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?

Not on my calendar they don't

The way the franchises are handed out, and the way they then go on to operate once handed out are too distinct things.

If a club can be bought and sold outside of administration, with the franchise an asset which is able to be transferred, there is no reason to assume that should a club be in administration and its assets bought, that the franchise wouldn’t be an asset which is able to be transferred.

Are you suggesting that any takeover or investment results in the club being forced to bid again for the franchise as it would involve a change in assets, business plan and finances?

No they are asking whether, when they purchase the Bradford Bulls, the franchise awarded to the Bradford Bulls will be transferred or withdrawn. It is nonsense to suggest they are buying an RL club and not an SL or Championship club. Bradford Bulls don’t exist outside of the games they play and the competitions they play in.

what bid? Are we in a bidding process for something? Whats the pre-qualifying criteria? Who is bidding? Who is judging? When? What are they judging on? When are they deciding?

I actually agree with Smokey. The RFL need to state their intentions - nobody is going to buy the Bulls with this uncertainty over what they are buying. I'd rather wait and start a new club in the championship, than risk being dumped there with next to nothing to show for the initial investment needed to save the company. If it is a buy-out acceptable to creditors the franchise to 2014 should be retained, IMO. Transferring it to a newco would be different, but the problem is losses to come more than existing debt according to some in which case that maybe wouldn't be a likely scenario.

It's all one system.


Most licencing/franchise systems incorporate a mechanism whereby a franchise transfer has to be approved by the licencing body/organisation and may well be reviewed or removed. I'd be surprised if something similar wasn't included in RL franchises.


No, because I'm not suggesting that a new bid is entered.


Unless you believe that there's a chance of them not being allowed to play in any competitions at all then this is hair splitting.


Now you just look daft. I suggest a visit to an online dictionary, although given your previous I'm sure you'll attempt to wriggle out of your pretty basic error with the language.

I think that's spot on, this was in the local press eariler this week;

[i"The prospective purchasers are looking at losses for the next 18 months with their own accountants and advisers in and they want to make sure they have enough money to cover the losses,” he said.

“Buying the club is not an issue, they need to be sure they can stabilise and take the club forward.

“They have met with RFL to hear the process of how the rights are transferred to Super League and they want Odsal back from RFL."[/i

[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/9809215.New_deadline_set_as_curry_boss_in_bid_to_rescue_Bradford_Bulls/rescue bid[/url

There are two problems with this:

1. The RFL's decision should properly be influenced by the business plan of the potential purchaser. Unless they are willing to supply this information up front then the RFL run the risk of allowing the Bulls to continue only for us to be revisiting the whole issue in a few months time. See Crusaders for details.
2. Now they have been delivered an effective ultimatum they will [iappear[/i weak if they just say yes.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that this bid should be rejected out of hand. I am suggesting that some due process, scrutiny, and possibly compromise is in order before a decision is made.

Yes, everything, if we expand the definition wide enough is all part of one big interconnected system, that doesnt however make one thing relevent or important to another. Nor does it make the way the franchises are handed out the same as they way they operate once they have been handed out.

Which is what the people looking to get from the RFL prior to purchasing the club.

So when do you suggest the RFL make this decision, and how?

I think there is a very real possibility that if the RFL say the Bulls will be relegated, or just fail to give any answer to the very important and pertinent question of whether the club has an SL licence the current bidders will drop out and the club will be liquidated and cease to exist. It isnt splitting hairs to suggest the bidders are bidding for an SL club and have no interest in a championship club.
Im still not sure what you mean, if not a bid for a franchise as i assumed (which isnt happening btw) then your statement doesnt address mine at all and in that context doesnt make any sense.

Against point 1, I'd say it is a chance against no chance. A sensible caveat could be included - they could say that Bradford wouldn't be demoted [ifor going into admin[/i, so long as the new owners offer the types of guarantee the boards of other loss making clubs made to get a licence.
On 2, I agree. It seems to have been badly framed. 'We would like to make an offer, we just need to know the extent of any sanction the club faces for going into admin', would have achieved the same, while looking more like a query. If they can cut through the Gordian knot of the lease ownership that'll put any apparent weakness over this in the shade, I reckon.