Given we were only allowed a 1 year probationary licence (a penalty which doesn't seem to have been enforced against any other club that has been in our circumstances) has there been any say on what happens next year?



The RFL seem to have made a rod for their own back with this thing.

There's been nothing specific apparently, or so we were told at the forum some time back. To be honest I can't see any logical reason why things won't just carry on as normal next year, unless some absolute disaster occurs.



I'd suspect this was just put in to keep an odd club sweet about the whole business over the close season but clearly no-one had thought it through or had a clue how to implement it, so it's just empty rhetoric, unless some unknown sub-committee is still working on it.

We could do with finding out soon. There's a fair few players out of contract come the end of this season, and if we don't find out soon we could end up in a similar position as to last year, with players uncertain on the future of the club and looking at other options, i.e other teams.

Tbh they need to make a decision in next month or so. We need to start re-signing players we want to keep and other clubs are allowed to talk to ooc players at end of May. It would be unfair to new owners to put us at a disadvantage in recruitment stakes a second year running.

Exactly, why should the Bulls be singled out for this treatment? Surely the new owners/board have done enough off field to show that they're committed to the club and the sport as well as the playing and coaching staff showing that commitment on the field despite not having the time to put together a team from bare bones of what was left by the rest of the league as well as having 1 arm tied behind their backs in terms of the Sky money being giving to the rest of the league.

Presumably they'll carry out some sort of financial evaluation?

I thought Salford's new owner had put in a bid for the whole Superleague to ensure the Devils win next year - maybe we should ask him

Like the one they did on our previous management and all the other clubs, when the licences were first issued you mean?



I think that process is as devalued as Osborne's plan to revitalise the economy..

I'm sure there's a logical reason, but can anyone explain why Salford haven't had their license questioned?



Did they not officially go into Administration or something? You would think with the sanctions put in place that meant they couldn't sign players and all that, it would have meant they had their license questioned too.



Not that they should lose it, and I don't want them to. Just not sure why we got ours almost recinded, and yet Salford seem to have been allowed to carry on as normal. As I say, I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation, I just don't know it.

There is. Salford did not go into administration. So we will never know how the RFL would have reacted if they had. Much to the relief of the RFL, no doubt.

I suspected it was something like that, thanks (I confess I don't know the ins and outs of things like that).

That's true Adey, though it's far from unfair to point out that with problems for Wakey, us and the Reds, the RFL's financial review process doesn't come out as being the sort of 'robust control', many seem to assume it is.