The OK Bulls have never been in SL before, so not sure how they can 'stay' TBH.

The Bradford Bulls - the sports club formerly owned by BBH and now owned by OK Bulls - should stay or go based on how good a case their new owners can build for their inclusion compared to any potential replacements.

As Mr. Mild Rover has been saying, it does rather make a mockery of the licensing process when what is effectively a new company just rocks up and gets awarded one at the drop of a hat.

I also can't get used to this new name of OK Bulls without thinking of Chinese food.

One order of Jill Yuen noodles with OK Bulls sauce to go my good man, and make it snappy, I'm a hungry goose.

So, the Bulls are OUT of SL at the end of the campaign, lets hope there is a fair process by which the replacement for the Bulls is selected and not just the expected rubber stamping of the new club into SL.

Your play on wording is interesting, I wonder if the OK Bulls (should they be accepted into SL) will claim the history (and titles won) of the old Bulls club, similar to what happened with the club formed in 1999 and not 1865 a few years ago.

It hasn't been decided yet whether the Bulls are out of SL at the end of the season or not.

It's not a play on wording - it's how things actually are. Bradford Bulls are a sports club that was formerly owned by Bradford Bulls (Holdings) Ltd. and are now owned by OK Bulls Limited. It's the same club with different owners. I realise this is a difficult concept for some to grasp, but it's actually very simple and quite widespread amongst sports clubs in general.

If licensing is to retain any credibility and by extension relevance, they have to go.

At heart, I'm a pragmatist, so I'd probably let them in if I was convinced by their plan. I'm also a realist though, so would acknowledge that the current system as it was presented was no longer tenable and had failed. I'd then want a different system under which I was unburdened of the constraints of licensing (eg franchising) or the responsibilty of selection (eg P&R).
Licensing turned out to be a thirdway-esque fudge - pretty enough on cursory inspection but very brittle.

Not really, that would make it a comparable situation to Pearson buying Hull of Hetherington and Co.

BBH have failed in their responsibilities as set out in their licence to Bradford Bulls RLFC, The RFL and the ESL A new company has come along and taken over the name of Bradford Bulls RLFC.

So, does the licence sit with the club or the owners?

I'm not saying that Bradford should necessarily be wanged out, but it does make a bit of a farce of the administration of the game.

In a nutshell.

If the licence is assigned to the club and any failures to departing owners, then a club is unlikely to ever fail and exists as franchise for as long as and as often as new people are willing to take over. In principle... if the system had principles.

Had quite a good Gordian Knot analogy lined up, but it has been ruined by my imagining Nigel Wood as Alexander the Great. All oiled up and that.

Yak.

I think he'd be more likely to use burger grease than oil.

No, kick them out!

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.