacle of the MM weekend

No it isnt

There's some twists and turns in this yet; At the fans meeting tonight a director of Greenwoods (one of the Bulls sponsors) turned up, and told everyone including the Administrator that he'd been trying to get in touch.

The administrators response - 'I don't have voicemail'.

Shoddy.

Very..... 85 stores nationwide.......I reckon they could afford to buy the club.

I find it hard to believe that somebody hasn't stepped up.....unless any new buyer would look for assurances that in 2014 they will be given another 3 years

looks like the official site has had the plug pulled? negate the hosting costs? www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/

looks like the official site has had the plug pulled? negate the hosting costs? www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/