Quote Mild Rover="Mild Rover"It's a semantic argument admittedly, but if a club can survive its business been wound up and its debts been written off, then in terms of business and finance and the stuff they seemed so concerned about in framing the criteria then either -
1. It's like setting an exam pass mark at 0%, which I would argue does not constitute a minimum standard.
or
2. The licence is awarded to the club not the business, so any assessment of the business is irrelevant.
I agree about any sort of punitive action against Bradford being pointless for its own sake, but it does show licensing to be impotent. And while I'm glad for Bradford fans, I do feel a bit for the fans of Fev and Fax, who've seen their fears confirmed. Their only consolation being that it was so obvious, change is pretty much inevitable.'"
The organisation that failed doesn't have a licence any more; the organisation with the [iprobationary[/i licence hasn't failed. It's entirely consistent with the stated aims. Where it falls down, of course, is that there has been no opportunity to test the business plan of the new owners against other applicants. And TBF that's less an inherent problem of licencing and more to do with a reluctance among the other clubs to vote for a reduction in the size of SL.
The [ibig[/i mistake was the removal of the explicit penalty for insolvency just before the last round of licencing. Had that been left in place then neither Wakey not Bradford would be in SL. Another sanction removed by a vote from the clubs, BTW...
