RFL’s unconditional stance on sale of Bradford Bulls comes in for unwarranted stick

10:00am Saturday 4th August 2012 in Simon Parker Column Photograph of the Author By Simon Parker, Bradford City Reporter

The Bradford Bulls saga is approaching critical status.

We can only hope this week’s final-hour unconditional offer to purchase the club from Super League (Europe) Ltd is approved and will mean the club can celebrate survival. In the days before this innovative rescue package was tabled, the RFL were being portrayed as the bad guys after turning down a second offer from the ABC consortium, one of two prospective buyers.

The rival group, fronted by Bradford South MP Gerry Sutcliffe, has been similarly frustrated.

The game’s governing body have been getting stick for refusing to guarantee the Bulls will remain in Super League.

Those trying to buy – and save – the ailing club argue that it cannot be done if a place at the top level is not rubber-stamped.

But the RFL argue that they will not be tied down by conditions. Anyone wanting to take over the club has to do it under their rules.

And as hard as it must be for fans to stomach, you have to agree with the authority’s harsh stance.

If they bend the rules for one club, even one as historied as the Bulls, then what will happen with the next to fall into the financial abyss. And sadly, with the way of the sporting world right now, there will be more.

The RFL see no difference in the plight of the Bulls to that of Widnes and Wakefield in recent years. They were both rescued without their Super League status assured – and in the case of the Vikings it took a long while to claw their way back.

Rugby league’s “closed shop” approach regarding promotion to Super League is a major obstacle. Unlike football, one season outside of the big boys does not mean a quick return.

The licensing issue, brought in to protect the domestic game’s elite, now represents a huge barrier for any prospective buyer.

But however unbending the RFL may appear, they are determined to protect the integrity of the competition. They should not be blamed for that stance.

If fingers should be pointed, it should be at those who built up the debts that have left the Bulls teetering on the brink.

Comments(13)

Sheffieldbull says...
10:58am Sat 4 Aug 12

Is this article a Press release from the RFL or a Editorial comment? How about a statement from Mr Caisley T&A?

Report this post »

theviking62 says...
11:34am Sat 4 Aug 12

Here, here, Sheffield.

Report this post »

scandanavian's love child52 says...
11:57am Sat 4 Aug 12

Yeah what they said.

Report this post »

I'm NOT Kirklees! says...
2:39pm Sat 4 Aug 12

"That was a public service annoucement but the Rugby Football League"

Report this post »

Adeybull says...
4:07pm Sat 4 Aug 12

If you read a subsequent piece on here, regarding the attitude of some other clubs, it should be patently obvious just why the RFL had to take that stance!!

Report this post »

Shelfrhino says...
8:39pm Sat 4 Aug 12

None of this is the fault of the RFL.
I think plenty of your glory fans need to look a little closer to home.

A pity you couldn't manage to reach your 50th anniversary, maybe next time around eh.

Report this post »

Writer says...
11:22pm Sat 4 Aug 12

The RFL have been their own worst enemies. Now we have heard a proper tale we can make a balanced judgement. From a supporter's point of view we see that Wakefield were allowed to remain in S/L but this may not be the case for the Bulls. If the RFL had pointed out all this in the first place then they would not have been getting so much stick. We hear of a £3m offer being submitted and the RFL come out with an obtuse statement that it is unacceptable but do not say why. Well of course we think the're a set of twits!

They are supposed to have a communications officer but he/she will not have neen complaining of overwork in recent months.Conditions work two ways. The RFL could also make conditions such as if the ground is bought back then any development must not prevent the Bulls from playing there. Regarding the S/L status they could issue a statement that an understanding has been reached that providing the new lot get their act together and produce a sound financial model then there is no reason why the Bulls should not continue etc.

As it turns out the ABC mob could/would not supply details of would be shareholders or produce a financial plan so quite rightly the offer was turned down. It's only now that this has come to light. In future RFL please supply the full story if you wish to avoid criticism.

Report this post »

_Size3_ says...
8:22am Mon 6 Aug 12

I think it's incredible that anyone can blame the RFL for having rules....?

How can a governing body govern if those making the rules are the people who are supposed to be following them?

Maybe the rules should be changed EVERY time someone wants to circumvent them then? Sod it...next game the Bulls can have 20 points for each try they score and 10 for a conversion....what..
..?.....just changing the rules this one time because it suits.

:o/

Report this post »

arhmen aleg says...
10:18am Mon 6 Aug 12

The rules were very clearly broken if the wages bill of 260000 monthly inherited and quoted by Guilfoyle is to be believed


Very lucky that all the RFL seem to want guaranteed is that all the creditors are paid.

sad caisley did not put any of his personal wealth behind the rescue.

No doubt his firm Walker Morriss will have made a fortune advising Mr Guilfoyle

Report this post »

BeechwoodBull says...
10:23am Mon 6 Aug 12

My biggest gripe with he RFL is that despite their much vaunted licencing process, we are only one year into a three year license. Our accounts have proved to be full of holes and we still get a license. Salford are reputedly hovering on the brink too What is the point of licensing system if it appears to be as flawed as it is.

Report this post »

Thee Voice of Reason says...
10:55am Mon 6 Aug 12

A great piece by Mr Parker, and one that has been echoed by many on here.
It's a shame that some are blinkered by their own loyalty who think the Bulls should be a special case and the RFL are to blame.

Report this post »

DerbyBull says...
2:31pm Mon 6 Aug 12

I dont think the Bulls should be a special case but i do think the RFL should shoulder some of the blame too..Clearly a flawed licencing system, clearly they knew the Bulls were in trouble long ago and possibly when issuing the licence, also the Stobbart deal was a joke and while this did not directly cause the bulls situation it must have had an impact on the finances of the member clubs and last but not least they are hopeless and communicating anything to the people who allow them to exist, The fans.

Report this post »

DerbyBull says...
2:35pm Mon 6 Aug 12

On a different subject, Where the hell is Caisley ? Came in shouting to anyone that would listen about Hood and what should happen and now runs very silent and deep ?

Report this post »

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree