They are negotiating a place to play next season and talks are at a positive stage. And are also wanting to appoint some administrators

A 6 point deduction and half of their money from Sky split between the rest of the league seems to be the precedent that's been set

and a bloody idiotic precedent at that.

Talks have been at a positive stage for about 6 months now. Getting really effing boring.

The ones that don't suit you usually are - you're a total ar*e

Did the reasoning for the deduction of Sky money ever come into the public domian? Was it to pay off the £1.2m 'loan' from the RFL? And if so will the lease to Odsal return to Bradford after next season?

It could hardly be to pay off the "loan". The 1.2 million didn't go to the RFL. The other SL clubs split it between them.

How the rfl chose to spend the money of the loan is their business is it not? If it is to try and help other clubs not suffer a similar fate who are Bradford to argue?

Its the only logical reason I can think of for holding the money back from the Bulls. Hopefully next season's retention will be better spent.

you mention bloody idiots and as if by magic, one appears.

There was no logical reason other than a money grabbing opportunity from the other clubs. It was a stupid, counter productive thing to do, that was only ever supported by bitter and idiotic fans.

I hope the Broncos are rescued.
If they go into admin then whoever buys the club will have it debt free.
The 6 points deducted might be overcome if they have players in on loan and a few signings.
Sounds like negotiations are nearing conclusion about a new ground and hopefully it will be finalised shortly.
Don't see the point of taking half the SKY money off them and I didn't see what it achieved at Bradford.

I may be wrong on this, but wasn't the Bradford money thing suggested by the club in return for them being allowed to stay in the competition?

Which NRL players are still without a contract?

As of now London could buy:

FB:

Josh Hoffman (if they can outbid 4 NRL clubs)

Anthony Minichiello (if the Sydney Roosters don't re-sign him)

Kevin Locke (who is being squeezed out at NZ Warriors by Sam Tomkins)


CE:

Blake Ferguson (assuming that the NRL will not allow him to re-register in 2014)


HB:

Aaron Groome


PR:

Petero Civinoceva (if his wife will let him come out of retirement)





The club would still need 2 halves, 2 hookers, 2 props, and 2 backrowers.

Any ideas?

1. Not in administration yet......they have filed and then extended their intention to....it is hoped that they won't have to. As for the money...that was Bradford's suggestion as a sweetener to remain in SL.
2. Dissolved any more holding company's in Bradford recently?
3. Do Bradford's new owners owe OK 900k or have they slipped administration in through the back door?
4. Has Ryan Whitcut opened a new bar yet?

they need more than rescued....


If they go into admin, nobody will want them if they start 2014 with the threat of relegation and -6 points...


Admin = 6 points gone.....or if it counts as in the "off season" 4 points.


We were promised answers last September 12 months...don't hold your breath!


It was a voluntary option proposed to ensure Bradford stayed in SL.....it will make little difference to London as they have SFA money anyway.

I suspect the howls of "unfair" will be deafening from the heartland corridor before this saga is completed.

I concur, the logic of financially punishing a club IN financial difficulty is strange

Wait and see. There are also players who have NRL contracts who have get out clauses, others are on the fringe and would be released from their existing ones. But you know that. Don't you?

Strange is an understatement. Its among the most stupid things any sports governing body have done ever.

It's what happens when you run with too much discretion and too few rules - nobody knows where they stand and you get weird compromises and fudges.

Bradford feel hard done to and at the same time much of the rest of the RL feels they've been very generously treated.

TBH, the technical details are boring in the great scheme of things - all that I'm really interested in is who, if anyone, has a clue how to make RL in the capital interesting and successful. Otherwise, what are we actually rescuing and why? Just to repeat the same depressing story all over again? To copy verbatim from what I wrote in another thread (and which isn't of course an original idea at all) - the only thing worth trying IMO is the following: (it could easily fail too, I quite admit, but surely better than the insanity of trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome ) Quote Since you mention London, I'd let them have no cap and sign as many Aussies as they like and call it London Australians. (c.f. London Irish, etc in the other code). Let NRL clubs send players to them on loan too. Then help Skolars grow organically with a load of financial support to eventually become London, er, 'Londoners' I suppose. Then in about 5 or 10 years we might even have a 'London' derby You see, over the years, one of the criticisms of various London sides is that they've been stuffed full of Aussies (and often, it is alleged, not very good ones). So why not turn the thing on its head and go the whole hog and actually MAKE it a fundamentally Australian team? Personally, I think the Aussies in such a team would feel a lot more attached to the shirt ( heck, put the flag on it). Australians in London could get behind it. I'm pretty sure that if lived in Sydney and a 'Sydney Brits' team was in the NRL they'd be my club. Likewise, I think opposition fans would feel more passionate about trying to beat that team - almost a mini-international if you like. No, it's not what we really want to achieve in the end - a fundamentally British London club being successful, but it 's at least a way to get some good rugby played in the capital and some passionate support. The important thing is to go the whole way with the idea - this is NOT a club initially full of Aussies that is eventually going to morph into a British one - it's an 'Aussie' club from day one, and intends to remain one, based on the fact that London is basically another Australian city in terms of population: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian ... ed_Kingdom '"

TBH, the technical details are boring in the great scheme of things - all that I'm really interested in is who, if anyone, has a clue how to make RL in the capital interesting and successful. Otherwise, what are we actually rescuing and why? Just to repeat the same depressing story all over again? To copy verbatim from what I wrote in another thread (and which isn't of course an original idea at all) - the only thing worth trying IMO is the following: (it could easily fail too, I quite admit, but surely better than the insanity of trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome ) Quote Since you mention London, I'd let them have no cap and sign as many Aussies as they like and call it London Australians. (c.f. London Irish, etc in the other code). Let NRL clubs send players to them on loan too. Then help Skolars grow organically with a load of financial support to eventually become London, er, 'Londoners' I suppose. Then in about 5 or 10 years we might even have a 'London' derby You see, over the years, one of the criticisms of various London sides is that they've been stuffed full of Aussies (and often, it is alleged, not very good ones). So why not turn the thing on its head and go the whole hog and actually MAKE it a fundamentally Australian team? Personally, I think the Aussies in such a team would feel a lot more attached to the shirt ( heck, put the flag on it). Australians in London could get behind it. I'm pretty sure that if lived in Sydney and a 'Sydney Brits' team was in the NRL they'd be my club. Likewise, I think opposition fans would feel more passionate about trying to beat that team - almost a mini-international if you like. No, it's not what we really want to achieve in the end - a fundamentally British London club being successful, but it 's at least a way to get some good rugby played in the capital and some passionate support. The important thing is to go the whole way with the idea - this is NOT a club initially full of Aussies that is eventually going to morph into a British one - it's an 'Aussie' club from day one, and intends to remain one, based on the fact that London is basically another Australian city in terms of population: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian ... ed_Kingdom '"

There seems to be a misunderstanding.

Most Bradford fans, whilst clearly not exactly 'happy', are generally ready to accept the loss of money as the price for SL membership, but it's the fact that the money was shared amongst the other clubs which grates. It could have gone to support the amateur game or maybe junior rugby - it could even have been have been given to a club like London who might have more need of it, but no - like a pack of scavenging hyenas they divvied it up between themselves.

TBF not all SL clubs voted to divvy up the money between themselves. How did London vote?

But the RFL presumably had no say in it as we are constantly being told that Sky money belongs to the SL member clubs and they decide how it is distributed.

A reasonable point.

However, hyenas need to eat and due to a lack of strong governance and clear rules, there is a grab what you can, devil take the hindmost culture. It isn't pleasant, but it is understandable.

I've always assumed (based on very little evidence, admittedly), that it was an attempt to indirectly recover oldco debt from the newco - which SL clubs (assuming they were creditors) were uniquely placed to do. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me (though I'd be pretty deeply unhappy if I were another creditor). If it is purely a 'punishment', then I agree, putting it in to the grassroots would have been much better.

I cannot see your point. Most of the Northern clubs have failed at least once.