They rode the crest of the early super league wave. Bullmania indeed, it was forced down everyones throats. But the shaky foundations of this fad, have been exposed.

''show us yer trophies'' - the banner held aloft by a typically cocky, obnoxious bulls fan at headingly in 2004.

How about ''show us yer money?'' or maybe soon ''show us yer existance?''

But i'm not gloating. It really would be a terrible shame if the bulls were to leave super league.

It really would.

It seems that their two most prominent posters have left the forum (at least for now)

Arrogance like this is rarely seen at headingly..... From an away fan

Becuase you've only been when Cas are playing?

No

Cheers for info mate. Appreciated. Only one I think who has helped out on this.

I agree the current RL Operational Rules seem to major on paying HMRC - I suspect this was after severe pressure from those providing public sector funding?

Just out of interest, if you only get a 2 point mitigation for "committing to work with creditors" which - as I think you have indicated - might mean not actually paying that much - why would anyone buying a club out of administration seek to pay off any more than a bare minumum of creditors? Since no further advantage would accrue?

And might anyone demanding that new owners repay ALL creditors, for no additional advantage, be guilty of gross hypocrisy?

Might be seen as having an advantage over other SL members who do pay their creditors? It's OK leaping from one financial calamity to another other than it puts other clubs ( who have kept their house in order) at a disadvantage. If the other clubs don't spend their money on paying suppliers and other creditors either maybe they could sign better players?

Not my point, though.

And I have no problem with clubs not paying their creditors getting penalised, all other thing sbveing equal. Not only does that give them an unfair advantage, its anyway just plain wrong unless totally unavoidable. Even though it is usually new owners and a new entity trying to clean up the mess the previous one left, so you have to make sure the penalty is not so onerous as to discourage new owners. Unless you believe the game can afford to lose a club - at any level?

My point is that if you pay off a handful of creditors and get 2 points mitigation, but pay off all your creditors and still only get 2 points mitigation, what advantage is there to the buyer in voluntarily trying to pay off more creditors?

Thankfully, the RFL would seem to recognise this too. Presumably why they did not penalise Salford for committing an act of insolvency (CVA) because all the creditors were to be repaid? A totally sensible and pragmatic decision, I'd say?

Should this thread not be re-titled

Bullimia bearing in mind how thin the Bulls squad is looking ?

That's really rather good!

All the more so for being all-too-true, as well

It's making a few people spew that's for sure!

The advantage, if any, would have been gained in the time that club/administration was trading. had the Bulls won all the pots you would have a point. As it is, we haven't even made the playoffs since 1845.

The new administration - whoever it may end up being - don't get any advantage. You can't get an advantage twice. Either the old club did get an advantage by not paying its creditors properly, or it didn't, but if there was an advantage, then by definition only the old club could have benefited from it.

Rubbish, I'm afraid.

For example:
A club uses money that should be used to pay creditors to pay for a squad they could not otherwise afford. Advantage in current year.
Said club then goes into administration and writes off some/most/all of those debts.
Club still has a squad that they couldn't afford but now has a lot less debts. Advantage post administration.

Of course the advantage can be had twice - under this scenario you get a stronger playing squad both pre and post administration. How is that not a double advantage??

Same Club, different owners, so either way the Club gained advantage/penalised/should be left to carry on*
*delete as applicable
Perhaps best to wait and see who the new owner(s) are ?

A "Lamb" to the slaughter by the looks of it.

Just heard him on the radio; 'we'd live within our means and only spend what we earn', 'you have to run a sporting club like any normal business', 'we've got experience of marketing and hospitality'

Future looks bright...................

Hopefully the future is bright for the Bulls creditors too....

It's amazing how far the bulls have fallen when you think about it for a moment. Just 10 years ago they went into the season as treble winners and world champs.

Now they haven't got a penny to scratch their ar$e with, players are jumping ship, and they look like relegation candidates.

The iestyn harris signing seemed to begin a chain reaction that snowballed into this.

We used to talk about the impenetrable Big Four and they were as strong as any in it. Now look at them. Some of the decisions the club has made have been jaw dropping. It's not good to see a club fall this far but there you go.

Well, yes. That's the point. And what advantage did we take in 2013? None.



Advantage post administration.
'"

Bradford Bulls used other peoples' money to finance a squad they couldn't really afford with the aim of getting into the play-offs. Gambled; and lost.

when you say other peoples money, do you mostly mean the owner, Mr Khan's money?

Surely he means the money that should have gone to pay HMRC, the RFL, the security company and all the other creditors left hanging.

What about the money your creditors were owed in 2011, wonder what happened to that...