Its pretty straightforward how our score is made up and to give the RFL some credit the finance part for the scoring isn't that complicated.

With us scoring 0.55 points that means we have scored 0.3 points for having between 50 and 70% non cenralised turnover on the average of the last 3 years. The higher percentage you have for this the less reliant you are on the central funding. Again because of the scoring we know that Bradford and Fev both scored the maximum 0.75 points for this.

The other 0.25 we presume has to from the adjusted profit as you get those points as long as you are not running at an average loss of over 1m for the previous 2 years and there is just no way a club of our size could run at that sort of loss. So we can be pretty certain that is how our points are made up.

So for the other sections we miss out on having turnover of over 500k before central funding. I doubt we are anywhere near on this but Bradford should be over it and fev maybe close on this with their crowds. Without either a big uprise in crowds or some major sponsorship we aint scoring.

Next up we have owner investment and anything over 100k on the 3 year average scores 0.25. This one should be the easiest one for us to get points on as long as the new owners fulfill promises that they have seemingly made.

Last one is balance sheet strength where anything over £1 will gain you 0.25 points. It not unusual for sports teams to have negative balance sheets so this really does not tell us much but when taken in to context with the rest of the gradings for the finance section its easy to see why there may be concerns.

Fevs score you can pretty much work out how they have scored but Bradford's score is almost unbelievable for them to score 2.75 points. there is no way that they have a turnover of over 1.25m so they have to fall in to the over 500k region for 0.5 points. We already know they score full on the % variation of that to take them to 1.25 points. Now that means they then have to score full points on the remaining sections which I would be amazed at. They have to have shown a profit of over £1 over the average of 3 years, do we think that has happened? They need owner investment of over 500K in 2 of those 3 seasons as well. This could be possible as its a huge money pit and someone has pumped some cash in to them this season but has it been the same in previous seasons? And the last one they score maximum points on is having a balance sheet of over 100k, I mean really?

I would be amazed if Bradford's score is anywhere near this when things are audited next season.

Fully accepted but there is no way on earth we should have voted to accept the IMG recommendations. A protest vote would at least have shown some contempt for what is happening. P.S. how the hell do Bradford score so highly on finances? It's unbelievable!

For me we should have gone down the Batley route in pushing for winner of our league getting promoted and bottom team relegated as long as both were B grades.

But yeah on Bradford, I know they look like they are pretty close to been in the mix for promotion but I think when push comes to shove and things are investigated this coming season, they have very little wiggle room and are somewhere near the limit of what they can acheive and I would not be surprised if their score reduced rather than increased. Their accounts at companies house make interesting reading, for instance they do actually have a lot of money in the bank but it seems that is as a result of a large loan and I wonder how the RFL will take thins like that in to account as its clear their debts are rising and their money is dropping.

It is crystal clear what is happening regarding Bradford, you only need to look at their published attendances against Fax and the amount of people who actually attended those games. If they can lie, and be believed apparently, about something which is there all to see, how can they be believed about things we can't see?

Ultimately everything IMG are proposing is bol**ks. As all the other licensing ideas were. If a team performs well over a period of time and seasons and do well in their league or get promoted to the next league up more people come and watch which creates more revenue through the gates, sponsorships etc. fans,sponsors, and I believe, players want this. No one really gives a stuff if there isn’t an electronic score board. If your team is putting points on a chalkboard we’re happy because they are winning. In 10 years or whatever it’s when IMG and the RFL have screwed our game up even more we will go back to promotion and relegation given on merit of the best and worse teams of each league.

How long til they go bust again? No sympathy whatsoever...

On this occasion you can't really blame them, Im sure if someone went to the Fax board and said here is a couple of million then we wouldnt turn them away. They are clearly an unsustainable business though and if their investor pulls out it will be rinse and repeat for them looking at their accounts.

‘Broncos chairman thoughts on IMG facing the reality of relegation before the season has begun. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/68082370

‘Broncos chairman thoughts on IMG facing the reality of relegation before the season has begun. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/68082370

the fax in asia wrote:‘Broncos chairman thoughts on IMG facing the reality of relegation before the season has begun. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/68082370 Didn't he/London vote for the IMG proposals?

the fax in asia wrote:‘Broncos chairman thoughts on IMG facing the reality of relegation before the season has begun. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/68082370 Didn't he/London vote for the IMG proposals?

@ Hudds Shay
Very probably like a turkey at Christmas