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.

Fair enough, but it is too obvious to maintain the pretence that the framework of licensing has meaning or value.



Fine - give New Bradford a franchise (as distinct from a licence). It'll be a whiffy retcon, but if there isn't a better solution, then so be it, so long as they don't maintain the pretence of due process and an attitude of 'carry on as we were'. I've got not a problem with Bradford, I don't want to 'punish' them. But talk of 'demotion' for a newco of this type is preposterous under the system you're trying to prop up. They didn't just go into admin, they failed to emerge from it and just started over (it seems from the limited info available).

The point of 'punishing' them in these circumstances is twofold:

1. To try to persuade future white knights who save clubs to not just wait until the last minute, buy the assets and dodge the liabilities. This ('punishment') increases the chances of creditors getting some of their money and means that the reputation of the sport is less damaged.
2. To leave licensing with some credibility. I'm not saying it is worth it, but that's the choice (it seems). A Newco Bulls in SL or a credible licensing system - you [ican't[/i have both.

As for the lack of suitable replacements, that is a structural issue that is unlikely change until the structures do. If necessary let's admit that and choose the least unpalatable course of action.

I'm not arguing particularly for or against any system. I'm not even arguing for integrity - just honesty when the truth is obvious, and against an illogical and doomed effort from those in charge to have their cake and eat it.

Surely the 'due process' is the fairly simple and obvious process of seeing if firstly Bradford are capable of being an SL club in their new form, and secondly to see 'if there is a better solution'. We all (it seems) assume Bradford are, and that there isnt. But what is the harm in the RFL doing a bit more research in to it? If the cynicism is removed and we dont start from a point where the world is bad and the RFL corrupt they seem to be doing the obviously sensible thing.

Or, conversely it could dissuade a 'white knight' from saving a club at all and the creditors get nothing, the reputation of the sport still suffers and we lose a club. Punishing a 'white knight' for being a white knight seems an odd thing to do, especially when being a white knight is a good thing
If franchising is to have the best clubs in SL, and Bradford are one of the best clubs, the having Bradford in SL supports the credibility of franchising.

I think we do admit it.

If the RFL are being honest, and the Bulls arent guaranteed an SL place, and they are still being assessed then how could they prove that to you?

Bulls want it both ways...no punishments, cos that was the old club, that was.

But still want to claim the history and records.

Is it a new, debt free club or is it the iconic old Bulls that we all know and love?