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whether, when they purchase the Bradford Bulls, the franchise awarded to the Bradford Bulls will be transferred or withdrawn.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.

The confusion is clearly the continual reference to whether or not "the RFL will accept the conditional offer". This phrase is an utter nonsense and should be dropped. ABC have reportedly made it crystal that they are only interested in a SL club. So, in crude terms, their offer seems to be:

Dear Mr Guilfoyle

We offer to buy the assets of the old co., on the following terms:
1. We will pay £X, which works out at ??p in the £ for creditors. We will not proceed if that figure is not agreed.
2. The RFL transfer the lease to ABC. We will not proceed if we can't have the lease.
3. The Bulls SL licence continues for the new club. We don't want to buy it if it's a non-SL club.

The RFL either agree 2 and 3, or they don't. They are conditions, but there is nothing conditional about it so far as the RFL is concerned. They either agree, or not.

The other point nobody has mentioned. I presume however that as HMRC are easily the biggest creditor, then some agreement in principle must have been reached with them highly unlikely though that sounds to me. Since the deal could only be consummated in a CVA and that basically goes through if HMRC agree and doesn't if they don't. I must say I am baffled why there's been not a peep about that angle. Surely the consortium can't have done all this work just to have HMRC pis$ on their bonfire at the last minute?

That seems to be the contentious point - I'm not sure how the RFL could 'transfer' (sell) that lease to the consortium for anything less than what they paid for it, without suffering a catastrophic loss of reputation within the RL community, not least amongst a significant number of SL club chairmen.

Equally, the consortium won't want to pay the full value of that lease without some guarantee that they'll remain a SL club, if they want to pay the full value at all.

The RFL could solve it by clearly stating a) what penalty the Bulls wil face for going into admin and b) what terms they'll accept to sell the lease, including the potential to insert clauses about the Bulls staying there for a period of time.

It's a thorny one.

What's that you say? An offer with conditions attached? Why, some folk might call that a conditional offer - but probably only if they understood what that meant.

I think the point is that the "conditions" are ones that the RFL should be seeking to resolve now in any case, thereby turning it into an either an unconditional offer or a turned down offer. They are conditions for which the ball is firmly in the RFL's court. The issue of the lease is fairly straightforward. The RFL can and should insist that they will only repay it if they get back every penny that they paid. They may also want to apply other conditions, such as the Bulls remaining at Odsal, but its up to them, not ABC, to say what they are.

Its also entirely reasonable for ABC to seek clarification regarding the existing SL license (not assurances about any 2014 license). The RFL are entirely within their right to delay any decision until the end of the season and conduct a mini licensing review involving Halifax and Fev. But they need to cut out the pretence that that a Bradford club would be involved in that. The RFL need to make their mind up now whether Bradford's existing SL license will be retained (barring any future problems). If they cannot agree to that they should kick us out of SL now.

The RFL should not bend to veiled threats over the Bulls, if they deserve to lose their licence then so be it, I cannot believe that the financial problems have materialised since the last round of franchises and this would have led to covering up the problems, therefore 'stealing' a place for one of the championship clubs who are in good order off the pitch and on.

If this consortium genuinely has the interests of the Bulls at heart it would still be interested in building the club back up, even if it was from a lower division. Hope the RFL has the same balls as the Scottish PL, FA and clubs, but I doubt it.

Why is it that the more I read about this offer and the more I get to thinking about the "conditions" being imposed upon it, the stronger the feeling that this consortium aren't necessarily in it for the love of the sport or the love of the Bulls club?

Buy it cheap, sell anything that isn't nailed down, extract the funds then ship it on to whoever wants what's left springs to mind.

None of which stop it being a conditional offer. Which the RFL have previously stated they weren't interested in.

As someone else said, the offer from ABC was unfortunately phrased to say the least. It's added an unnecessary complication when the exact same assurances could have been sought without [iappearing[/i to be delivering an ultimatum.

There's no evidence that the Bulls deliberately misrepresented their financial position during the last round of franchise applications - it's far more likely that they made some assumptions that simply weren't supported. And the only Championship club in a position to make a serious bid made a mess of it. Hardly the fault of anyone at the Bulls.

How else could they have phrased it? if they'd not highlighted those issues now but left it until after the RFL had approved the offer, they'd rightly be accused of attempting to mislead the RFL.

Can't understand this Fev or Fax showdown, the clubs who have already qualified to apply next time are Leigh, Fev and Sheffield. At this moment Fev's ground is nowhere near ready.
Having the showdown in September would give little chance for any Championship club to move up and create a FT structure to compete with the Bulls potential in 2013, if thats the deal maker then we may have another RFL smokescreen instead of doing what's right.

Would they have to get the aproval of the owners of the ground aswell?

Glad to see you agree with licensing rather than P&R.

Don't be daft



That isn't the same as P&R is it. Under P&R clubs started the season knowing that a team would be promoted if they won the GF. They expected it, they PREPARED for it all season if they had hopes to be promoted. That isn't the case this year. Until about 2/3 weeks ago when it became clear how much trouble Bradford were in nobody in the championship had even considered going to SL next year. 'Fev, 'Fax and Leigh have all recently launched campaigns for 'Destination Super League - 2014' or something similar.

All the aspiring Championship clubs are geared up for promotion under the licensing system, wether they like it or not. To say at the last minute that somebody will be promoted a year early is going to cause problems for the hopeful clubs. And using "Well I thought you WANTED promotion and relegation" as an argument to try and mollify the championship clubs who are caught flat footed is frankly ridiculous.

Just to point out the lease on Odsal the RFL own has a condition in it that should the Bulls not play their home matches there they owe Bradford Council a repayment of some of the money given to the club as part of the Odsal settlement when we returned there from Valley Parade. I think this clause runs until 2018.
This already provides a clear financial penalty to anyone buying the lease from the RFL then trying to shift the Bulls out. Of course Bradford Council could agree to a change of use for the land.

My thoughts are confirmed.

The reason why we all know that point is rubbish, is because if it were true, then the offer would have already failed, and the Bulls would be in liquidation. You just haven't thought it through; ABC won't sign unless the conditions are agreed, yet somehow the discussions are still going on. What are they discussing then? Ugandan relations?


On that we can agree. They should have got their assurances in private at the meetings they have had. They could have kept these details 'private' in which case it would not look in public so much like a gun pointed at the RFL's head. Offers in negotiations, and ultimatums, are pretty much the same thing, but appearances count for a lot.

Conspiracy theories, moral stances and rumours aside.....

The RFL will give their assurances to ABC, the SL clubs will (begrudgingly) agree and the Bulls will take a larger than normal points deduction this season.

They'll then be have a clean slate for the new multi-cultural Bradford Bulls next season.

I can't really see anything different from that. I'm guessing more than 4 points deduction because of the assurances they'll have to give and the length of time in Admin. Making a RL team more multi-cultural is also something that the RFL might like the look of.