So, the final say (if Bulls stay in SL or move down to the Championship) could ultimately come down to a vote on the other 13 SL clubs. www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-4682376 Saints and Hull KR – Their chairmen have publicly stated they want a smaller SL so they could vote for the Bulls to go down. I would imagine Leeds, Huddersfield and Castleford Tigers would want them to stay purely for attendance figures. Widnes, through their benevolent chairman Steve O’Connor’s £10,000 pledge have indicated they would vote to keep Bulls in SL. How do you think a possible vote could go to keep the Bulls in SL? Could a yes vote also signal the end of the Franchise system?

So, the final say (if Bulls stay in SL or move down to the Championship) could ultimately come down to a vote on the other 13 SL clubs. www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-4682376 Saints and Hull KR – Their chairmen have publicly stated they want a smaller SL so they could vote for the Bulls to go down. I would imagine Leeds, Huddersfield and Castleford Tigers would want them to stay purely for attendance figures. Widnes, through their benevolent chairman Steve O’Connor’s £10,000 pledge have indicated they would vote to keep Bulls in SL. How do you think a possible vote could go to keep the Bulls in SL? Could a yes vote also signal the end of the Franchise system?

It could certainly signal the end for the Halifax Chairman - after his reaction to their last failed franchise application, I can see him expiring during a live TV interview if the SL clubs vote to keep Bradford in.

The loss of Bradford would be massive and I would be gutted to see them go. However, the fairness of the competition should come first really.

More stringent measures to make sure clubs are paying their bills need to be brought in to place. If clubs can not afford to pay their bills then they should be forced to release high earning members of staff. Most clubs have at least one player earning £150k plus per year, these should be the first to be released and that money used to pay off the creditors and the most dangerous of those (HMRC) should be the first to be paid. Those players obviously if earning that kind of money should find a club elsewhere and possibly the RFL could subsidise those wages, reclaiming over the next few years from the club once back on its feet.

How did Bradfords franchise application get granted? Surely if the RFL have done their jobs properly this would have been highlighted much sooner? The Halifax chairman has every right to be annoyed by this news.

At HKR we seem to be taking drastic measures by reducing contracts or not offering more than we can actually afford even when coming under pressure from supporters. Ever since 2007 we have paid over the odds for players but Neil Hudgell has had enough of being held over a barrell, taking his and other members' of the boards money when they may not be worth as much as they think they are.

We've been told we are going to be going backwards on the pitch before our younger players take us forward, that doesn't sit well with some but as long as we are still competative in most games I'm happy to get our finances in order before pushing forward. I've seen our club nearly get closed up for good, merged with the enemy and saved at the last minute, it is a horrible feeling so I have a lot of sympathy for them, however help wasn't as forthcoming from the RL community then and I'd fully expect Bradford to be told they have to start from the bottom and prove like everybody else that they are able to sustain a SL club at the next licence application process.

Quote ="Tigerade"So, the final say (if Bulls stay in SL or move down to the Championship) could ultimately come down to a vote on the other 13 SL clubs. www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-4682376 Saints and Hull KR – Their chairmen have publicly stated they want a smaller SL so they could vote for the Bulls to go down. I would imagine Leeds, Huddersfield and Castleford Tigers would want them to stay purely for attendance figures. Widnes, through their benevolent chairman Steve O’Connor’s £10,000 pledge have indicated they would vote to keep Bulls in SL. How do you think a possible vote could go to keep the Bulls in SL? Could a yes vote also signal the end of the Franchise system?'" Its one thing saying you would like to see a smaller SL and another voting out a club like Bradford, yes they may have cocked up, but they will still be a big club in SL if the Newco is accepted.

Quote ="Tigerade"So, the final say (if Bulls stay in SL or move down to the Championship) could ultimately come down to a vote on the other 13 SL clubs. www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-4682376 Saints and Hull KR – Their chairmen have publicly stated they want a smaller SL so they could vote for the Bulls to go down. I would imagine Leeds, Huddersfield and Castleford Tigers would want them to stay purely for attendance figures. Widnes, through their benevolent chairman Steve O’Connor’s £10,000 pledge have indicated they would vote to keep Bulls in SL. How do you think a possible vote could go to keep the Bulls in SL? Could a yes vote also signal the end of the Franchise system?'" Its one thing saying you would like to see a smaller SL and another voting out a club like Bradford, yes they may have cocked up, but they will still be a big club in SL if the Newco is accepted.

A lot could come down to Sky's attitude to a smaller SL. Having paid a ridiculous amount for the new English soccer contract I'd imagine that they're looking to cut costs a bit.

I understand that it the SKY contract that demands the 14 team set-up.

Been thinking if Bradford do go down then Leeds lose there derby! Let's say Halifax come up then Huddersfield will have theres. Which means Leeds v Salford! Can't let that happen I love watching Leeds v Bradford! That alone = Bradford stay please!

Nah. He now understands the message from the RFL. I think half of his rant was a swipe at the notion that a club can go bust and still hold a license and the other half was to appease rabid Fax fans who were baying for blood at the "injustice".

Lot's of things have happened since then - namely a realisation that SL is financially unsustainable for a club wishing to compete and with attendances of less than 8,000(est) and who do not have a backer. Three clubs and counting .......... If you look at the posts now from Fax fans you'll find that most would prefer NOT to go into SL as the club now stands although most of them are still bashing the RFL for anything bad that happens. Nigel Wood is a lovely comfort blanket

4 , there have been 2 Crusaders HTH

Well......if we go with previous votes over these things....Bradford voted for London Broncos to be kicked out of SL are few years back before they became Quins.....so you'd think karma would dictate that London would vote Bradford out.....depends if they wanted to be as petty as Bradford were back then.

I feel for the fans of Bradford...as they are totally powerless to this whole mess.

Oh Mr Picky

Halifax is bradfords true derby not Leeds!

You seem to be suggesting that the governing body should carry out the role and function of the FD (or equivalent) at every SL club?

I think that's using a sledgehammer to crack a nut; all that needs to happen is a fair and consistent application of the rules around financial probity and a bit less face-saving; the current attitude at Red Hall seems to be one of preserving the appearance of SL as a massive success story, to the extent that they were prepared to act out the whole 'iconic ground' charade when Bradford first hit the skids.

Maybe they need to distance themselves from clubs a little more and make clear that regardless of who you are, if you can't manage your business within the rules of SL (which you presumably agree to when you sign your licence application) then you'll be faced with sanctions; the failure of a member club does not necessarily indicate a failure of the system - constant inability to learn from previous mistakes however, does.

Perhaps some tough love is required?

that cheapo ST s would lead to trouble , but were happy to accept the word of the aformentioned ' successful businessman ' without question

Who cares about derbys in situations like this!?

The whole decision should come down to fairness.

Halifax' application was turned away due to 'speculative finances' and 'not enough detail'

Bradford have proved that whatever details they put in their application was just plain lies, or completly ignored by the RFL(

)

if Bradford get allowed to continue as a different company and then review their licence at the end of the year (i wonder which way that'll go?!)

it simply would not be fair.

Im not just saying this as a Fax fan. I'll admit when we were told we were not good enough for SL i was fuming just like our chairman Mr Steele. but since then i have come to realise that SL is not worth putting your club at risk and gambling. which if Fax were installed in 2013 is exactly what we would be doing.

in sport you need RULES that EVERY club should adhere to. If they break the rules they should be punished.

Bradford have overspent and should be treat like any other club that was in the same situation.

But do we [ Championship Club fans want the Bulls in the Championship , paying a reduced rental for Odsal , no doubt circumventing the salary caps and being hailed as ' too good for the like of semi pro RL ' ?

Because lets face it , that is what would happen , the RFL have history of finding ways to let ' chosen clubs ' achieve what they [ RFL want

which teams i think would say yes and no to bulls staying in super league:

Catalan - dont think they anything against bulls and catalan players like menzies, henderson and pryce will not want club to go down. YES

Cas - maybe not because bulls could be seen as competition for licenses. NO

Giants - Yes, local club and dont have anything against bulls.

FC - think from reaction from fans and adam pearson is close friend of relative of mine who is a bulls fan and he will definitely not want to let other people down. YES

KR - No because smaller super league.

Leeds - YES, local derby and would be big loss in attendance figures each year.

Saints - YES - even though they want smaller league, Bradford bulls are part of their winning history.

Wakey - YES/No because they have been in same position as us and no how it feels but may not appreciate we've had more help and could be threat for licenses.

Wire - Yes, nothing against us.

Widnes - YES after steve O connors generous donation.

Reds - Could two be soon in administration and could be in same boat as bulls so YES because they may have a vote off soon.

London - YES/NO, nothing against us but still no with licencing coming up.

Leeds wouldnt lose their derby.

Leeds vs Huddersfield
Hull vs Hull KR
Saints vs Wigan
Widnes vs Saints
Castleford vs Wakefield
Salford vs Halifax

Is the way I would think they would go.

How about Widnes v Wire instead



Don't forget the big one... Catalans v London.

Whilst Bradford are a big club with history and a solid fanbase, fairness has to come first. They should have to drop down and another club, such as Halifax, should take their place for the following 2 years of the current licences.
It would undermine the competition and sport, and be a slap in the face to other clubs, if they were to stay in the league.

This is if the club liquidates, obviously.

How could i forget



Leeds vs Huddersfield
Hull vs Hull KR
Saints vs Wigan
Widnes vs Warrington
Castleford vs Wakefield
Salford vs Halifax
London vs Catalans

This would be simple with p&r. Bulls to C1 at seasons end winner of Championship replaces them for 2013. As it is a points deduction means nothing and the belief of a corrupt RFL franchise process is enhanced.
Refn this topic - the clubs in danger of losing a franchise would vote against, the clubs who gain by having a strong Bradford vote for - ie self interest rules.

Thats better

why are fax the targeted team to come up? Why not fev?