So the fact that Crusaders improved from 14th to 8th is down to their being more play-off places? the fact Catalans went from 14th to 6th to 5th is because there are more play-off places?

under franchising, no club has finished bottom twice in a row, no club has even finished in the bottom two twice in a row, only 3 of 14 clubs in 4 completed seasons havent been in the play-offs, this isnt because we now have 8/14 qualifying rather than 6/12, it is because the teams at the bottom are closer to each other, and closer to the middle. This is a good thing, somethign we should celebrate.

Fine, im comfortable with punishing the gross mismanagement at the Bulls, but actually punish those who mismanaged them, not those managing now.

Punishing Omar Kahn for the actions of Peter Hood, wouldnt deter Peter Hood from making those decisions.

Then he should be congratulated, my question about ST prices was from a post I read on the Wakey board, if I am mistaken, then apologies , not wanting to criticise Wakey, especially if they are operating fairly

1. Omar Khan isn't being punished, Bradford Bulls as a continuous entity are. Corporate responsibility.
2. Peter Hood is no longer in a position to make those decisions, so thats irrelevant, but..
3. Punishing Bradford Bulls may well deter Richard Wright, or Andrew Glover, or any other club chairman from making those decisions in future
4. When Widnes were denied SL at the first licencing round with their period of administration being cited as the major reason by the RFL, what had the actions of the previous management got to do with the Steve O'Connor management team ? They were judged on the actions of previous incumbents, so there is already a precedent for it.

Or we can simply do nothing and send out the message that its fine to practice gross financial mismanagement and suffer no consequences.

So in 3 years of franchising we have 1 club finish bottom and disapear, then the club that replaced it disapear, so its not really surprising they havent finished bottom twice, is it ?

So Crusaders didnt go from 14th to 8 th as they were tottally different clubs

Fair enough Bradford are a completely new club, no fans, no players, no SL wins, no Challenge cup wins, no history, bring on the mini licence appliation, everything in their application is speculative and should be treated as such

No, Omar Kahn and his new company are being punished for the decisions of Peter Hood and the actions of his previous company. In this context corporate responsibility achieves precisely nothing.
Why? If the same thing happened they wouldnt be involved and wouldnt suffer any punishment. It isnt a deterrent to say 'if you make mistakes, we will punish the person who replaces you'
No they werent. Widnes werent 'punished' by not getting a licence because of administration. They didnt get a licence because they couldnt prove they were financially viable, going in to admin was simply part of the evidence for that. Bradford right now are having to prove the new co is financially viable, its why they havent been given a franchise yet.

or we could ban Peter Hood, Chris Caisley and the major shareholders of the previous Bradford company from having any involvement in RL, whether that be as an agent, a Chief Exec, a CEO, working behind the bar, a silent partner, whatever. Lets actually punish the people who did wrong, rather than the people who rescued the situation.

please explain your logic. It seems very confused.

How is not holding Omar Kahn responsible for Peter Hoods actions because it doesnt achieve anything akin to pretending there was never a Bradford Bulls?

According to information from another poster on another forum, the Bradford Bulls Holding Company is a special purpose vehicle to allow transfer of assets from the Bulls Ltd to OK Bulls. It helps them leave their debts with the old company.

The old company does still exist but has been "asset stripped" and now has only debts against it's name. It will be wound up asap so that creditors cannot go after the directors.

I guess the question is, since the SL licence was issued to the old company, is it transferable as an asset or is it the sole property of the old company to whom it was issued.

If that is the case, that would be why the RFL are doing this mini licence application excercise so that they can rubber stamp a new licence issue to OK Bulls.

Has anybody told Huddersfield, Hull KR, Wakefield, Castleford and Salford that p and r wasn't working. Isn't that how they ended up in SL ar various times.

Exactly.

No, but it might make the next SL CEO who wants to chase success without balancing his budget change his mind if he thought his club might end up in the Championship as a reult of his strategies.

Why would it, it isnt his club anymore, he isnt the chairman anymore and he has no links with the club anymore.