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.

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?