I think you'll find that in any "Non Manufacturing/Non Distribution" business the single biggest cost is labour and when spending up to the full salary cap on players plus the additional staffing cost means that on the Bulls turnover (circa £3.5-£4m) their salary costs were in excess of 45% I doubt the upkeep of Odsal (including rent) was over 45% of turnover even before the RFL bought the lease and definitely not after the RFL saved this "Iconic Stadium from predatory developers"

One thing has emerged though is the amazing number of top business and financial experts there actually are. It is truly humbling to be in such exalted company.

Neither you nor I have any idea whether spending on the playing squad was the major contributing factor to their current financial woes. In fact such figures as have become available suggest it was spending on [inon[/i playing staff that was excessive. There's also no indication whatsoever that during their successful period they had any financial difficulties at all.

Your entire argument is built on baseless speculation and some unwarranted assumptions. To then try and somehow blame the fans for enjoying something they shouldn't have is, frankly, absurd. How on Earth were they to know what was going on behind the scenes? It's also pretty ironic coming from a fan of a club that have, by their Chairman's own admission, overspent on their squad for their entire SL tenure. There but for the grace of Hudgell...

Oh - and the 50% rule was in fact in place for the vast majority of the time that the Bulls were supposedly 'overspending' on their squad.

Tbf, sometimes you have to spend to get to the next level. We've spent more than was sustainable in the long-term (certainly with our current infrastructure and attendances), but I'd suggest that is different to 'overspent'. We might regret that it was neccessary, but it was. When you've not had much investment in your youth structure or as much success recently as you're hoping for in the near future, a period of paying over the odds and/or running at a loss is inevitable. I thought you lot were on board with that now.



Bradford got stuck in a bit of a downward spiral, but I never anticipated anything on this scale. Lack of a benefactor, gambling on the low-priced season ticket pledge thing, years of poor-average sporting performance so soon after being brilliant - all will have contributed, I imagine, but what was most important I've no idea.

Yes, in the same way that Castleford, HKR and Wakefield are if they can't get new stadiums sorted out.

People from all walks of life use the tinternet duntchaknow

I'd suggest that the only material difference is that you - and now us as well - have someone willing to prop up that spending and Bradford didn't. In terms of the somewhat moralistic point being made by Anakin the two situations are near identical.

I know that when the club picked up the tab for Odsal in 2003 it suddenly had to pay for things like sorting out the main stand roof, getting new floodlights etc but these were one off payments.

Successive club chairman have spouted the line about the ground costing too much to maintain. I remember Hood himself likening it to an old house that is large and more costly to maintain. He then pedalled the opposite line once the lease was sold to the RFL. That left me with a rather cynical view of the whole argument.

I do know the club has had to stress test every steel barrier in the stadium every year. I expect that costs a bit. If they fail then they'll need replacing or repairing. There's an awful lot of them in comparison with anywhere else.

If Odsal really isn't a financial millstone then why have the Bulls been trying to develop it for so long?

According to the press, ABC have finally put in an official bid, but is conditional on buying back odsal and the Bulls staying in superleague.

If the consortium want to buy back Odsal, that's fine, as long as they pay the right price for it (whatever that might be, but not £1 or something stupid).

As for staying in SL, that's a tough one. I don't think it's really an issue, because the RFL will probably agree, but what it [idoesn't[/i say is stay in SL for how long?

We will never see the full details because they're confidential, but does it mean in SL for the rest of this season, the rest of the franchise, or even, for x number of years (beyond the current franchise)?

As I've quoted before, I still think Bradford will survive in SL in the end.

I think the RFL will have no choice but to turn down this conditional offer, not buying back Odsal, but guaranteeing to keep Bradford in SL. The integrity of the game, competition and the system, whether you like that system or not, are greater than one club and such they can't and shouldn't guarantee anything. Equally, they have already turned down a similar offer that Steve Parkin made to buy Wakefield Trinity for the same reasons, and therefore they have set their own rigid precedent on this matter.

I hope the consortium accept that the RFL can't make an absolute guarantee on this, still come in for the club and work quickly now and in the off season to convince the RFL that they should retain their place in SL in 2013. I think the odds on Bradford staying in SL are higher than going, and hope the consortium will take the risk.

Why cant the RFL guarantee a place in SL for Bradford?

This Steve Parking/Wakefield thing is a nonsense red herring which just seems to be an extension of the Wakefield ‘people like Bradford more’ victim mentality which has been evident since Bradfords problems became apparent.

The situation with Wakefield was completely, and obviously, different. Wakefield were asking for a new license, they wanted the RFL to pre-judge the entire procedure to guarantee them a place in the top league, Bradford are looking to continue with their existing licence, nobody else is affected.

The fact is the RFL need to decide whether Bradford are going to be in next season and the season after anyway, they have to decide whether this takeover means the RFL want to keep Bradford in or kick them out before they make any other decision. Just make that decision, we aren’t waiting for a license judgement, there isn’t a date where all the clubs are judged and need to submit applications and that decision is to be released, we aren’t working to any time table. They RFL have to make a decision one way or the other, make it.

If Bradford are staying in, tell them, if they are being kicked out, tell them. What on earth are we gaining spending the whole offseason with this uncertainty? It has no benefit for the RFL, Bradford, or whoever replaces them. Why add to the uncertainty, why make them take that risk? It doesn’t do anyone any good.

The RFL should look at the new owners offer, look at what they are doing, planning, their backing, look at everything, and make a decision, either say fine, you are in and help the takeover go through, or say no, its not good enough, any club outside SL have until September the 31st to submit a bid for a 2 year licence, and the best in our opinion will get in.

I don’t see a problem with the consortium getting an assurance regarding the next two years, however, they seem to be insistent on purchasing the lease back too.

Again, I don’t have a problem with that either, as long as they’re prepared to pay the RFL back in full & not on the never-never.

Its Parkin, and why was it a nonsense red herring?

Because they've made it abundantly clear that conditional offers will not be entertained, and because although it might technically be within their power to do so it effectively drives a coach and horses through the franchise procedure and will instantly alienate a good number of clubs.


Bradford's existing license was awarded to a different company with a different business plan, different finances, and different assets. In principle any new company taking over the Bulls should have to apply for a licence from scratch. In other words they are effectively asking for a new licence just as Wakey were.

I'd be extremely cautious about dealing with any potential buyer who appears to be so fixated on getting their hands on the Odsal lease. I reckon you'd see the Bulls shipped off to Valley Parade quick-sharp.

I agree entirely, I can understand the Bradford fans clutching at any life-line, however, just letting some cobbled together company get their hands on the lease is quite worrying.

I just hope the consortium pays the RFL what their out of pocket & there’s a clause in the lease to play R.L at the ‘Iconic’ stadium for many years to come.

It is unclear from the press reports (basically because they havent got the foggiest) whether the consortium are buying the assets etc of the Bulls (ie Bulls into liquidation and new co owning everything) or whether ABC are investing in the existing club and injecting finance and thus allowing it to come out of administration.

If its the latter then the existing SL licensees still have the licence and as such the RFL "could" remove them on breaching the conditions that were apparently laid out to the clubs in the summer of 2011 above financial issues but they are likely to look for a way for them to stay in. If Bradford Bulls OLdCo no longer exists then the RFL would find it harder to wriggle out of this one given their "tough stance!"

One question that I have never seen raised during all this, and it in fact could be a legal matter which affects decisions, is when SL licences are awarded are they awarded to a "Company" or are they awarded to a "Brand". So for example, could Warrington Sports Holiding Ltd (IIRC) sell "Warrington Wolves" to another company as its Warrington Wolves RLFC that has the licence...IYSWIM.

Because they aren’t the same situation. They are massively different.

Wakefield were sking the RFL to prejudge the entire franchising process, they were asking to be judged one of the 14 best clubs without the RFL actually judging any clubs at all.

Bradford are asking whether administration means they are going to be relegated or whether they can stay in SL. That is a decision that needs to be made, and to be fair to everybody, Bradford, the possible promoted clubs, the rest of SL, it needs to be made as soon as possible.

It doesn’t make sense for us to be saying, give us your money and then we will tell you which league you are in.

But the point which you miss, maybe because it's too obvious, is that if the RFL say yes or if the RFL say no, then there is no need for a "conditional" bid. The RFL will have to take the decisions sooner or later, they have had talks with ABC, they must be presumed to know who they are and what they want, and they now have details of the bid.

Therefore if they say yes, or no, to each issue, then the bidders have a decision.

It is only "conditional" if the RFL say, rather weirdly, "Well actually no, we are not telling, you have to buy the club off the administrator first. Once you own it, come back, and [ithen[/i we'll tell you.

I presume you can understand why a buyer isn't going to complete without knowing what it is they are actually buying? Is that unusual? I wouldn't think so. Would you? The deal may well founder on this, but in effect all the consortium is doing is asking the RFL to make the bloody decision. They've had long enough to mull it over. If not now, then when would they suggest, and what would be the point, given that there would no longer be a buyer, and so what point would a later decision have?



But that's your principle. I entirely disagree, and it is not in fact a principle at all, but just your view. It also doesn't correspond with the current reality. It is up to the RFL Board, and that's the reality. Maybe you should lobby the RFL to change the procedures for future cases. It won't affect this case. And clearly they are not "asking for a new licence". If you wanted to sum it up in a pithy phrase, then they would be asking to "take over the existing licence".

And as SmokeyTA has summarised, there is no sane comparison with the Wakey situation, which you must realise.

Even if the latter scenario applies (i.e. a re-financed OldCo under new ownership) then they will still be operating with a different business plan than that approved during the awarding of the licence. You would expect them to at least undergo some form of assessment of their new plans. I understand that this isn't compulsory, but to simply transfer the licence without any formal scrutiny would IMO devalue the whole franchise system.


A good question. I [ithink[/i that the licence is awarded to the holding company and basically permits them to operate a team in SL during the licence period, but I'm not sure.

Its nothing to do with the franchise procedure, they aren’t asking for a guaranteed franchise in 2 years time, just to complete this one and be able to apply, like everybody else, for the next one.
Except they aren’t, they are asking to complete this one. They are asking are we buying an SL club or are we buying a championship club which is just finishing the season. I see no benefit to the RFL saying buy it first, then we will let you know.

If the RFL want to see the business plans, finances, assets etc beforehand then fine.

I didn't suggest that the RFL stance was logical, but they [ihave[/i publicly stated that they will not entertain conditional bids and this bid is conditional on two fairly major points.


They're buying an RL club. Everything else is, well, conditional.


I realise that you love to hang arguments on literal interpretations of commonly used phrases, but I used 'in principle' to indicate a theoretical possibility and not the actuality. If I had thought or wanted to infer the latter I would have made a simple statement. Neither am I interested in lobbying the RFL to change a system that we have yet to see the outcome of. You appear to be under the impression that I am somehow arguing against the Bulls remaining in SL, when in fact I am merely exploring some of the possible options.

There is a comparison with the Wakey situation, albeit a distant one. Again, I didn't suggest it was an exact comparison.

You’ve already explained that once

.

How much do you think the RFL should sell the lease for Smokey, only asking like.

WHatever they bought if for, with a condition of sale that it cannot be sold on without the RFL's say so an it cannot be sold on without the Bulls having a secured alternative.

If they're asking if they can continue with an existing franchise then it involves the franchise system. The clue is in the use of the word 'franchise'.


They are asking if they can take over a licence awarded to someone else, based on someone else's business plan. And they are buying an RL club, not an SL club or Championship club.


Indeed. Maybe those details are even included in the bid. Surely any reasonably competent purchaser would do so before making those demands?