What are you talking about? I'm fully aware of the situation, I made the Stevenage example in response to DP's comment about 'the same also-rans', it was supposed to be ridiculous to illustrate how stupid it would be to relegate Bradford if they weren't weaker than the teams replacing them. I agree that if they don't have a viable business plan, they shouldn't be in the league. But I assume the deal was concluded on the basis that the new owners have a suitable business plan, otherwise there wouldn't have been any point.You cannot compare football to rugby. Two different systems.
If Sunderland went into administration they would get docked 10 points and lose most of there players. They would find themselves relegated. If Stevenage win the championship then they would be replace them.
Its not nonsense. Its unlikely, but not nonsense.
Bradford would NOT be getting relegated from the Super League. In Super League now there is NO SUCH THING AS RELEGATION.
What they got was a license to run a franchise. To be awarded this franchise certain criteria needs to be met. Bradford have failed to meet this criteria. It doesn't matter what failed, be it on the pitch, of the pitch, the ground, anything.
At the end of each year the RFL have the right to review every license awarded and can take licenses away from teams that have not fulfilled there obligations. Be that Wakey not having a ground, Warrington going bust, Wigan breaking the Salary cap (again) or Bradford going bump due to being run badly.
Now once the license is removed then there is a spot for teams to apply for it. Be it a new Bradford, Halifax, Leigh or anyone with a team.
Widnes were denied a new license because they had been bust, Halifax were denied one last year on the grounds the business plan was a load of baloney.
That is how newco Bradford have to be judged. If they can supply a business plan that involves staying solvent, improves the ground, gets bigger crowds etc. then by all means give them a license.
I feel the RFL would have to be open about this plan as a lot of people will be watching.
What sort of quantitative measure are you expecting? It's been a success in so much that it has allowed for the removal of an absolutely bizarre, ridiculous and totally unacceptable system. There isn't any alternative to the licensing process at present. Automatic P&R is not a viable alternative and for people to pretend otherwise, again would just be shooting ourselves in the foot.Is the licensing format here to stay? There were rumours that when Richard Lewis stood down, it might be binned (it having been his brainchild).
Not sure it has entirely been a success has it? Anyone have any stats or info that might inform?
What sort of quantitative measure are you expecting? It's been a success in so much that it has allowed for the removal of an absolutely bizarre, ridiculous and totally unacceptable system. There isn't any alternative to the licensing process at present. Automatic P&R is not a viable alternative and for people to pretend otherwise, again would just be shooting ourselves in the foot.
None of those measures are valid, they are all subjective and dependent on other factors. There is no clear quantitative 'measure of success', and no reason to even attempt to find one. The fact is that the old system was totally unsuitable and in urgent need of replacement, and it has now been replaced with a suitable system. That's all there is to it. Unless we're talking about how the current system can be improved then trying to find 'measures of success' or whatever is just irrelevant. As for Andy Wilson, he is an utter moron and I value his opinions less than those of the average poster on an internet forum.Mr Lewis? Is that you?
I wasn't "expecting" anything mr aggressive, merely raising the point that licencing might have not been a great success. Andy Wilson expressed this sentiment in Fourty20 magazine I believe, on the basis that this season hasn't produced many memorable games of note. All down to opinion, of course, but even so I imagine someone close to the game's governing body would have information on gate receipts, tv ratings, financial woes, sponsorship monies, merchandise sales, number of games won by <6 points (as an indication of level of entertainment), number of players promoted from academies, number of clubs spending salary cap etc before and after the licencing system came in.
I'm sure it is being discussed as an option, simply to make it clearer on how to deal with clubs that are mismanaged (since points deduction makes relegation a clear possibility)
The fact remains that if Bradford now have the financial backing to be able to compete at SL level (which presumably they do)
Andrew Glover paid less for Wakey and didnt clear all of the previous regimes debt...Have they got the financial clout to compete in the SLE though? What do we know of Mr Khan's wealth? He only paid £150,000 for the Bulls so that's not a great indication of his finances one way or the other. He's been quoted as saying it will take two years to get the Bulls competitve again. Why will it take two years if he's cashed up? My question is, did Mr Khan pay off the Bulls' debts?
Just like your failed Widnes comparison, the situation at the weegies was completely different and involved a suspected £80million tax *evasion scheme...the two situations aren't really comparable nor is it logical or fair to do so.If so then you might have an argument as to the Bulls' SLE status being maintained. If not then they are a new club who have not proven anything to anybody and as such should go to the back of the queue for a SLE place just as Rangers newco did.
Andrew Glover paid less for Wakey and didnt clear all of the previous regimes debt...
Why do you think Bradford should be treated differently?
Just like your failed Widnes comparison, the situation at the weegies was completely different and involved a suspected £80million tax *evasion scheme...the two situations aren't really comparable nor is it logical or fair to do so.
Just like your failed Widnes comparison, the situation at the weegies was completely different and involved a suspected £80million tax *evasion scheme...the two situations aren't really comparable nor is it logical or fair to do so.
Andrew Glover paid less for Wakey and didnt clear all of the previous regimes debt...
Why do you think Bradford should be treated differently?
looks like the blame game is in full swing. Dont see how the bulls prospective owners could expect to get away without a points deductions and its typical of the behaviour of people of that ilk have towards the game that they hold it and clubs too ransom.
On the other hand the decision to deprive them of half the central funding seems farcical and dooming the club to failure. Haven't followed it that closely so not sure how they ended up at that decision last season.
I suspect wakefield and cas will be over the moon at the deduction though, takes a lot of pressure of them and they should stay up now
super league is a shambles.