It would look like a scene from the video to Frankie Goes to Hollywood, Relax!

Kick them out,if it had been one of the smaller clubs in s/l the rfl would not have been paying the players wages for 3 months ! We should be playing under the same rules,but are we.?

I wasn't suggesting it as an excuse for why they should stay in SL, just pointing out that the sports club is legally distinct from the company that owned and ran it. And OKB haven't just taken over the name - they bought the sports club in it's entirety. The history, honours, etc. belong to the sports club and not whichever company happens to own them.

Your point about who is the licence holder is a good one and central to the issue. Sadly I don't think anyone knows for sure. If you look at the criteria supposedly used to judge a licence application they contain things that refer to both the owning company and the sports club.

Right from the start the only outcome I've wanted from this has been for the Bulls to survive and licensing to retain some credibility. If that means dropping them to the Championship then so be it. The issue then would be who to replace them with, because it's far from obvious.

Indeed.
If BB stay in SL then licensing is done/over as it proves that a club can go bust dump all its debts and still keep its licence which kinda makes that same licence pointless.

I agree 100 percent why should any club do it and get away with it let them start again

This is true and reflects on the system as much as the clubs that might be considered as alternatives.
Asking them to be better or as good as a SL club [ibefore[/i being given the benefits of SL status is ludicrous. Anything approaching that, and I think we are, looks like a standard set to ensure they fail and allow us to retain a closed shop - at least until a less favoured SL club hits the rocks.

I can't come up with a 13-team system which is anything other than rubbish and they've voted for 14 anyway.

While, 'who could replace the Bulls?' is a difficult question, if the answer if 'nobody, keep them in' (and it looks increasingly likely it has to be), that leads to another difficult question - 'what can replace licensing now it has ceased to be credible?'

The one possible get-out is if Mr Khan agrees a deal with creditors. As he's on about putting £6 million into Odsal, there must be some potential for that. Now he might be waiting to check he isn't dumped into the Championship first (and I don't blame him if that is the case), but doing it first should clearly remove that threat and the RFL could/should state it explicitly, IMO. Gives the creditors a strong hand, admittedly, and we don't want it dragging on any more. If SL status is granted without and not dependent on a deal, then the carrott/stick disappears. The RFL can't impose a deal or amount to be repaid, obviously.

Even then, the credibility of licensing is severely damaged. After Crusaders it was already looking wobbly. Now we've had a glimpse of how far they are willing to go, even if they find a way to avoid doing it, they've shown their hand. IMO.

Even with the off field activity, the Bull's on field ability is not really in question (apart from the big blip against our bar-coded brothers). Their core set of fans is also larger than a team outside of SL. On that basis, they are deserve to stay because they are well supported and competative.

However, having breached the franchise agreement by calling in the administrators, it is up to the remaining clubs to vote. They have previously voted and given their unanimous support to the club last month. Therefore Bradford will be playing in SL next year.

The only real question is therefore the franchise system. But can the franchise system be judged on one club hiding the true facts of it's financial situation during the last round of bids (Bradford), a smaller club who was honest about their debts but granted a franchise (Wakefield) and a club that was always doomed to failure in SL (Celtic)?

If anything, the franchise system may need to be made even more stringent, or the tests amended to ensure true financial details are provided rather than abandon the whole system.

But even though I've stated all that, there must be a way to make it more viable for clubs outside SL to aspire to get into SL. I know how I felt before promotion, wondering if and when we would ever get into SL and that was before the franchise system.

Anyway, Bradford will stay in SL, but changes either to, or away from the franchise system will no doubt be applied.

Their support base goes hand in hand with the fact that they pay pittance for their passes.

Sounding like a Chinese meal might encourage some Chinese people to boost their crowds.

So that includes it's debts, I take it?

I think your memory over Wakey/Crusaders is a little cloudy as the only reason IMHO that Wakey kept their licence was because Crusaders went under.
Again IMHO if crusaders had stuck around then the Wakey admin would have seen them spin into the Championship.

Unless you meant this in which case my appologies.

The Bulls presence in SL makes a mockery of the whole Licencing process.
They have to go at the end of this year, no matter who they are.

P&R is coming back. Not sure if that will have an element of licensing or not tho.

P&R with a minimum stadium requirement (set realistically) would be a reasonable, simple and transparent option.
If they're scared of Leeds or Wigan going down during an injury-ravaged transitional year, or, more generously, they want to give the promoted team a chance to develop, it could be over a 3-year cycle.

Or any team that comes up has a minimum of 2 years before they can get relegated again.
I know that could well mean that the 2/3 from bottom side can go but that is the only way if they want to do it yearly.