Well said!

Ah so not only is the stadium never going to happen but the best player is leaving as well? And you expect people to believe you despite offering noo evidence? You are a troll who know jack and are just here to gloat because your badly run club is now in bed with the RFL.



I rest my case.

Back on track for a shortwhile if we can please!!!



I'm loving the wording of the RFL's statement on this.......a 'Predatory approach'. It makes it sound like, if they hadn't stepped in someone could have been heading home from a game one night with the lease in their back pocket and a 'Predator' could have jumped out and stolen it from them, or pick pocketed them without them knowing!

I'm absolutely flabbergasted that some Bulls fans have already adopted an arrogant "I'm alright jack" stance on this issue; given that they've just been bailed out of the shiz by the sports governing body, using money that comes from all stakeholders (all of us and our clubs) one would expect them to show a little more humility.



Here's an interesting one - how did the RFL not become aware of their plight during the license application process, given the robust scrutiny that did reveal, for example, the extent of the Crusaders problems? I'm not suggesting that the RFL actually knew all about this situation when the applications were considered and what they intended to do about it, so awarded an inexplicable 'B' grade to a stadium that is essentially a landfill site, to avoid the embarassment of having to issue the same warning to the Bulls about improving a stadium that they actually owned themselves. Or maybe I am.



The whole thing stinks but since the RFL is much like FIFA, they don't have to worry about answering to anyone.

I agree that the whole thing is very dubious but to be honest I feel that RL as a sport comes out stronger as the rent money that was going out of the game, will now be going to Redhall and from there (hopefully) into developing grass roots RL. It does present a conflict of interest with Bradford but surely a conflict of interest is better than the prospect of losing about 10'000 Spectators from the sport?



Like I say it's a shame they won't/can't do it for everyone, but the reality is Bradford Bulls (the brand) is too important to the game for the RFL to risk them becoming homeless.

....and there lies the problem.

Maybe it was 7 or 8 years ago - it certainly isn't now.

I also wish Bradford all the best, however at what point would they have become homeless? The Bulls own the lease, and it could hardly be sold to the 'Approaching Predator' without them knowing. Surely they wouldn't sell it without securing somewhere to play first.



I just wish that the RFL could be honest and call it, what it is.....a bail out!

Good points on the whole.



Just the last point though, The RFL dont have a duty to do anything for any club. And they certainly haven't done anything for the Bulls here, IMO. I believe that the RFL have their own interests at heart here(Obviously the game) and have moved to secure themselves a site within a central location of the RL heartland and a site with possibly some development potential. It just so happens that it's Bradfords site and we are now looked on as receiving preferential treatment from the RFL. IMO, In reality I believe that this deal has been done with both parties own interests at heart and it isnt a case of one helping the other out due to favouritism.

I dont think tangibly this changes much, but governing bodies integrity is as much about what you are seen to do that what you actually do. Imagine for example if the FA had bought Elland Road and rented it back to Leeds which saved them going into administration to save them from predatory businesses whom did prey on them, saved them 15 points deduction and resulted in someone else being relegated - there would have been hell on and rightly.



So, essentially this, although tangibly is a business decision, it does look stinky. The RFL have not granted the Bulls a license forever per-se, but I find it impossible to think that a criteria will be imposed on licensing applications that the RFL adjudicate upon and Bradford be excluded, it is a huge conflict of interests???? example:

RFL makes a rule that all grounds to have 10 flags and red flag poles.

Bulls ask their Landlords to have 10 flags and red flag poles

Landlord says no - Bulls go to court and cry cheat - RIGHTLY.

Landlord says yes - everyone else thinks it is a fix and the RFL sucking it's own. RIGHTLY



Can't win when you put yourself in this situation no matter how humble and worldly the reasons - I am no business or legal expert, but even I can see this is poor management and leadership.

No it hasn't.