think they should do away with the license scheme, fair play for trying something different but don't think its worked

also, if any team goes into administration now the Super League will have to buy them out until an owner comes in and the RFL have to let them continue to play in super league the following season

Hasn't this happened to The Bulls three times now? surely there comes a time?

Whilst I can agree with you on the one hand, I think that it is those who ran (mismanaged) the club that should be punished. Not the club itself, the ones who bailed them out, or the fans.

Now that the club has survived that, everything ought to be done that can be done to sustain and maintain them for the sake of the club, fans and the game as a whole.

We need to be building our game up, not bent on knocking it down.

Once AFAIK around 1964? but thats hardly relevant to the present day, please explain.......

Good point, I suspect that the OK Bulls could be operating under severe financial contraints in 2013 (Sky money already advanced to previous owners / administrater, RFL sanctions) OOC players in 2013 could well be looking to secure a move by April / May depending on how things go in 1st few games of next season. Although if the top clubs have already spent to the cap (including FC) then their options could be limited.

Bateman / Whitehead are you listening? best jump ship now

Featherstone's Pragmatic view...

Featherstone Rovers have reaffirmed the club's desire to take its rightful place in Super League despite not being given the opportunity to replace Bradford Bulls in the top division.
The RFL have today awarded Bradford a probationary licence for next season rather than measure Rovers and other Championship clubs against the Bulls, a decision with which Featherstone are entirely at ease.

Rovers Chief Executive Craig Poskitt said: "Whilst I understand the frustration that some of our fans will be feeling, Bradford being in Super League next season is something out of our control at the present time"

"There is no way with the delays in the decision that we would have been in a position to step up in 2013 if we'd been given the chance. It's a completely unrealistic proposition considering the timescales which would have undermined all the progress this club has made in the last few years, we are doing so much hard work that I will not risk this club falling flat on its backside. The plan we have will enable us to enter Super League on merit with a business model that will be sustainable."

"Our focus remains on entering Super League in 2015 or hopefully before on our merits, be that through licensing or promotion and relegation.We have made no secret of the fact that we believe the sport should return to promotion and relegation.

"Bradford's experience has highlighted the inherent weakness of licensing and I am sure that will be taken on board by the RFL in the strategic review of licensing that is currently taking place.

"In the meantime our fans should be assured that Destination Super League is on track and I would urge everyone to get behind the club as we look to defend our Championship title at Warrington in two weeks time."

I'm pleased Bradford are staying in SL and happy for their fans. I don't agree with the decision though. For me it doesn't send a strong enough message and 6 points isnt a strong enough punishment.

The Bulls were the club to embrace the Super League, they remain in terms of club size one of the largest clubs in the league in a city much larger than the small town of Featherstone and carry one of the largest fan bases in club rugby of either code in this country, we would have made the play-offs but for the points deduction, (not the players fault we were in this mess). Let me tell you the Bradford fans have stuck by our team when we have had uncertainty all this year. Another thing Wakefield and London have been in admin are still in league, to me it seems like jealously from some fans about the Bulls successes they wanted us to suffer. I have had a terrible year whereby I have two redundancies and have stuck by my team throughout this process, luckily I managed to find a another job on a larger salary and my team are safe, but the league is much stronger with the Bulls, just speak with the bosses of Leeds, Warrington, Wigan and St Helens.

Do you feel the Bulls should of been punished for going into Administration?

If so how?

I like the Bulls and I am glad they have survived as a club but something is wrong, what administrator doesnt start selling off the assets? I.e The players!

Care to point out where I suggested any such thing?


If you want a level playing field why are you demanding that Bradford should be treated differently to Wakefield?

And if any other club really thinks they'd be better off going through the same process I'd be surprised. But they're welcome to try.

Bradford's probation lasts for one season. By the time it's up for renewal we will most likely be operating a different system. The RFL have basically put SL into a holding pattern until the review reports back.

Neither Bradford nor Wakefield did anything at all. Their respective [iadministrators[/i took such actions as they saw fit - not the clubs or the new owners. So what happened in the two different administrations is irrelevant. Wakey got a lower points deduction because their new owner repaid more debt than the Bulls new owner BTW.

Now if you have questions about why Guilfoyle took the actions he did (or didn't) then you're not alone. But it has precisely nothing to do with any sanctions applied against the club as the club had no say in what happened. Neither did the new owner.

The Bulls have been punished according to the rules currently in place. Demanding punishment that goes beyond the rules isn't really all that useful. Rather than blaming the RFL for simply doing their job perhaps your ire should be directed at the other SL clubs who all voted for the rules as they stand.

Yes there were and they've been followed. Whether or not people feel that they're adequate is a different conversation.


No they haven't. And no they won't.


It's no surprise that people who make fools of themselves because they don't actually know what's going on but have a rant anyway try to deflect attention in this way.

How can you say they haven't made it up as they've gone along? Or that rules have been followed. They've propped up Bradford while a buyer has been found. Is this in the guidelines? Rule book? They didn't do that for Wakefield.
Anybody that enters administration should be removed from SL at the end of that season and a replacement brought in. If proper rules had been in place then a mini round of licensing could have taken place in time for a club to prepare for SL 2013.
While it won't suit Rovers to enter administration, Salford are looking down this particular barrel.
Be interesting to see how the RFL treat the next team to enter enter administration, as the RFL won't own their ground I'm sure.

My big issue isn't that Bradford (or Wakefield before them) went into administration, it's that they didn't come out of it. Transferring a licence to a newco makes a mockery of several supposed central tenets of licensing. There is clearly no minimum standard.
While no rules have been broken, this is because they deliberately avoided having rules and ran the system in an ad hoc manner, inevitably provoking suspicion. The purported principles of the system have clearly been abandoned.

The rules allow a great deal of latitude. Nothing that's been done has been against the rules as they stand now and nothing has been 'made up'.

The Bulls situation was significantly different to Wakefield's in a few important respects. For a start, the Bulls went bust mid season and simply allowing them to cease operating would have thrown the season into chaos. For seconds, the administrator for Wakey at no point threatened to liquidate the club. Guilfoyle did this on more than one occasion. And finally, the Bulls administration dragged on much longer than the Wakey one.

There are also some fairly strong rumours of shenanigans going on in the background that the RFL quite rightly worked to oppose.


I don't disagree but it's worth mentioning that the rules covering administration are voted on by the clubs and they were significantly weakened a few months before the last round of licensing - Wakey benefited from this as under the prior rules they would not have been allowed to apply for a licence. I'm cynical enough to think that the clubs were happy for the rules to be relaxed as any number are in financial strife.


I'm as cynical about consistency as the next man, but you can't penalise a club beyond what the rules allow [inow[/i just because you suspect that they might be applied differently in the future.

IMO there was no way out of the Bulls mess that didn't have significant problems attached. And that's without the games that are rumoured to have been played in the background. The one year probationary licence is [iprobably[/i the best of a bad lot given that in that time the review will report and we'll likely have a different mechanism for entry into SL before their licence is reviewed.