Questions about Bulls & RFL - No Transparency : Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:25 pm  

We are a Rugby League family - But - read Total Rugby League & or league express, the whole episode of recent history of owners, ground owners, maintenance & repairs to ground paid for by the whole of rugby league, current owners shrouded in mystery, debts now over 1.5 million, unable to buy players, current first team sold off , no wonder other club owners in the lower divisions demand an enquiry with the RFL refusing, poor Bulls fans must be sick of all this & still no sort out !

Re: Questions about Bulls & RFL - No Transparency : Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:40 pm  

Plus the RFL leasing the ground for Bulls in 2012. To help 1 club out. Now having to pay for an empty ground.

Re: Questions about Bulls & RFL - No Transparency : Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:41 am  

TrinTrin wrote:

We are a Rugby League family - But - read Total Rugby League & or league express, the whole episode of recent history of owners, ground owners, maintenance & repairs to ground paid for by the whole of rugby league, current owners shrouded in mystery, debts now over 1.5 million, unable to buy players, current first team sold off , no wonder other club owners in the lower divisions demand an enquiry with the RFL refusing, poor Bulls fans must be sick of all this & still no sort out !

I think the loss to SKY/SL of one of the games biggest clubs, with one of the biggest following, who brought in some big overseas stars and went on to develop their own top quality like Whitehead and Bateman was a serious blow to Superleague. Even if the RL CEO had not been a Bradfordian I am sure they would have wanted to act beyond their remit, to avoid this disaster in just the same way.

To me Superleague is a business that keeps the game alive, so losing that fan revenue, player development, and one of the big names from the SKY sports schedules was to me a crushing blow to the game. As it was nobody replaced them, the league was cut and a poor salford and a very poor Wakefield survived (and to be fair improved).But the perceived problem here of special treatment was, had Salford gone down the RFL would not have bent over backwards for them. However I feel big games between big clubs on SKY are vital and "fairness" doesn't come into it. In 2017 neither the Hull/HKR derby nor the Leeds/Bradford derby were on the SKY schedules which was very bad business for the game.

Re: Questions about Bulls & RFL - No Transparency : Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:39 pm  

Donnyman wrote:

I think the loss to SKY/SL of one of the games biggest clubs, with one of the biggest following, who brought in some big overseas stars and went on to develop their own top quality like Whitehead and Bateman was a serious blow to Superleague. Even if the RL CEO had not been a Bradfordian I am sure they would have wanted to act beyond their remit, to avoid this disaster in just the same way.

To me Superleague is a business that keeps the game alive, so losing that fan revenue, player development, and one of the big names from the SKY sports schedules was to me a crushing blow to the game. As it was nobody replaced them, the league was cut and a poor salford and a very poor Wakefield survived (and to be fair improved).But the perceived problem here of special treatment was, had Salford gone down the RFL would not have bent over backwards for them. However I feel big games between big clubs on SKY are vital and "fairness" doesn't come into it. In 2017 neither the Hull/HKR derby nor the Leeds/Bradford derby were on the SKY schedules which was very bad business for the game.

And your first paragraph sums up all that is wrong with Rugby League.
Yes, help any struggling club with all reasonable means but, when a governing body takes up the lease of a single club, it can only end in tears (and lots of them).
Nobody knows what would have happened to Bradford (the first time), if they had been allowed to go bust and then reformed.
We certainly wouldn't have the utter debacle that we currently have, with The RFL holding the lease to an empty site, it's absolute madness.
Brewery, up and "mickey" all spring to mind.
Sky are irrelevant in this and to include them in the conversation is just wrong. RL remains as filler when the football season is finished.

Despite their sponsorship being very welcome to a sport that would otherwise be a semi pro game, they should NEVER have any input into the make up of the League structure or who participates in the sport.

Can you imagine if they said that they would no longer sponsor the SL if Bradford, Leeds or Wigan were not included

Re: Questions about Bulls & RFL - No Transparency : Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:45 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

And your first paragraph sums up all that is wrong with Rugby League.

Sky are irrelevant in this and to include them in the conversation is just wrong. RL remains as filler when the football season is finished.

Despite their sponsorship being very welcome to a sport that would otherwise be a semi pro game, they should NEVER have any input into the make up of the League structure or who participates in the sport. Can you imagine if they said that they would no longer sponsor the SL if Bradford, Leeds or Wigan were not included

I'm not sure whether Rugby league would survive at all if it all went semi-professional, do you think we could go back to 1980? Do you not think there is some sort of link between what SKY pay us and what we provide in terms of the product on the field and the level of subscriptions generated by that content. SKY do according to McManus warn us not to let the level of English clubs drop below nine so they do have an interest in what is shown.

I'm having a stab at why Bulls weren't just left to their own fate as I suppose Oldham, Halifax, Workington and Sheffield were? There's potential self interest from SKY for fans subs, potential self interest from other SL clubs who may have wanted them back on their fixture lists, potential self interest of the RFL CEO at the time being a Bulls fan, but that's the one I personally find the least credible! Thoughts?