Selling players is a way of clearing liabilities, which is something our administrator did to enable a buyer to be found and have more money for creditors, I assume (don't creditors get a certain pence in the pound?). If the Bulls administrator can sell the business without getting rid of players, fair play to him. Nothing to do with the RFL, who have simply advanced money the Bulls were due, money the new owners will now not get.

The thing to watch, and only thing to watch, is what happens to Odsal. If the RFL give it to the new owners, or sell it at a substantial loss, there is clearly favouritism, as then they have simply given the Bulls a huge wedge of cash. All ABC are doing are firming up what they said last week. It doesn't mean the RFL concerns have changed.

I have no problems with the Bulls being allowed to continue in Super League. We were, right up to the franchise decision, and the same has to apply to the Bulls. If they go bust, which they haven't, different things might apply. The RFL have done nothing different during the administration that they did to us;, i.e., they let the administrator get on with it.

This is what I was pointing out last week - the ABC consortium, or whatever they're called, were willing to invest £1M to save the Bulls - bearing in mind that the lease was bought for £1.25M can't see how they can be considered as realistic buyers as that leaves them £1/4 M short before even considering wages and ongoing costs etc.
Any agreement to give them the lease back for less than the RFL paid for it will be an absolute disgrace.

Fully agree. If they're not liquidated then Bradford should be able to carry on in SL when they come out of administration. The precedent has already been set up first with Crusaders and subsequently Trinty. The RFL should hold onto Odsal until they get the games money back. If they offload it for a loss then that's less money that will be available to the next club that comes into difficulties.

Surely there is an issue with the RFL advancing cash to keep them afloat. Why wasn't this done for us ?
Also, from the gossip that has come out surrounding the new consortium, it would appear that their main interest has less to do with saving a RL club and more to do with getting hold of the Coral stand, to use it for non rugby related purposes.
There will need to be some cast iron assurances to prevent the Bulls moving to Valley Parade and leaving the new owners with some very cheap real estate.

Fair point. I think one thing that may be overlooked when we compare our administration with the Bulls is that the Bulls have gone bust during the season, so they still have some revenue streams coming in through gate receipts and the like to pay for some of the running costs. We were left high and dry on that score, which might explain the player sales. AFAIK, the RFL advanced us money to cover wages too.

Turns out the next club to hit the wall could be Salford if the thread on the VT is to be believed.

This.

May be that the 1/4 million will be made up realistically on the sale of players such as Bateman to Warrington and others elsewhere should the club be taken over? It looks like they may have to build up a depleted squad as the figures don't seem to add up and there isn't a queue of potential buyers.

I presume The Rugby Football League ltd have a responsibility to its shareholders,the shareholders are the RFL(presume thats all the member clubs).
Therefore i would imagine if the directors of the RFL ltd sold the lease back at a loss they would leave themselves open to questions been asked by the shareholders and could face a vote of no confidence?

They should IMO be given a vote of no confidence anyway on the back of numerous bad decisions.

Even if they were can they be forced out?? I suspect they would just do their usual trick and brazen it out, giving us some nonsensical reasons for doing what they did and expect everyone to just swallow it. That seems to be their usual Modus Operandi

Bradford incurred a tax charge for selling the lease to the RFL.

If the RFL sell it on to ABC they will also incur a further tax charge so the cost of the lease should also place this tax burden onto ABC newco, not be borne by the RFL.

ABC have now increased their offer. They've included Naans, a salad and a little polythene bag of some dressing.

I can understand this consortium wanting to guarantee the next two years in S.L, however, it appears they also want to buy the lease back.

Now, do they want to buy it for a lot less than the RFL paid for it, somewhere in the region of £1.5m or perhaps they will pay it back on the never-never a bit like the plan the old regime had with the RFL.

You known the one, where they borrowed £700k a few months after receiving a Grade B licence & failed to pay back a penny piece, hence the purchase of the said lease, not forgetting in the region of another £800k plus the £500k in pledge money, all fritted away!

The RFL are up to their necks in this shambles, no wonder Lewis went off to pastures new. They should insist in recouping all the cash they’ve pumped into this ‘Icon’ via the purchase of the lease & not be philanthropic to a cobbled together consortium who may only be around for a couple of years.

I couldn't agree more.

A journalist has just Tweeted that the RFL will not accept a 'conditional' offer to purchase the Bulls, so maybe they are attempting to play hardball?

From a reputational perspective, I don't see that they can do anything else; if they roll over and flog Odsal to the newco on the cheap, effectively robbing the game of over a million quid, I think that would signal the end of the road for Big Nige and possibly others.

someone on bulls site hinted it could be the hetherintons putting 2 and 2 together is this why the free tickets have been given ?