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?