This would only be a fair process if the 'vacant' licence was offered to all qualifying sides in the Championship as well as the Newco. Otherwise you have pre-judged that the Newco's application is automatically the best.

Sigh.

i have changed to topic title as it was confusing people and i forgot to change it

There isn't time to do it properly IMO.

A newco Bradford with a SL licence in 2013 leaves licensing with zero credibility.

If a newco is admitted to SL, I wholeheartedly hope they face up to what that means, and don't go through some sham 2 week application procedure.

But they are doing a full review now – the potential bidders for the Bulls are having to submit a full business plan, proof they have the funding and no doubt many other things we are not being told of.



As I said, provided that the RFL agree to sale of the Bulls then I think it is safe to say that the new buyer will already have “passed” the licence review system – since essentially the licence review is only what they are doing now anyway.



It would be silly to do a 2 week (and counting) review to find a buyer and then ask them to submit the same information again for a separate quick review after to grant a licence – it makes more sence to do the licence review at the same time as the bids, which is what I would recon the RFL are doing now.



In an ideal world yes the licence would be up for all clubs to apply for, but this isn’t an ideal world. Do you honestly think that, if a club with the name of Bradford Bulls – who have had so much success in the last 10 years (though admittedly not in the last couple) submit a bid that matches the minimum requirements that the RFL would accept another bid by Halifax – even if it is a “better” bid?



In a perfect world the “best” bid may well win – but in the real world that would never be the case.

Okay, debatable but not laughable - the message I take from that is that licensing doesn't work in the real world.

What you'd effectively be giving Bradford is not a licence but a franchise - the business running the franchise might fail, but the franchise always remains and can be transferred to new management as and when appropriate.

Do we then give franchises to all SL clubs?



edit - just to be clear, the above is only if it is a newco - if the buyers can reach a deal with creditors, then that is different.

)



The fact is the loss of Bradford would be a bigger loss for the sport than the loss of Castleford for the simple reason of their recent achievements. For your fan who is a long time fan of Rugby League they may not see this but the RFL has to look at potential fans too – a club with the recent success of Bradford being in the lower leagues (or non existant) is far worse than a club of Castleford being in the lower leagues. To use the example of Rangers who many people on this thread have used as an example – I used to have a passing interest in the SPL to see how the title was going to run – weather to Rangers or Celtic – now I have no interest in it at all, and I’m sure I’m not the only one – how much will the SPL lose as a result of TV money when however many people stop tuning in, how much of that money was used by the “smaller” clubs?. Now RL has more than 2 clubs but the point remains that the loss of a Bradford a “big club” is harder to bear than the loss of Castleford a “little club” since people outside the sport know the name.



Does this fact incurage reckless spending to win cups – yes it does to some extent (hence why we have a salary cap). But considering that the people who did spend recklessly at the Bulls have lost everything they “invested” in the club and no longer have any dealing with it it’s probably not as much as an incentive as people think.



So what would you do then – give a franchise to the “big clubs” but not the “little clubs”, that could work – but you would have even more up in arms than the current system (which I agree is a complete shambles).



What will really happen is what has happened – the RFL will do all it can to save the successful clubs and be a little less desperate to save the unsuccessful one (though claims that they would turn away and let them go bust without help seem a little harsh). Is this “fair” – no, not at all, but who ever said that life is “fair”. I can’t think of one other area of life that is “fair” – why should sport be any different?

Unfair is one thing, openly rigged is another. Sport needs at least a veneer of fairness and equitable treatment of participants, or it ceases to be either interesting or indeed sporting.



And I'm not being funny, but Bradford aren't even [ithat[/i big. SL has rumbled along okay since Warrington took their place in the de facto Big 4, and it'd get on fine while they rebuilt in the lower leagues if that is what is needed. Not that that is particularly easy, but that's for another thread.

I don't wish Bradford ill and I hope it gets sorted - I'd even turn a blind eye to one or two compromises, but if saving Bradford means abandoning even the pretence of trying to do right, then that is shameful and stupid.

This

Very very well put, Mild Rover

BTW Where was the help for Blackpool?

You disagree? I'm surprised - I thought you'd be dead set against a newco Bulls just being handed a licence for 2013 by default.

You don't know why i sighed?



Sigh