The RFL advanced a quarter of a million to pay wages while the Bulls were in administration, but IIRC the loss of central funding was insisted on by the other SL clubs as a condition of allowing the Bulls to remain in SL rather than relegating them.

Allowing them to continue on an equal footing to everyone else once their debts had been cleared by a CVA was considered unfair by the other clubs.

Thought they were going away from franchises and back to P&R after current franchise period.

In that case I agree with the sentiments above.

I would hate to see Bradford go out of business and cause a number of people to lose their jobs.
But how many times can you blame others for the way the club has been run?
Time after time we keep hearing how the BOD have lost grip on their finances, not understood how bad the debt is etc etc.
Surely any decent business man would make doubly sure everything was above board and there were no hidden debts prior to buying into the club.
Why should they get away with it and expect handouts all the time due to pish poor management?
They even went into administration and shed some of their debts probably leaving some creditors still waiting for their money.
Why on earth didn`t the administrator identify the problem then?
I feel sorry for the employees and the fans on what was a great club.
But maybe a drop into the lower divisions might be the only answer.
Lets see how much support London will get when they end up in the same boat.
No doubt "for the good of the game" money will be found to bail them out too.
I certainly wont be coughing up any more of my hard earned cash to help them raise more funds.

As I understand it due diligence is fine provided numbers provided aren't a complete fabrication. I understand that the current directors intend to take legal action.

Even if I agreed with the reasoning of the other clubs, which I don't, why did they elect to stop it for two years. Of all those involved as fans, players owners past and present, creditors etc about the only ones who this had no impact on were those that took the club to the sorry state they found themselves in. They were long gone. IMO the "new" Bradford were hamstrung from the off.

As good as the golden glow of the world cup felt, it won't help us much if there are an ever reducing pool of professional clubs to hold the interest of the newly converted.

As a matter of interest do we know who the clubs were that voted to halve the Bulls money?

Well Leeds certainly didn't vote to share the money amongst the clubs.

The whole point of due diligence - is for the buyer to get a true picture of the condition of the business - if the auditors doing the investigation don't ask the correct questions you cannot blame the incumbent.

It's not the same as buying a business.
If part of the reason is to save the club you will do so even if there are unknowns or bad management in the past.
It's not like they are looking to turn a profit.

I have a brilliant idea

Lets write to all the Bulls fans, tell them the club is in need of cash and needs the raise say £500,000 by a certain date. Ask them to pledge funds and then watch it all go down the drain. Do not give them any shares in the club, but let the club use it to pay off debts. Then again, I think they have used this idea before to no avail.

The whole thing is utter incompetence on a grand scale, it beggars belief it really does!

Thank you,some common sense from our nearest and dearest

If you are putting your money or your reputation at stake you would want to know what you are dealing with - well I would. The profit thing is non-issue, this is still a limited company with numerous sizeable liabilities.

It got Peter Hood out of a personal hole though!!

Yes it did

This is just complete conjecture as I haven't really looked into it, but in general, there is a lot of money in rugby in the south of France. Maybe there is an opportunity for tolouse to enter super league. With the (what I would call) success of Catalans, potentially tolouse could progress similarly and replace London?

Good idea, it worked really well when they couldnt compete in the Championship

So when Khan and Sutcliffe tethered their combined business brains to the Bulls bandwagon, they were deep in the hole with unfathomable, unserviceable debts. They appointed Whitcut, who was so stupid he "forgot" that a tax bill was coming due and almost got them wound up.

Good to see things have really moved on since then.

The whole purpose of Insolvency legislation is to afford protection to the insolvent party and allow them to exit with a fresh start. If the halving of funding was to reclaim a loan that would be a preference.

If it was a condition to let them stay in Super League the logic still remains very questionable given the inevitable situation that hamstring has led to.

The Bulls themselves had a choice G1, they could have relinquished their SL licence and bust the business, starting again in Championship One.

They opted to take the reduction in central funding in order to stay in SL and avoid being relegated. Presumably they will have done so in the knowledge that it would lead to belts having to be tighten.

Clearly, they weren't tightened far enough for whatever reason. From the noises coming out, it seems the internal governance and management processes at the Bulls left a lot to be desired.

I don't doubt the Bulls have continued to be mis managed, However, I wonder what the rationale behind the decision was to let them back in with half funding. Was it punishment? Just seems petty. Can't see the logic.

[list[/list:u

The purpose of insolvency legislation is to keep the parasites in "Business Recovery" in BMW's and fine dining. One group of people it doesn't help is the very people it should i.e. the creditors!!

I would be amazed if the Bulls had a tax bill - unless it was for PAYE or VAT?

More likely they would have tax losses they could sell?

It's no the purpose, it's a side effect, but not the purpose.