The RFL aren't proposing to pay the Bulls wages. They are advancing the next instalment of the Sky money a week or two earlier to the Administrator.

I don't think it will be possible or necessary to replace the RFL. But management/personnel changes, root and branch, are essential, along with sweeping changes in policy, attitude and ambition. Money in RL comes from Sky, rich owners/backers and fans. The fans have no voice currently, and the only way we could exert influence in future is to convince the Sky bosses and the money men that it's in their interests to force changes.

Interesting. I made the mistake of relying on the BBC.

If that is what is happening then I have less of a problem with it given the state the Bulls are in, though it is still a form of lending from the RFL (it's like a pay day loan).

The Premier League did the same when Portsmouth went belly-up a few seasons back and advanced their TV money so they could get to the end of the season and fulfil their fixtures. Probably better for everyone concerned including the other clubs if they can make it to the end of the season and then take the fallout from there.

The RFl as as organisation is not the problem, it's the people currently running the RFL, Wood in particular. Put competent management in and it should work fine. I would also like to see some involvement from the fans, the players and the club chairmen though. Perhaps Jon Wilkin, in his 1leagu3 role, for one, and maybe alternate one of the chairmen on, say, a two-year rotation. For the fans, perhaps the spokesman of a supporters club, again rotating between clubs on a two-year basis?

Just a thought.

Did anyone see Back chat last night - interesting comment made about super league sponsorship being 50 trucks rattling round the countryside but no money and yet someone who was prepared to sponsor super league to the tune of £750,000 has taken their cash elsewhere and are now sponsoring some darts comp.

I don't think anyone should knock Stobart, it's not their fault and as the old saying goes any publicity is good publicity but why would the RFL not take 750k when it was on offer?

One thing that did make me laugh out loud was when Rod Studd - who looks like he uses the same chip shop as Nigel Wood - quoted from the Leeds match programme from last week (I think) where Gary Hetherington described Tony Smith as the Gerald Ratner of super league

From what I understand in the last ten years the RFL management has turned the organisation around from one on the brink of going bust with debts in excess of £2m to a profitable orgainisation with a level of cash reserves whilst at the same time distributing £30m a year to its member clubs compared with £11m ten years ago.

I also note that they were shortlisted in the 2012 Sports Industry Awards Governing Body of the Year category.

Whilst I don't claim the RFL are perfect it seems to me that they get criticised for everything they do no matter what. Last year it was helping Crusaders whilst apparently negglecting the heartland clubs. Now its for helping Bradford - aren't they in the heartlands? Perhaps the Hull fan would be better served by starting a Facebook Page having a go at his own club seen as they just posted losses in excess of £250k and insist on listing their players as assetts within the accounts. Who is going to pay Hull £1m+ for their players?

I heard it was Betfair, dunno how true that is.

The offer wasn't made to the RFL. It was the Super League clubs who rejected the deal by a majority vote. I believe Wigan voted against the Betfair deal (which equated to £40k per club per year - ie nothing money) do you now hold how they are run with the same contempt you seem to have for the RFL?

What we dont see or hear is how the Non exec directors conduct there big brother review of the peformance of the individual board members and the board as a whole and if it represents good value for the limited entity and the game as a whole.

However what seems to be apparent is that an Exec Board member is also on the review committees so i am sure there is some corporate governance issue, but others on here with more knowledge can confirm that.

There is "as stated on RFL website" a transparent approach to appointing new directors there does not seem any transparent approach to its decision making and the baffling nature of some of the processes and procedures used in things like Exiles games, ticketing prices, the bulls, wakey, crusaders situations, the licencing process and so on

The big concern also is that the RFL have taken over from BARLA to run the amateur side and what feedback i can glean from the various loacl bodies like NWC is that there are very grave concerns on how the RFL will manage the amateur game and there agendafor its future

Were you not aware that the RFL is responsible for every decision made at every level by every club? They're a disgrace!

OK calm down I only mentioned something I heard on a tv programme last night no need to shoot the messenger just cos I didn't know any details

The thing is with the rfl they couldn't run a p--s up in a brewery.in junior rugby league since the start of the season we have had 19 weeks to play games we have played 8 so for the reaming 11 take out 3 for the cup out team got to the quarter Finals so that left 8 weeks where we have played friendlies u try and keep a 14-15 year of interested when they r playing non competitive games each week.so when junior rugby is supposed to be playing summer rugby our season doesn't finish till November

If it was bet fair then it's understandable clubs rejected it. Especially Wigan as they have a betting partner that probably pays more than that which would become a conflict of interests. Plus a betting firm is a bad idea for sports sponsorship as you can't have them on kids replica shirts and the big one:

We have a French side in the competition! Gambling advertisement is illegal there remember when we had Mecca?

Bl00dy rubblish Wigan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!