At least Bradford have only gone into admin once. The whole Portsmouth thing shows how little football wants to do about a club which on multiple occasions has failed to pay it's bills.

In simple terms the Bulls are the Leeds Utd of super league.
They had people in charge who couldn't see the possibility of the short term success ending. In short they paid for a dream and bought a nightmare.

The reason this situation stinks is because of the actions of the RFL. They bought the ground in an attempt to lighten the club's outgoing expenditure. It didn't work the action was the same as trying to cure a broken leg with a sticky plaster. As for retaining all the players and wages being covered by the advance money, this is the part that stinks the most. If the Bulls administrator had sold 5 or 6 of their top earning players supporters of other clubs would be more sympathetic to the plight of the club. To hide behind the 'administrator is running things differently' excuse is very blinkered. If 5 or 6 of the top earners had been sold on the Bulls would still have been able to fulfil their fixtures and compete for the rest of the season. The expenditure would have been lowered the fixtures fulfilled and everyone would see it as a positive attempt to do the right thing.

In short the idiots running our game have potentially opened the biggest can of worms in the history of sport, or have played an absolute blinder to phase out franchising and bring back promotion and relegation.

What have Warrington got to do with this thread

Should and of the people involved in the franchise selection be accountable for the bulls faliure, either within the RFL, who had knowledge of their financial plight, or within Blake Solly, who carried out the financial checks.
Of course it may be that Blake Solly informed the RFL of the situation and perhaps they are beyond reach but..............

Perhaps at franchise adjudication time Solly was refering to Bradford when he stated that there were 'worse' applications than ours

Kerching!

It just goes to show how subjective the franchise system is. Bradford get a grade "B" license when:-

Strong financial performance: no tick - we now know for sure that they were not financially sound and a loan from the RFL of c. £700k just after franchises are awarded is clear evidence of this. (Although rumours persisted for a couple of years that they were in trouble)

Standard of ground: no tick (from me). I appreciate that Belle Vue is not considered up to standard but show me an RL fan who thinks Odsal is!!! Very exposed, poor viewing position, one main stand with a seating area. Whole place, as has been admitted by prior management is in need of major upkeep and renovation.

Team performance: no tick During the last franchise period the Bulls never made the playoffs (we did )

Player development: tick is questionable. Continuous discussions on here of various youth players poached from clubs. I accept they have brought through Bateman and Whitehead but is there a long line of player development?

This all shows what a flaming farce the franchise system is. If it is to be impartial there needs be preset, unambigious criteria which no one can question.

How Bradford were awarded a grade B license is beyond me.

Don't be stupid, i've been told many times thats not true, ours was the weakest bid.


Ask anyone from Cas or from the VT, they will put you straight