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 ?

No club has gone bust while holding a licence yet.
If Bradford had plans to improve their income and didn't disclose such things like no VAT on season tickets, and they still had at that point no reason to assume their overdraft would be withdrawn, given the strengths of the rest of the club such as playing strength, playing record, youth development etc I would imagine Bradfords application would be significantly stronger than any of the Championship clubs and probably the applications of Wakey, Cas, Salford & London at the time.

IIRC Fax's application was denied as it didn't provide enough detail for KPMG to carry out their work, and then the Fax Chairman didn't help himself with a public whinge. At the time, did anyone seriously think that Halifax was one of the 14 best clubs in the country? 15th or 16th possibly but I think the 14 current SL clubs were easily the best 14 clubs.

Sounds good to me.

The Bulls put together a licence application that satisfied KMPG on the financial front. That's why they were awarded a licence. And hence my point about maybe a more in-depth examination of club finances is needed (although not likely to be agreed). The process as it stands - a process [iagreed and authorised by the clubs[/i was followed.


The RFL loan clubs money all the time - you just usually don't hear about it as nothing goes pear-shaped. I agree they could have been more open about the underlying reason behind the purchase - although nothing they said was actually [ifalse[/i - but that would have meant releasing the Bulls private financial in public. Something which would have required the agreement of the Bulls at least.


Once again, both the Fax bid and the Bulls bid were rated by KPMG. It was KPMG, not the RFL, that flagged up the weaknesses in Fax's application. The licences were awarded off the back of the information provided in the bids and the assessment provided by KPMG. Which brings us back to point 1.


It doesn't reveal anything to be a sham. What it does do is show that the current level of scrutiny undertaken by KPMG is not sufficient to uncover things that the applying club either wishes to hide or is ignorant of. And we're back at point 1 again.

"nothing that they said was actually false", maybe not, but it was darn right misleading, which many many people pointed out at the time.

Sorry Kosh, I disagre about your last point. Events have proved otherwise.
The francise system is based on 4 key critera: Facilities, Finance, Business and Marketing and Commercial.
Which areas would you say the Bulls strengths fit best on these 4 key criteria, marks out of 10 for each one.

The franchise system was brought in to allow the expansion of the game, speciffically to allow the Welsh team to queue jump.
This team is no longer in SL and so we have expanded the game of RL into Widnes.

The sysetem is flawed and for me, we need to find a better more transparent way of moving clubs into the top flight and the governing body
need to find some mechanism that encourages the clubs better manage their finances.

3 clubs into admin in 3 years in a league of 12/14 clubs just isn't good enough

Ok, we'll skip over point 1, because patently I do not have the applications to hand

Paraniod nonsense regarding the reasons behind the move to franchising, not at all, why else would the move have been made ?

Any clubs in financial strife is not good, but you seemed to wish to miss the point here.
Clubs outside SL do not go thruough some pseudo vetting process.

On the final point, I mentioned that 3 clubs from 12/14 going into admin was not good enough.
At what point should deeper checks into financial suitability become necessary.
I still labour the point that any club sould not be in financial strife when we are just over the starting line in a 3 year cycle, having been "checked" specifically on this criteria.

I think there's an issue as to whether they would continue to be profitable in a lower division if they were happy to stay there permanently. Would their fans continue to support them in sufficient numbers without at least the ambition of them becoming a SL club?

And if they were only delaying a genuine application until they reached the point where they could become a stable and profitable SL club, would they ever achieve that without financial backing?

Most definatly , the only way they could be placed in , we ALL told you how bad it was

Which ' Crusaders ' ? , 1 st one or the 2 nd one , so thats 4 SL clubs gone into financial problems inside 4 seasons

How about for the reasons actually put forward at the time?


I didn't miss the point. I merely highlighting your focus on SL when it's a wider problem.
We've discussed the limitations of the 'vetting process' at length.


The issue of checks into financial suitability is only part of the issue. The more important part is how many clubs in RL would actually pass a more stringent check.

It's important to remember that the franchise process is only there to identify the 14 [ibest[/i clubs. Not 14 [igood[/i clubs necessarily. Perhaps what we should be worried about is how much strife everyone else is in if Bradford were one of the 14 best.

Very very very good post. Absolutemon!