You are correct, the word is "could". However the point remains, under what circumstances would they actually revoke a license ?
It is difficult to imagine haw a club could fail to a greater extent in terms of financial viability !

Nope. What I'm saying is that all efforts should be made to ensure that the players and staff of the Bulls don't suffer more than can be avoided, and this should take priority over any other considerations.


Nope. They said that they [icould[/i revoke licences. Not [iwould[/i. Quite an important difference.


No idea. And irrelevant to my point.


What eventually happens with the size and make-up of SL is also irrelevant to whether the Bulls survive as a club. I'm completely ambivalent about whether this is in SL or the Championship - I just don't want the club to fold and people to lose their jobs.

They might as well replace 'could' with 'never'. It is clear that no SL team will ever have their license terminated. It's not even a remote possibility.

Why punish innocent people ?Sorry,emotional blackmail that old chestnut.So we don't imprison criminals because it wouldn't be fair on the family who did nothing wrong?

Comments noted, however, if you had sold a couple of your superstars before the season commenced, although you would undoubtedly have had a weaker squad, you would have saved cash on their wages and received a substantial fee. This would certainly have covered the cost of some of your admin dtaff who were sacked, so to talk about people suffering is strange, when things could and should have been handled somewhat differently.

Fantastic analogy.

No, really...

I'm not a Bradford fan.

Nobody - and I do mean [inobody[/i - is arguing that the Bulls weren't mismanaged. But the people who mismanaged the club aren't there any more. And while we'd all like different choices to be have been made, they weren't. We are where we are and have to deal with the situation as it exists, not as we might have liked it to exist.

Stickies really are a great place to hide things!

As I've been boring people with on our board:

Oldco should, IMO, retain the licence. And would I'm certain.
They can give a place to a newco, but not a licence - we'd have to do away licensing to put a newco Bradford into SL.

Most seem to think it'll be an oldco which after this whole farrago surprises me somewhat, but would definately be the best possible outcome.

This has been stickied, despite the fact that the thread title is misleading.

The title is becoming more and more accurate by the day

Of course its accurate. I "approved" at least one bid some time ago, therefore it has been approved. A bid might soon be "approved" by others including the Administrator and the RFL.

But until a bid is approved by the creditors, incl HMRC, it doesn't mean a great deal.

It all just sticks in the throat.
Having been given a franchise knowing that they were losing money hand over fist.
Unable to pay the interesst on a "secret "RFL loan
Handing over a peppercorn lease for a further significant handout, which subsequently caused the bank to withdraw the overdraft
Taking 500k from the rugby league world to "save" them
Then taking advance monies from the RFL to stay alive throough the season
And all of this whilst protecting their most valuable asset (the players)

It beggars belief, but they will still ply their trade in SL next season having been punished already with a 6 point deduction