Re: should the Bulls ... : Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:48 am  

i agree with all ive read on foram we all seem to be thinking the same. i have said before on a foram I WILL NOT BE GOING TO BULLS GROUND AGAIN,ive been to odsal to watch many a game not only cas.all ways enjoyed going but not any more.if the bulls stop in super league they are making a mockery of the game.the clubs in the championships must be laughing at clubs in super league.with what is happening in rugby league at the moment its a joke.no wonder LOYAL FANS are WALKING away from the game and the CLUBS they love.

Re: should the Bulls ... : Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:57 am  

mdean wrote:

Cheers Chris -

Bren, I agree Widnes and Wakey had more medicine to take seemingly, but it is not arguable that they have improved their franchise and "on field" position by removing debt and forming new-co.

It's arguable certainly, but I'd suggest that neither Widnes or Wakefield have done so without a significant amount of pain; I don't know the ins and outs of Widnes' journey back into the top flight, but I certainly know Wakefield's - we watched our most promising players stripped away for peanuts, were widely earmarked as the club that would lose its licence to make way for Widnes, prepared for champ rugby to the extent that Mr Glover presented two business plans as part of his due diligence exercise with the RFL; then were rescued at the 11th hour, leaving us with a few short months to change our plans back towards being a SL club. All of this was done without any assistance from the RFL or the 'RL family' and to boot, Mr G chose to pay enough of the oldco's debt such that the penalty for our insolvency event was reduced to a 4 point deduction.

I don't expect a medal or even a balloon, but the wailing and gnashing of teeth coming out of Odsal in recent months, you'll understand, leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Re: should the Bulls ... : Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:50 pm  

bren2k wrote:

a balloon

Helium or air filled?

Re: should the Bulls ... : Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:14 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

Helium or air filled?

I'm sure you can supply the requisite amount of hot air.

Boom-tish.

Re: should the Bulls ... : Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:32 pm  

bren2k wrote:

It's arguable certainly, but I'd suggest that neither Widnes or Wakefield have done so without a significant amount of pain; I don't know the ins and outs of Widnes' journey back into the top flight, but I certainly know Wakefield's - we watched our most promising players stripped away for peanuts, were widely earmarked as the club that would lose its licence to make way for Widnes, prepared for champ rugby to the extent that Mr Glover presented two business plans as part of his due diligence exercise with the RFL; then were rescued at the 11th hour, leaving us with a few short months to change our plans back towards being a SL club. All of this was done without any assistance from the RFL or the 'RL family' and to boot, Mr G chose to pay enough of the oldco's debt such that the penalty for our insolvency event was reduced to a 4 point deduction.

I don't expect a medal or even a balloon, but the wailing and gnashing of teeth coming out of Odsal in recent months, you'll understand, leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

It's criminal that the Bulls won't have to pay what they owe (as it was with Wakey, Widnes and London), OK Wakey lost a couple of their better players, but started this season with a clean slate having left creditors owing over £1million, but now have a healthy bank balance, so how is any of that fair? It seems totally unfair when clubs such as Castleford (and Salford) are doing things the right way, we are losing some of our better players because we play by the rules and live within our means, but clubs who have "cheated" will finish above us in the league and in Bradfords case, with their team intact, how is that right?
The penalties for going into administration haven't been tough enough, clubs should lose all of their points, as happened with Melbourne in Australia, as any points they have amassed have been as a result of a playing side they clearly could not afford.

Re: should the Bulls ... : Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:05 pm  

danny boy1 wrote:

It's criminal that the Bulls won't have to pay what they owe (as it was with Wakey, Widnes and London), OK Wakey lost a couple of their better players, but started this season with a clean slate having left creditors owing over £1million, but now have a healthy bank balance, so how is any of that fair? It seems totally unfair when clubs such as Castleford (and Salford) are doing things the right way, we are losing some of our better players because we play by the rules and live within our means, but clubs who have "cheated" will finish above us in the league and in Bradfords case, with their team intact, how is that right?
The penalties for going into administration haven't been tough enough, clubs should lose all of their points, as happened with Melbourne in Australia, as any points they have amassed have been as a result of a playing side they clearly could not afford.

Well put Danny Boy.
Teams have entered administration and we will never know the truth about the individual clubs circumstances. The only thing for sure is that in 'every case' of administration someone loses out. It is the creditors who lose vast ammounts of money, many of them will be fans of those clubs also so it is not fair for anyone to say 'our club' has been treat differantly. Administration should mean the same for everybody, start again in the lower division. If the RFL don't impose proper penalties then what is the point of any rules in the game (ie salary cap). RL will get like football with some clubs chasing the dream which in reality they cannot afford.

Re: should the Bulls ... : Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:23 pm  

danny boy1 wrote:

The penalties for going into administration haven't been tough enough, clubs should lose all of their points, as happened with Melbourne in Australia, as any points they have amassed have been as a result of a playing side they clearly could not afford.

I wouldn't have complained too much about that at the time to be honest, although I believe Melbourne were punished for spending money they did have - too much of it.

I don't buy that our situation is identical to the Bulls though - it's about degrees and severity; WTW newco militated some of the impact on the creditors of oldco by paying over and above the historical debt that they were obliged to - I believe they also paid their liabilities to HMRC in full, thanks to Sir Rodney Walker, so no direct hit on the taxpayer, which I agree is reprehensible; not only in the obvious way, but also in the fact that it reduces the likelihood of other RL clubs being able to enter into managed payment plans for tax liabilities.

I maintain that we played the hand that we were dealt and with as straight a bat as was possible or realistic; our achievements on the field this season have been with a squad put together at short notice, paying about 300 grand under the salary cap and coached by a man who no other SL club would touch with a barge pole. As I said, I don't expect a ticker-tape parade, but credit where it's due - no pun intended.

Re: should the Bulls ... : Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:26 pm  

Have to agree with Ben2K that the Bulls situation cannot be compared to that of Wakey or Widnes for that matter.

At the game on Sunday my mate commented that he couldn't believe Bradford were going to survive without having had to sell any of their players yet. If you compare that with Wakey, as soon as they went into admin the administrator raised funds by selling 3 of their best players at a cut price. There has been lots of bluster from the Bulls about them having no money to survive from one month to the next but there's no sign of them selling any of their promising youngsters or best senior players.

The argument about the SL 'needing' the Bulls seems based on the recent history of the club which encompassed a considerable degree of success from the late 1990s until the early/mid 2000s, as well as their level of support. But that's half the problem - they have over 10,000 season ticket holders by virtually giving 'em away. Had they charged the standard price they'd undoubtedly have less support but may have raised more money!

Wakey were a top side in the '70s and Widnes were the supremo's of the 1980's but no-one seemed inclined to suggest that SL 'needs' them.

Like many other contributors, I'll be voting with my feet and not visiting Odsal again anytime soon...

Re: should the Bulls ... : Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:18 pm  

Don't think they should be allowed to stay in......
Glad they have new owners though.....

Re: should the Bulls ... : Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:06 am  

tigerlilly wrote:

i agree with all ive read on foram we all seem to be thinking the same. i have said before on a foram I WILL NOT BE GOING TO BULLS GROUND AGAIN,ive been to odsal to watch many a game not only cas.all ways enjoyed going but not any more.if the bulls stop in super league they are making a mockery of the game.the clubs in the championships must be laughing at clubs in super league.with what is happening in rugby league at the moment its a joke.no wonder LOYAL FANS are WALKING away from the game and the CLUBS they love.

maybe your fans are walking away because of how you are performing on the field, just a thought darling