I don't know the details, but hasn't something similar happened with some of the Rangers players? And the club is disputing whether they had the right?



Doubt it will get to that stage with the Bulls TBH. Unless they try and reduce contracts to save cash...

he looks like he's got them out of a bit of a lime pickle

Guess we'll just have to try a bit harder tomorrow and p*ss on their bonfire.

Some of it I believe, but not all of it.



If the deal for creditors is as poor as rumoured (10p in the £) then the RFL will be keen to at least appear to be punishing them financially so that they can keep HMRC off their backs.

Im pleased for the Bradford fans it would have been nice to have had Bateman/Whitehead but a better result for RL, they have shown great resilience as a group of players but id still like a win this weekend.

With any luck this may increase the number of Asian supporters that the Bulls have, which I imagine is a widely untapped market in Bradford

Don't get curried away.

It'll tikka lot to beat them..................................................

If they stay in SL then the RFL must have one hell of a big carpet to sweep this under. The whole thing stinks and brings what integrity the RFL has left under question. Effectively paying a team to stay at full strength whilst creditors get jack all is a kick in the teeth to all clubs that have and are struggling to keep afloat. Has going into administration midway through the season (unlike Wakefield and Crusaders) given the Bulls an unfair advantage??? I dont see how ANY team can lose their license in the next round of franchising after this.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Widnes submit a licence application a few years ago only to have it knocked back due to them having been in administration a few years early even though their new owner had given guarantees.

Yup. But the rule that was used at that time was revoked in the run up to the last round of licencing - which was lucky for Wakey.

I can't see any way creditors would accept 10p in the pound when the club retain very saleable assets - Bateman & Whitehead.



My understanding is that the creditors have to vote 'by a majority' to accept such an offer. If I was a creditor I would be demanding Mr. Khan increase his offer AND sell a few assets. ATEOTD creditors are entitled to a deal which returns as much of their money as possible, 10p in the pound ain't it.



Still stinks - happy for the club to survive, even in SL BUT those creditors are entitled to be paid.



Can't see any way HMRC would accept this and watch Bateman et al still running out !



If true, really poor precedent - cheating pure and simple, game becomes a laughing stock.

Korma you Bulls , Korma you Bulls ad lib to fade