KPMG obviously did their homework didnt they? honestly they must be e at what they do and its not a very good advert for their business.

Bradford Bulls - Grade B


Bradford Bulls provided a solid submission detailing a strategy, tactical plan and targets to achieve improved commercial and financial performance. The club has a solid fan base, a strong brand and good operating structure/governance in place. However the club faces some challenges. These include the local economic environment, poor recent on-field performance and an ageing facility. The application acknowledges these challenges; however the club believes that its business plan for the next three years will move it to a position of sustainability with good prospects for further growth. The club has invested heavily in its youth performance programme in recent years, and it is expected that the club will soon start to reap the rewards of this investment with improved performances and increased numbers of quality club-trained players.


That's not even "speculative", it's a pack of lies which the RFL and KPMG swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Wasn't there some "threat" at the begining of the season about clubs not keeping their promises to the RFL, which was finance/ground related and Halifax were supposed to have been put on 3 months notice ?
At the time it was thought to be aimed at Wakefield or Cas, but now................

It depends on the remit they were given (which in turn is related to how much they were paid). I find it unlikely that their remit required a detail investigation of the representations made to them. Usually they'll have some sort of language in a report explaining that certain assessments have relied on the information provided. It's for someone else to decide (if anyone can be ar$ed) if they were given duff information, willfully, negligently or otherwise. If it turned out that they had been deliberately lied to by someone, what will the sanction be against that individual (or individuals) ? Probably not a lot. Unless there was outright provable fraud, they'll be able to hide behind phrases like "well, it was my honest opinion that crowds would double and sponsors would flock in...just because I got that wrong, doesn't mean I'm a fraud", etc. etc. And technically, they might be right. Hopeless business planning isn't the same as fraud.

This is one of the dangers when you bring in auditors - yes, it has to happen...BUT you need to really careful that you don't think an audit alone constitutes sufficient due diligence. What's really needed is people on the ground with enough knowledge of the game to give things a real 'sniff test' to decide if the plans are hopeless dreaming (or even deliberate BS) or founded in reality. Ticking a list of boxes can sometimes miss very obvious problems.

the first 3 years of the license was to settle in now thats past the rfl have said they will be more strict on the rulings and will be able to demote and promote teams when these are broken

As much as Im not really keen for Fax to go back in to SL it does just appear that we could have just told a pack of lies and been in with a shout but instead we were careful in our estimations and got punished for it. Our careful planning results in us turning a profit while a team that promised the earth has gone belly up. More questions need asking of the RFL in all of this.

Whilst SL is run by the present incumbants i would prefer us to steer well clear of it.

What, while it's run by the chairmen of the member clubs you want nothing to do with it?

Take the opportunity to do 2 x 10's for 2013

These are the clubs that have "life" membership of SL - no matter what they do. These are the clubs that could write their license application on used toilet paper:

Bradford
Catalan Dragons
Hull
Leeds
St Helens
Warrington
Wigan




These are the clubs that have "semi-life" membership, so long as someone is there ploughing the money in:

Huddersfield
London Broncos
Widnes


These are the clubs that will always be touted as the ones to be kicked out when the going gets tough. So long as Championship clubs remain in their current state, they should be safe:

Castleford
Hull K R
Salford
Wakefield

Give it up. There are people on here who just don't want to accept the facts and would rather just blame the RFL for everything.

What "facts" do the RFL accept? That Bradford's license application was robust? That three clubs have now gone bust whilst holding SL licenses? Are they deaf to the recent protestations by four SL Chairmen?

Keep calm and carry on eh?

I understand it isnt an ideal scenario but if youre going to bring Mr Hull KR into it then your objections fly out of the window. Hull KR are in trouble because THEY chose to spend a fortune chasing the P/R dream, THEY chose to overspend on average players (full Salary Cap for a while now) and THEY chose to get the courts involved so they could spend more money on MORE average australians. HKRs problems are completely and utterly their own

The RFL accepted the report on Bradford's application prepared by KPMG. The same as with every other club. There's clearly an argument that KPMG's remit should include a more in-depth scrutiny of a club's [iactual[/i financial situation rather than it's [istated[/i financial position but - once again - this would be subject to the approval of the clubs themselves. And they aren't going to give it anytime soon.

How is it the RFL's fault that clubs have gone bust? Clubs have been going bust for as long as RL has been around, and always for the same reason - spending way more than they earn. The RFL has no authority to dictate what clubs spend beyond the SC regulations - and even these are subject to agreement by the clubs. The same clubs that want to spend beyond their means.

The SL chairmen's complaints would likely carry much more weight if it wasn't for the fact that the SL chairmen are the ones who run SL. They decide on franchise vs P&R, licence criteria, salary cap, the 50% rule, the number of clubs in the league, etc. The clubs decided to accept the farcical Stobbart sponsorship deal. All things that the RFL get criticised for and yet do not have the final say on.

The RFL is at fault for a large number of things but they're pretty much all to do with the technical running of the game - from the officials through rule changes and the farce that is the disciplinary - and not to do with how SL is run. Because that's down to the same chairmen who are now making a big fuss about stuff that [ithey did to themselves[/i.

No, it isn't the RFL's fault that the Bulls are in admimistration, however, they must take total responsibility for awarding them a SL licence when there were well known financial troubles.
They had loaned money to the club and received no payment from them and than had the audacity to try and "hoodwink" the RL world in the way that they bought the lease at Odsal.
It is interesting that the Halifax bid was rejected because of insufficient detail of how the would improve their own income and yet they were happy to allow the Bulls to carry on, knowing that they already had major difficulties.
Of coures, it would have been unthinkable to drop one of SL most successful clubs, but this whole sorry episode exposes the franchising system and the grading of clubs to be a sham.
What does it say to the outside world, when a 'B' grade club falls just a few months into a 3 year franchise ?