It's clearly Green's fault but you have to say that the fit and proper persons test employed by RFL might warrant a review.

Given this is the second time in four years that an owner signed off by them has appointed administrators within 2 seasons.

You do realise a club is a brand name and logo - therefore not a person or group of people?

The people that have made a balls of it this time are different to the ones who did it last time and different to the ones who did it the time before that.

I mean if you're happy going public as being angry at a brand name and not a succession of chancers - allowed to take hold of said branding - then fair enough.

You should show this post to the ladies!

So the question is , what is the ' Model ' that can sustain and allow a Bradford RL club to grow ?

Does that model include Odsal ? , just how much money does a new owner need to be willing to lose to get to this model ?

A fit and proper persons test is basically only to ensure the person hasn't been bankrupt or done for fraud etc.

It can't ever determine that persons intentions or accurately predict how that person will run the club. Especially if they've never run one before.

The governing body is then meant to,presumably,govern.

The security company went bust owing somewhere in the region of 4 million.

There were winding-up orders.

He returned to this country to make statement about non-payment to players and staff but chose not to mention the winding-up order due to be heard at court a few days later.

His club was allowed to sign a coach from Australia,and some players from the NRL,while ongoing winding-up orders were being taken to court.

'Special Measures' were never applied during this entire process.

Perhaps the RFL were just hoping that Bradford,like Featherstone,reached the Top 4 so the debts could be paid.

Wing and a prayer governance by a governing body which has learned nothing from the Crusaders in Wrexham,experience.

How do the RFL 'troubleshooters' find these owners?

Owners are found by them applying to the administrators.
The administrators job is simply to get the most money for the creditors at the time.
The Governing bodies job is simply to lay down the rules and make sure all clubs abide by them.


What some are spouting on here is truly rubbish.

That a Governing body should break the law by ensuring that the administrators to not deliver the best value for creditors.
That they should effectively be a second management team at every club to ensure that the club does not go bust. (who is going to pay for all these extra staff?)
To over rule the financial decisions of a private business like some communist dictatorship.

Clubs are private companies and so have to comply with the law and regulations of the land.
They are also sporting organisations and so must comply with the rules of the game on and off the field.

Reports on social media from some journalists last night that the players have been banned from training as they're not insured, and that season tickets already purchased may not be honoured as the money has gone. Very worrying for those fans and players affected, hopefully a decent resolution can be found soon

One of those "journalists" being Danny Lockwood - a highly reputable source of information.

BTW I'm not saying it isn't true.

Positive sounds coming from the administrator in today's T&A article: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _response/ 12 prospective buyers so far.

Positive sounds coming from the administrator in today's T&A article: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _response/ 12 prospective buyers so far.

Quote ="Pumpetypump"Positive sounds coming from the administrator in today's T&A article: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _response/ 12 prospective buyers so far.'" As an Administrator his job is first and foremost to secure the best deal for the creditors so I am not sure why he needs to concern himself with what knowledge the prospective purchasers have of Rugby League! If I was his PI insurer, I would be a bit worried

Quote ="Pumpetypump"Positive sounds coming from the administrator in today's T&A article: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _response/ 12 prospective buyers so far.'" As an Administrator his job is first and foremost to secure the best deal for the creditors so I am not sure why he needs to concern himself with what knowledge the prospective purchasers have of Rugby League! If I was his PI insurer, I would be a bit worried

"They need their heart in sport and RL..."

No, they need their heart in running and sustaining a viable business.

No, I'd say they need their head in running and sustaining a viable business

Id say both. Wakefield now have a chairman who has the right balance of business nous and passion for RL. No reason why Bradford can't get someone similar.

Indeed

There is a world of difference in helping a club with short term issues or, to allow a member club to complete a fixture program but, to effectively write a blank cheque to cover any losses made by a privately run company would be bonkers.

Mind you, the precedent set, when they took over the lease at Odsal, which was costing the Bulls very little (in relative terms), was a dangerous move and one which, they probably regret.

Where are the Administrators up to with the interested parties and is there any deadline for a decision ?

I assume taking on the lease of Odsal was a move to protect the club long term.

i.e to stop an administrator from selling that lease in any future administrations.
If that lease was in the ownership of the club it would now be up for grabs with any interested parties, so unless there was some form of covenant to state that the lease can only be sold to allow RL to be played anyone could offer the creditors cash for that asset.

Leases are tricky and there may very well be restrictions on a lease and what purpose a piece of land can be used for, so it's hard to say without that knowledge whether the RFL move to buy it was the right or wrong one.

I suppose an alternative approach would be for a supporters trust to buy the lease and rent it back to the company that runs the bulls.
But it would mean that trust would have to cover the costs long term if no one came in to buy the Bulls or if the Bulls decided to move grounds part way through the lease.

I read on the Bradford forum one of the rumours was Koucash getting involved with Big Nige sacking his job off at Red Hall to run the show.

I wish this one had legs, I'd even go as far as advocating giving Bradford the lease back for free, as a sweetener for taking the buffoon.

If they take Nige away from the RFL I will chip in for the fee.

I think we could use Nige up at Odsal. To fill in the hole.

Great idea.

with chip being the operative word

I can't really believe this hasn't been discussed on here for ages, yet a predictions thread is up above thirty five pages!

The "Roller Coaster" that is Bradford appears to be heading on one of two tracks, one appears to offer some hope, with a slight chance of a serious cash injection. Yet the other track leads to potential oblivion, & it doesn't even warrant a mention on here.

Is everyone so blase about it all that it doesn't even get on the radar, hell, there's three pages on Coventry Bears.

Maybe everyone thinks there'll be a last minute survival package, or maybe no one gives a monkeys.

As it seems to be an annual thing now maybe folk have got used to it and can't be bothered going over it again, lessons don't seem to have been learnt and i guess the real truth is most folk couldn't care less anymore.

Yep but you saying most people don't care anymore is a bit like Farage slagging off the E.U.

The loss of Bradford would be a huge loss to R.L.