Bradford will do what London did a few years back. Fold and reform a new club under the same name.

Which is precisely why they sold the stadium lease to the RFL, so that if they are liquidated the administrators don't have an asset to sell to pay off the creditors giving Bradford Bulls 2012 somewhere to play.

It's seem pretty obviously that both the Bulls and the RFL knew this was to happen months ago.

Pity the players and majority of staff found out through things like twitter and Sky Sports News this morning.
Smoke and mirrors for years from the RFL. So this is what was behind that smoke. How many other clubs are in the same situation I wonder. Oh, and well done to the Royal Bank of Scotland for backing out despite what appears to be a massive overall reduction in their debt.

For years we have had complete idiots (you know who you are, muppets! ) coming on this board on SC threads and telling Wigan fans that we were wrong about the failure of the SC to control financial mismanagement by clubs, that it was all in our imagination.

Here is yet another example of the failure of the SC and indeed of the ludicrous franchising process.

What we need is a system of financial controls that incentivise success and prevent failure.

I know I sound like a boring old sod, but it's the COMPANY that's in trouble. Bradford Bulls as a brand is massive in RL circles, and I would be very surprised indeed if the assets of that company (i.e team, brand and right to play at Odsal) was not purchased by another company, and no one would notice the difference apart from the team being docked the usual 10 or so points.

The cap was originally brought in to prevent clubs overspending on players, which was and still is thought by many to be the main/sole issue around financial mismanagement of clubs. If people thinking it can do a job it can't do is a red herring, then I agree.

I agree that the cap on player pay for some clubs needs to be reduced, but spending on players is only part of the equation. A comprehensive system of financial controls is needed; as well as preventing failure a good system would also encourage success.

That one of the biggest and most historic clubs in the game has been allowed to get in this state when all the warning signals have been there for the last 5 years or so is appalling.

In a sense I agree, with regard to the absolute cap, but the 50% of income rule should never have been scrapped.

Bradford were left in hopeless debt when Caisley departed.
The Harris case cost the Bulls a fortune.
How the current BOD have coped is beyond me yet there were issues going on that it appears had to be kept confidential.
For some strange reason I thought their major financial problems were behind them but they hadn't been resolved one bit.
If they do fold it will be an absolute tragedy for the club and the game of Rugby League. Like most on here I do think they will re-form and start again under a different title.
How many times will this have happened to Bradford? When they were Northern they went bust more than once and re-formed.
What a bad day for Rugby League!

One of the reasons of the cap originally was suppose to be to help with financial management in that it helped set a cap on spending on player wages. But just because Bradford and other have been in trouble doesn't mean the cap has failed in this respect. You could limit spending on player salaries to 20% of income and some clubs will still be mismanaged and live outside their means on a load of other costs. It doesn't mean the cap has failed, the management of the club has.

It's the franchising system and criteria that have failed more in my opinion to have not picked this up properly.

This. Which as I said above is why they sold the long term lease on Odsal to the RFL so the New Co. has somewhere to play and can't be sold off to pay any creditors.

There was a rumour doing the rounds at the beginning of the season that 'fax had been put on standby to replace Bradford in SL, I laughed it off at the time, it's starting to look a little more concrete now.

Surely to god even the RFL can't just swap teams halfway through a competition!?!

I don't think we are actually in disagreement.

The issue for me with the SC is that many people are not willing to engage in a debate on ongoing financial controls because they think (or claim to think) that the SC is there to do that job.

The franchising system is an utter failure in terms of the assessment of a club's financial position at the outset - there should be a detailed and thorough examination of each club's internal financial controls and business plan (I suspect many club's business plans are almost literally on the back of a fag packet - I doubt many clubs produce anything as fancy as cash flow projections...).

What's needed as well as a more rigorous assessment at the outset are ongoing financial controls and monitoring by the RFL/independent auditors, backed up by a system of penalties for non-compliance.

It would be nice if the system could encourage and incentivise growth, but in reality the priority given the parlous state of many clubs' finances must be to prevent further instances of clubs going bust.

Replace before the start of the SL season.