Very good thread with some intelligent points made, especially by Winslade's Offload and a few others.
My initial reaction to this news was one of disbelief and outrage, though having listened to the points in favour of why this action was taken, I can at least see the reasoning behind it to some degree.
However, what concerns me deeply is when decisions of such magnitude are taken purely on the basis of commercial viability, and where this route may lead us.
For example, let's say, hypothetically, that Bradford make the play-offs. The perceived wisdom of the man on the terraces (whether true or not) would be that it then becomes in the interests of the ruling body, or bodies, for Bradford to do as well as possible and to make as much money as possible. If your team plays Bradford, and is on the wrong end of a heap of refereeing decisions, maybe even loses as a result of a controversial decision, how are you, as a supporter, going to view that? Would you be inclined to go back and spend your hard-earned money again next season?
And taking the point about commercial viability to a wider extent, what if the Challenge Cup semi-finals had been, say, Wire v London and Wigan v Catalan. Would it be considered commercially non-viable to have a London v Catalan final, and would decisions be made accordingly to ensure that this didn't happen?
I'm not saying that would be the case, of course, I'm just saying that one massive can of worms is being opened here.
Maybe the gap between the fair world and the real world is actually a chasm.

The RFL have little to do with the refereeing though, other than setting the rules that referees should be following for every decision. If they were stupid, they might try telling the referees to swing a match one way or the other, but with 6 match officials the chances of this not reaching the press are very slim. Assuming controversial referee decisions even have any factor in the outcome of the match - you can give one team 2 or 3 tries they didn't deserve but it means nothing if the other team score 4 more anyway.

From the sounds of it the RFL have accepted that they will take a loss on this deal, to prevent this year's league from coming apart, so I don't think any major commercial decisions will come into it. Bradford will probably move into the Championship at the end of this or next season (maybe even at the end of the license period, but that seems unlikely) so they have a better chance of being bought, and another team can be brought in to make up the numbers (I think the league will stay at 14 at least until the end of the licensing).

Although it causes problems, I fully expect us to move to a SL of 13 next year. As I said in my previous post, you have to ask why the club chairman were unanimously behind the Bradford offer.

I imagine it was to avoid the absolute chaos of having Bradford disappear from this year's league before it finishes. I believe the league will stay at 14 because as well as being easier to deal with for the moment, dropping to 13 may well breach the Sky television contract and will almost certainly result in less money when it is next renegotiated due to fewer games and viewers.

One of the problems if Bradford go down is that a side of full time professionals will suddenly have to become part time players who will probably need to find a job to bolster their championship wages & seeing as jobs are few & far between this could cause these players all sorts of problems.On the other hand,whoever replaces Bradford will have a situation in reverse where players with steady jobs would have to finish work to become full time pros & if a replacement team is put in that position without being ready it could result in problems for that club in terms of viability & subsequently relegation & players having to find jobs again. My opinion is that in the current economic climate is one of 2 alternatives ,firstly, Bradford are saved &,secondly Bradford go down but with no replacement. I think the RFL would need to look long & hard to find a team in the Championship with the right pedigree to succeed ,in terms of financial viability & suitable playing & coaching structure ,not just as a stop gap but as a long term viable replacement.It would be no good bringing a temporary team in just to make the numbers up till Bradford is back on its feet. If a replacement team has to be found ,i think that team should be given first refusal on any released Bradford players in order to improve its existing squad.

They haven't been top level for many years, although they may make the 8 this season (in spite of a points deduction)......oh the irony

Bradford confimed as £1.5m in debt. SLE see there involvement as a short-term measure. Players free to talk to other clubs. SLE and 13 other teams are effectively Bradfords new administrators.

Sounds more like SL are fed up with the inaction of the current administrator ruining the game, rather than thinking they will "save" Bradford.

thats what i think as well.

On a similar point aren't/weren't melbourne and someone else owned by News International in the NRL for a while?

Then the RFL will have a giant asset (Odsall) that no er wants to play in. Bradford will go under and their losses written off. Their only option would be to agree to let Bradford continue to play there as a conference team at a reduced rent. That at least gives the RFL a little return for a couple of years.

There's some clues here when you look at them allowing the players etc to look elsewhere to play next year.

The only question is this. Is the conference league in it's present set up capable of supporting another club whilst Bradford lick their wounds, keep what they can to win the league & qualify to bounce back up nect time the franchises are reviewed.

You are correct in that Melbourne were (could still be) for sure, i think the Broncos too.

We don't know the terms of the Sky contract, but our legal guys will have crawled all over it before it was signed. I would be very surprised if they did not have a 'get out clause' for a club going into administration and hence reducing the size of the league. That would surely be a basic precaution.

I would think it more likely that the agreement allows Sky to pick and schedule any game from the league that they wish. One team dropping out will hardly make any difference; each team in a league of 13 will play 24 matches, so that is still a hell of a lot of games to chose from in total.

By far the most important aspect of the agreement will be the TV viewing audience as this dictates the price that Sky can demand from advertisers. As we already know, viewing audiences have risen 30-40 % this year, so I doubt Bradford dropping out of SL will affect this much.

It's true that viewing figures have gone up, but 2 weeks less of the season (24 weeks instead of 26) means 4 fewer games, plus the Magic Weekend's 7 games gone too. Losing 11 games out of 66 is a massive drop in viewers across the season - better to keep to 14 and get a 40% increase in the rights revenue than drop to 13 and only get a 26% increase*


* 100% + 40% extra Sky money = 140%, add 140/13 = 11% as Bradford's former share split 13 ways = 151%, then multiply by 5/6 for the drop in games

I agree with you entirely, and I'm not suggesting that the RFL would seek to influence referees, or that referees would ever be less than impartial.
However, we all know how many biased and blinkered fans there are, at all clubs, and my point is that if they feel like they are being cheated (even though they would be mistaken) it might make them feel less inclined to attend future games.
It's a matter of perception, that's all.

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... ord_Bulls/ The plot thickens.

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... ord_Bulls/ The plot thickens.