I've just spotted this on the RFL website dated 31 January 2014...

.
Sounds like BB2014 (or the Administrator) hadn't done their homework properly.

Gale used our name to boost his money, nothing more.

Personally, I'd let Bradford fold. They've had their chance. Putting any more money in will be like setting fire to it. Let them start again in the bottom of the lower league.

If they hadn't risked all or nothing on Noble and his big names, they'd be a lot safer. They had no youth policy, preferring to eat jam today.

I've put money into their collecting tins, that went nowhere. Caisley is the man to look at

No youth policy? 3 of the burgess boys, bateman, whitehead, kopzcack to name a few who wouldn't look out of place in any SL team

all very sad - ultimately they are paying for spending big on players in the pre cap years - very similar to portsmouth in football. plus odsal must cost a fortune to run and maintain. fair enough, they won trophies but at what price now?

Bradford should have being kicked out, bought success now they are funked wire will eventually follow the same path when the owner gets bored.
The Leeds chairman will be s hitting himself miss out on a big derby pay day.
London will win 2 games at the most and wakey looked like an amateur team so they may survive.

TBH I think they will be lucky to see the season out never mind get relegated.

Now they have gone BACK into administration does that mean they will be docked points again?

Pryce, Fielden, Peacock, Ryan Atkins, Chris Bridge, Stuart Reardon.

Have to feel for their fans as I remember clearly how I felt when I thought D***d L***d had closed down Hull FC. Not nice. I think they'll have to start from the bottom again but it's a big city with a decent catchment and if the cloth is cut accordingly it could be done.

The RFL clearly have some blame attached however for me it's their continual failure over a long period to really attract the money into the game that it actually deserves that is the RFL's worst sin. Bradford has been run poorly and beyond its means but there should have been a bigger central pot to start with. Lots and lots of people both inside and outside of the game view it as a great 'product' - I don't think the game has attracted the worth it should have done in return and that I think is where the RFL have failed.

I can't agree. Even with a bigger central pot, Bradford would have just spent whatever extra revenue it received and would still be in the same position. They have made numerous mistakes over the past 5-6 years that have caused this. Ridiculously low priced season tickets, signing Harris etc. I would say that I feel sorry for them, when in truth I really don't. I feel sorry for some of the supporters, the ones who recognise that this is a problem of the clubs making, not the games nor the games administrator. I bet that the Widnes owner who made a personal donation of £10000 to Bradford's cause is over the moon with some of the wording in the club statement.

Nick Scruton anyone? Interesting thing is, now that bulls2014 have dropped out of the running, OK bulls no longer have any players as they were tupe'd to the new company. You cannot tupe an employee to a company in administration and so they can't get them back. How the hell were that club allowed to operate under the new owners when they didn't actually own the club?

My point about the RFL was a general one rather than a specific reason for Bradford's demise. It was more to address the fact that at least 12 out of 14 clubs are running at a loss - the RFL takes some responsibility for that in my view as it is its job to raise revenue and sponsorship monies that reflect the 'value' of the game. Of course many clubs have not been run correctly either - and Bradford are a case in point.

I'm with you on the tennis player bit, but the one thing that the Bulls have continually failed to do is cut their cloth accordingly. Even up until 2 weeks ago when they gave Gale an increased contract.

Even if the RFL had managed to get a bigger central pot, the Bulls owners would have p****ed it up the wall. That central pot that is so small was actually used to purchase Odsal of the club to rescue them then. The RFL are getting no return at all from what I can see on that "investment".

I feel for the genuine any kind of weather fan, but the writting has been on the wall for so long its untrue. Wakefield have been on the brink and build players up and lose them as they have cut their cloth. London well they have been a joke this past 6 months but struggle on with hardly anyone from last season still there. Castleford skrimp and save where they can and have sold their best players to balance the books. Yet for some bizzare reason for which I fail to see any reasonable rationale the Bulls two years ago managed to keep their stars from the vultures. Why.

If they had cut their cloth accordingly then when there was no relegation and lets face a points deduction meant nothing to a club with nothing, then they might just have been level pegging with Cas and Wakey now in terms of playing rosta and finances. As it is they now have a 6 point deduction (which doesn't automatically mean relegation) in a relegation season and they are up against it. Their players I would imagine given the farce of the directors would be well within their right to jump ship and its a royal mess of nobodies making but the club itself.

I have no gripe against the Bulls. I feel SL was great with Bullmania etc, but its finished. Most sports have clubs going to the wall (even the much admired RFU). They survive and more clubs take their place, its a natural order. I hope Bradford rebuild out of the mess thats been created I genuinely do. But I suspect there will be many years in the lower reaches of the league to come. A bit like the two Hull clubs did in the 90s and many other "giant" clubs have done.

But is that the RFL's fault? The game is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. The clubs are responsible for their spending and the RFL only have a finite amount of cash to give out.

It's not really a case of it being their fault. I think they could have done better. Already there are murmurs from chairmen that the Sky extension deal is too long term within a media marketplace that is changing with potentially more competition. Was it right to tie down for 7 or 8 years in such an environment ? Did the RFL accept the terms too quickly in the negotiations ? Aren't the viewing figures for SL on Sky well up amongst the top watched sports ? Very nice for Sky's advertising revenues no doubt. Are we getting enough 'finite cash to give out' ? I'm not so sure. Some of the chairmen whose cash injections fill the gaps between revenue and expenditure would seem to agree.

rlMaybe this bloke will help.rl

are their players effectively free agents now? is there still a business/club who owns them and their contracts? or do the administrators control all aspects of player contracts now?