I think the tweet regarding the closing at midnight issue was because today was the next deadline set by BG all those weeks ago.

Beacuse the alternative is letting Leigh, Fev or Halifax in and the unanimous view of the other SL clubs and RFL hierarchy is despite being run by total incompetents for a number of years the Bulls still bring a vast amount more to the comp than history tells us those proud but limited clubs would bring. The differences between the situation of Widnes, Wakefield a dn the Bulls has been made clear a number of times.

If you're unhappy with the laws/rules around insolvency you need to write to your MP.

Forgot all about that, been so many deadlines.

Article to be in the T&A shortly apparently.

Hopefully this will be remembered as a good day for us, all I can say is COYB!

Well if it is the case that the new owners are in place, then there are a few questions I'd like answered.

1. Are we being allowed to stay in SL

2. Is this under a newco or a buyout of the existing club? If the latter then how much debt has been paid off and is this comparable to what Wakey/Crusaders paid? Which leads to question 3

3. If we've paid off a similar amount of debt to that paid by Wakefield and Crusaders, can we have our points deduction reduced as they did?

Main question for me is d"o we have Potter on board for next season"?

closely followed by which players do we have on board for next year. All ties back to answer to Roofaldos 1st question I guess.

Just read on Loverugbyleague.com that Omar Kahn is the new owner of the bulls.He has tweeted the news but full details following tomorrow

[urlhttp://www.loverugbyleague.com/news_10065-omar-khan-saves-bradford-bulls.html[/url

So Omar Khan is now the new owner but this could also bring issues we will all have to wait and see what will happen next, also would it not be possible for BPA to become involved someway so that the stadium will get more use?

Excellent news. The RFL need to release a statement saying whther they have revoked our license or not so we can plan for next season, but at last some good news. Welcome Mr Khan and also a big thank you to Gerry Sutcliffe!

Delighted but very apprehensive about who will remain playing for the bulls
Will we still be capable of competing, even though we will be running on a very lie budget. Time will tell
Can't wait til tomorrow! Will be cheering loud and proud with my fellow fat dogs

1. The RFL haven't made any statement. Which is not surprising, since they'd made it crystal clear that they would not accept any preconditions. Major credit to Omar Khan & Co. for doing the deal with no guarantee where we will be after this season. I doubted that we could find a buyer who just wanted to see the club survive, and wouldn't want a condition that they rest of the SL licence was retained, but we did. I entirely agree that we need to know, like now, as till we do, presumably we cannot talk turkey with any players or coaches, as what would be the point? Your guess is as good as mine when the RFL will announce their decision but I can't see why for such a fundamental issue the board of directors couldn't meet and decide by say Monday at latest, if not over the weekend. Hope they're not all in Marbella.

2. Both. A newco has bought the old business from the old, soon-to-be liquidated oldco. So, the old business basically lives on, as a going concern, but under new ownership. And the administrator's letter to shareholders which has been quoted by those who have seen it indicates that there won't be any money for unsecured creditors.

So the debt doesn't follow the newco? Doesn't that leave us in a precarious position vis a vis SL?

It's late, I've had a few. Bear with me.

Relax Bullseye, you will be fine, and in SL next year

The question of our SL survival is of the utmost importance. Not just to us, the fans, but (and you could argue) more importantly to the coaching and playing staff who's livelihood is on the line.

The RFL should already have known before a new buyer was found for the Bulls what their future status in terms of being a SL club would be.

Maybe they do know already

Relax you are in super league till at least the end of the 3 year franchise.

Reason. The announcement has all ready been made that Super league will continue as 14 teams.

Reason 2. Do you really think that teams like Wakey, Cas, Salford, London would have voted to take part in any Super League Europe take over of Bradford if it would put their futures in doubt.

Good luck to the Bull's and the new owners apart from when they Play the Rhino's.

One suspects someone - maybe everyone - is going to need deep pockets this next two years?

The did know it ( when the SL clubs voted for a 14 team SL and probably expessed a desire for it to be the Bulls ) and no doubt they privatley told the bidders

What is has done is complicate the next round of licencing, as long as all the other SL clubs remain solvent, when it comes to decide who if anbody drops out all the other at risk clubs will just point at Bradford

You are out of the frying pan, but still in the fire

Newco => Championship 1.

The newco hasn't bought the business as a going concern, otherwise they would be taking on all of the liabilities. Basically this is an asset transfer to a newco, enabling the old company to be wound up and its debts to die with it. Exactly the same scenario as Rangers FC.

No.

Newco + reduced central funding = SL.

I would disagree that our immediate survival in SL is critical and suggest that the medium and long term is more important. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I don't want us to be in SL next season, I just think the deal should be looked at very carefully.

If the deal means that we are effectively (see Adey's post or today's T&A) going to be fined over the next couple of years, then it may well mean that we will be put into a position where we are uncompetitive. Obviously, I've no idea as to what sort of finance there is behind the new club, but if it means we are a bottom four side over the next couple of years there are two problems. Firstly, we may find that we will possibly lose our licence as 'offering little to the competition' so get dropped into the championship anyway, and secondly, two years of very poor results is likely impact on support (another reason to refuse a licence) so we would then enter the lower division in a poor state.

IMO there is a very solid argument for considering the possibility of dropping ourselves into the championship. Firstly we would enter the competition in a much stronger position than we would if we were forced into it two years down the line and, presumably we wouldn't be facing the sort of financial penalties to be imposed for entering SL. Secondly, and equally importantly, we would be far morel likely to be successful and retain support in the lower division and could then compete effectively for a licence in two years time and have a much better chance of making a solid start.

Again, I stress I'm definitely not saying I don't want to be in SL next year, because I do, and at the end of the day there is nothing to say the RFL/SLE would impose conditions too onerous for us to play under, after all it would make no sense to save the club and then effectively kill it, but I do think the new owners should take careful stock of the position before just accepting anything to remain in SL.

Newco/anyco + already spent next seasons central funding to stay alive this season = SL

Well we apparently have a fresh start: The old problem of competing camps of shareholders gone, historic baggage discarded, a successful businessman with a good profile in the community on board - and irrespective of what you think about Mr Sutcliffe's politics - he is at least inside the system which should be to our advantage.

Just a relief someone has thrown us a lifebelt

Looking at the maths, it would seem we have already used the best part of 4 months of next years Club 14 sky money.

The other 13 clubs don't need to cover that if we stay in as club 14. We just have 2/3 of the Sky money of everyone else.

If they had dropped us out then there would have been 8months of sky money to share amongst the other 13 clubs - but it would have been a 13 club comp - which had problems.

If they kept a 14 club comp but invited somone else in - then the other 13 clubs would have had to cover the Sky shortfall for club 14. Because it would have been unfair otherwise.