dont know if this has been mentioned or which thread to put it so mods feel free to move it.



according to todays Daily Mirror it says that 5 SL clubs will vote against a Newco Bradford staying in SL. It needs 7 to vote against them to give them quorate although the RFL can veto any decision by the clubs.



Dont know where that leaves Bradford or SL for this season.

I thought SL clubs weren't going to vote?

They arent this week. But if a newco buys the bulls they will.. although it is down to the RFL ultimately.



Curious which 5 are against it.

Indeed.



Just as a thought: if the club exited administration via a CVA, there would not BE any Newco...

Please please please be the CVA route.

Hmmm so if we are bought we will still be Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd and there wouldnt be a vote? I saw this in the sun too.. Do they get to vote due to the fact we've entered admin?

It suggests [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/04/mike-potter-bradford-bullshere[/url that the clubs do get a vote, but that the vote wouldn't be binding:



=#0080FFThe League has arranged a meeting with the other 13 Super League clubs for Friday, but only to inform them of the current situation. The clubs would be given a vote over whether a new club should be docked points or dropped down to the Championship, although the final word rests with the RFL's board of directors, none of whom have club ties.

Guess if there was serious consideration being given to reducing the size of SL - then voting to kick out the Bulls now would take some of the pressure off the smaller, less well supported clubs who would have been more at risk if the Bulls had not got themselves into the mess.



Pulls pin and retires to safe distance: like ........................... Please complete with your own choice

No idea on the last point, but yes it COULD be the same entity. In practice, if it was me doing it I would try and ringfence the old company by keeping it active as the vehicle for the CVA, but transferring the business undertaking to a new company with a very strong security in favour of the old company to protect the creditors' interests. But that then WOULD be a Newco, in all likelihood.



You could indeed leave the existing company in place, but that would mean finding some way of removing the shareholders who were not in your camp, or inducing them to go. Whether the public damnation for stymying a viable way forward for the club would be enough to help faciltate that, in view of some of the clear hatreds between them, I really would not want to risk a guess!

Any small time club insecure about their own future in SL. I would like to think that any club who has done this in the past would not vote against us (even though the rules have now been changed) as a point of honour. But i doubt it.

Caisley voted against London being re-admitted, IIRC. It would be prudent to assume that Mr Hughes might feel entitled to return the favour?

Then it would be the same club that in 8/9 months has had huge advances/loans, sold its ground, got its fans to raise 500K, had players selling rings/medals, had directors and shareholders squabbling in the media, gone into administration, sacked loyal coaches and staff, snubbed players etc etc.



It is possible that SL clubs think removing such a club from SL is an appropriate action.



There will also be clubs targeting bulls players and keen not to pay transfer fees and maybe clubs wanting a share of the Sky money.