Reading between the lines, I think the RFL knew what the response of the new board was going to be ( to a 6 point penalty) and decided they wanted rid of them.

Agree with this regarding the club itself, but docking money aswell as points is that not being punished twice for the same offence.

but its not docking, it was offered up, by the owners at that point.

Can't make an exception based on the history of the club... the rules are the rules.

We're constantly told that the game is in good health, so another club will step up and fill the void if Bradford fold. The fanbase is still there and they will be back in time.

Looks like Mike Moore and his backers were trying to force the RFL to accept a offer for the Bulls without any points deduction. If they were taking over the club for its long term future they wouldn't let a six point deduction put them off to the point where they walk away. Hopefully Richard Lamb has a different view to business and the game.

I think Mike Moore and his backers have made a ridiculous decision dropping this. They have basically come out and said that with the deduction, relegation is a certaintly. I'm sure the fans won't be happy about that and I'm sure the players certainly won't be happy.

Hopefully someone else comes along and makes an offer for the club because Super League needs Bradford.

The guys name is Mark Moore. No idea why I remember that.

Did Gareth Carvell know more than the rest of us ?

Two key points here it seems. Firstly is the matter at hand here: points deduction for going into administration. This admin seems different to the others we've seen recently, in that it is more to do with a technicality, rather than inability to pay creditors. It seems the RFL played a part in the situation leading to that, yet they want to enforce a penalty. The RFL are very happy to play the 'it's the club's responsibility to run their affairs' card when it suits, yet when they're apparently unhappy with who might become new owners they suddenly seem to want to interfere, and influence the outcome of events. They can't have it both ways.

Secondly, the decision to give the Bulls half their money, and split the rest between the other clubs-whilst this
might have been 'offered up' by the previous owners, it was only under duress, in order to keep their licence. This proves the governance structure of the game is broken (clubs with self-interested views get to decide such matters), yet the RFL are happy for this status quo to continue as it gives Woood and co the power they crave.

All the time whilst these issues remain unresolved, and whilst the RFL seems unable to show even a basic level of commercial acumen, the focus is on a farcical league structure invented by the RFL/Wood because they either too proud or too weak to face into the issues over P&R that the licence system brings.

This will not end here, it will not be pretty and it will not be good for the game. I reckon within 5 years we'll be back to a traditional league structure, with a new RFL board, and a different governance structure. However, before then we'll see a power battle played out in public. I just hope too many clubs don't endure what London, Bradford and Wakey have recently before it's all resolved.

I wonder what will be said if Koukash turns out to be a rogue owner (as many have predicted) and Salford end up in this mess.....will it be a case of "Salford are too big to fail, the RFL are a disgrace for letting them go to the wall" or will it be a case of "tough, its your own fault"

Also if the RFL steps in to bail out Bradford it will have to cut its funding for other purposes.

We could cut grass roots spending and funding for junior development to divert money in to bailing out Super League clubs.

The government made cuts to lots of services to fund the costs of bail outs.

It would also be good if they drew up a list of which clubs were too big or too traditional to fail:

I would say, in order of priority

Wigan
Leeds
St Helens
Bradford
Warrington
Hull
Huddersfield

below that I would say let them fail

Trouble is, if Bradford fail, SL will see two games less this year. Income will be down for clubs, and how will that affect the Sky contract ? Will they dock some of their money ? Also a game less for Magic Weekend.

And how will potential sponsors view the failure ? Will international companies wish to be associated with a game that has clubs that drop out of their premier league because of financial distress ? Have the RFL failed to find sponsors in the recent past because of our poor track record in financial management ?

How will the press view the issue, and what publicity will the game get ? It's important to understand that the game got a big lift from the success of the World Cup, and probably resulted in a much better offer from Sky for the new contract.

What will junior players think about the stability of their careers ?, will they still see it as a good bet ?

How will the club officials and team get on with their mortgage payments and finances in general if Bradford fold ?


As supporters we see the Bradford problem as an iceberg with only the tip of the problem showing - the other four fifths are hidden, until you start to think a little harder about the implications. SL is a business and as such you can say that it should be subject to the same principles as Woolies was on the high St. But I don't think there are any easy answers in this case.

Think back 12 months and Salford were in a big mess. Without a new owner the club was not viable. I dont recall a huge amount of interest in taking over the club. If Koukash does turn out to be a 'rogue' (only time will tell) then Salford will be back to where they was last season, on the verge of administration. If Koukash isnt the real deal we may go out with a big bang rather than a slow death!