Because it has now set a precedent. What is to stop Rovers/Salford/London and any others with financial problems going down the exact same route Bradford have? The Scottish FA had the right idea when they demoted Rangers "Newco" to the bottom tier, so it sends out the right message to other sides not to go down this route unless you want to start at the bottom from scratch.

The RFL on the other hand have said, go down this route and all you will lose is 6 points.

Except that the other SL clubs voted for SL to stay at 14 teams. So, no - SL couldn't carry on with 13 teams next season.


Nothing happened to the Bulls? I must have imagined the 6 point deduction and losing their coaching staff etc. And being put on probation for a year (which may or may not be significant, granted).

And of course the main reason they would do so is because they won't get into SL if they don't.

KOSH, I hate to say this, but you are an idiot!

As the statement points out, the other clubs said they couldn't do the 'mini round' in the time available.

A 13 team league was off the table when the other SL clubs voted against it weeks ago. The only options were to keep the Bulls in place for a season or promote someone from the Championship without being able to fully assess them first. Neither choice was ideal TBH.

Care to point out where I have any facts wrong? Or are you still not capable of an adult discussion?

Not really.


How about having to replace their BOD? Finding a willing buyer not previously connected with the club? Losing their coaching staff? The personal ramifications to directors of taking a business into administration or liquidation? Credit blacklisting?

It really isn't a soft option and there is absolutely no guarantee of getting a similar result.


The RFL have applied the rules as voted for by member clubs. Which is exactly what the SFA did. If the other Scottish clubs had wanted Rangers to stay up then they would have.

No facts are wrong, but to suggest that Bradford have been adequately punished is close to insanity, what have they lost exactly?

Should HKR now just go bust and restart as a SL team with no debt?

Should London do the same, we can let Salford as well while we are at it!

Level playing field my back side!!

I know, I already covered that in an earlier post.

The only surprise to me was that the Mini Licencing wasn't taking place, which would have been a lip service exercise anyway, Bradford were always going to be back in.

I don't have a problem with it, and as a previous poster mentioned Wakey & London went into administration and remained in SL (albeit London was before franchises). The difference with Bradford is there has been sucjh a big gap between administation and finding a new buyer so they have really been under the spotlight.

Now come on Mr Khan, get a lid on the away end of the new "Wembley of the North"

How do you think Wakefield are feeling right now? They went into administration and did their damnedest to sort it out by selling off players etc. Bradford do it and the only step they took was to fire the coach and coaching staff, and fleece 1/2 million from their fans and other fans. No players sold etc. Explain how they have really been punished? They have the coaching staff back, the coach back, the debts are gone, all the players are still there barring 1. They are also in the Super league next season. I am having a hard time figuring out the punishment.

Yes they got a 6 point deduction, but lets face it that decision spurred the players on to play better whilst their futures were in limbo, as soon as it was sorted they went back to form and lost the remaining 2 fixtures.

Exactly, thank you!

Been a farce all along. bradford run up massive debts which they're allowed to walk away from. They have players worth maybe £300-500k (wire reportedly offered £300k for bateman earlier in the year) but the other clubs agre not to approach any of them. The assets are then sold at below market value and the new co is allowed to continue with only the inconvenience of a small points deduction in a season where they had no chance of actually winning the competition anyway.

Selling of players was an issue for the respective administrators. One tried to raise funds (though probably succeeded more in cutting the wage bill, under the circumstances), one [itried[/i to get maximum value from prospective buyers.
Wakefield, though I didn't realise it at the time and made a bit of a wally of myself on the VT over it, were also reborn as a newco - albeit one that voluntarily agreed to pay off [isome[/i of the oldco's debt. The precedent for transferring a licence to a revivified club was made with Wakefield (or likely Crusaders before them).
There's a structural issue that a SL club, by virtue of its status, is stronger than a Championship club, even if it goes bust. Championship clubs are therefore left in something of a Catch-22 situation.

The RFL is a sham and licensing a farce, if only because there was no rules and regulations about administration. The RFL have made it up as they've gone along and now have to do the same for any other club that this happens to.

It's no surprise it's the usual sanctimonious posters saying different.

Always the likely outcome but it feels wrong.

Guessing Galea became the option when Pearson realised he wasn't getting Bateman / Whitehead.

Can't see the point of 12 month probation though. Bulls out of contract players will be open season in April but they won't find out until September if they're still in SL? How's that going to work?