Re: Latest state of play posts only : Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:57 pm  

pie.warrior wrote:

how about they buy the lease for £1.25m, pay off all debts and deposit £1m with the RFL to fund the club for the next 2 years that would mean they are still Bradford Bulls and serious about Rugby League.....but they probably want to start up as a newco with no debts, pay nowt for the lease and retain all the star players and be guarantedd SL status for the next 5 years with Sky money for next year up front....

Thats the 2 extremes of what the bids could be.....LOL!!!!!!

You're right the truth probably lies between the 2. But if it's the former can we have our 6 points back please

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:00 pm  

Mirfieldbull wrote:

You're right the truth probably lies between the 2. But if it's the former can we have our 6 points back please

And the RFL couldn't possibly accept as it is a conditional offer!

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:49 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Dunno, neither do you, speculation pointless. Of course it's unusual - unique even - though the bit about "without reference" is plain wrong - neither the Bulls, nor the RFL, are run by committee, consulting member clubs or consulting shareholders would simply not be the way it works. Well yes, but just be sure you aren't blaming the previous management for that, liabilities and income going forward is in the hands of the incoming management, if they couldn't think of a viable plan then fair enough but starting pretty much from scratch, that's down to them. I tend to think slightly different, I've no doubt that the basic premise (they couldn't figure a way to make the numbers work) is right; but IMHO the numbers could be made to work for a new owner who wasn't looking to make a pile of money, but no investor who wanted to make a reasonable return on investment would invest. In your opinion, but with respect you don't know. You don't have the details of what went on with the RFL or how it worked (no-one does). And the point you miss is that I'll grant the situation is much worse now than then, but teh situation is NOT much worse than the day before we went into administration. It was better, because we had done a deal with the RFL that had helped keep us going. Hood didn't put us into administration. You think we would have gone tits anyway, but I'd have rather taken our chances with the old Board and whatever potential 'investors' they were talking to, than what actually happened. Would that have been any better? We can't ever know. But it couldn't have been worse. I have no idea what the RFL did. For all we know maybe they did this. But any view on the club from accountants is whatever the person briefing and paying them told them they want it to be. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, unless the full details ever emerge we won't ever know (like much of the stuff that has gone on). It would be fascinating to have chapter and verse but in terms of point, I don't think there is one. It's not pure speculation. It's the key to the entire story. Fans from a range of clubs are on here and VT saying they weren't lent money by the RFL in similar circumstances. Blake Solly appears to make the precise same point here. http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... h_cash___/ He states 'we're not a bank'. And yet they gave Peter Hood 700k? In the normal course of events I take your point about 'without reference' but this is evidently an extraordinary event which later would lead to an extraordinary purchase and a bizarre cover story. Be clear, I am blaming the previous management but you, I and others have done this to death. On the other points I realise we 'don't know'. My position is we don't know because the information has been withheld and what we do know doesn't add up. Given what is a bizarre sequence of events I don't think this sustainable.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Dunno, neither do you, speculation pointless. Of course it's unusual - unique even - though the bit about "without reference" is plain wrong - neither the Bulls, nor the RFL, are run by committee, consulting member clubs or consulting shareholders would simply not be the way it works. Well yes, but just be sure you aren't blaming the previous management for that, liabilities and income going forward is in the hands of the incoming management, if they couldn't think of a viable plan then fair enough but starting pretty much from scratch, that's down to them. I tend to think slightly different, I've no doubt that the basic premise (they couldn't figure a way to make the numbers work) is right; but IMHO the numbers could be made to work for a new owner who wasn't looking to make a pile of money, but no investor who wanted to make a reasonable return on investment would invest. In your opinion, but with respect you don't know. You don't have the details of what went on with the RFL or how it worked (no-one does). And the point you miss is that I'll grant the situation is much worse now than then, but teh situation is NOT much worse than the day before we went into administration. It was better, because we had done a deal with the RFL that had helped keep us going. Hood didn't put us into administration. You think we would have gone tits anyway, but I'd have rather taken our chances with the old Board and whatever potential 'investors' they were talking to, than what actually happened. Would that have been any better? We can't ever know. But it couldn't have been worse. I have no idea what the RFL did. For all we know maybe they did this. But any view on the club from accountants is whatever the person briefing and paying them told them they want it to be. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, unless the full details ever emerge we won't ever know (like much of the stuff that has gone on). It would be fascinating to have chapter and verse but in terms of point, I don't think there is one. It's not pure speculation. It's the key to the entire story. Fans from a range of clubs are on here and VT saying they weren't lent money by the RFL in similar circumstances. Blake Solly appears to make the precise same point here. http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... h_cash___/ He states 'we're not a bank'. And yet they gave Peter Hood 700k? In the normal course of events I take your point about 'without reference' but this is evidently an extraordinary event which later would lead to an extraordinary purchase and a bizarre cover story. Be clear, I am blaming the previous management but you, I and others have done this to death. On the other points I realise we 'don't know'. My position is we don't know because the information has been withheld and what we do know doesn't add up. Given what is a bizarre sequence of events I don't think this sustainable.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:05 pm  

M@islebugs wrote:

On the other points I realise we 'don't know'. My position is we don't know because the information has been withheld and what we do know doesn't add up. Given what is a bizarre sequence of events I don't think this sustainable.

The amazing thing about all this is just how easy a ride the RFL got from the other clubs. Sure, there have been plenty of fans complaining about the apparent unfair treatment given to the Bulls, But very little from the clubs over what, on the face of it, appears to have been a massive breakdown in governance.

Which I suppose probably does mean there's a lot more to it than we've been told.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:28 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

The amazing thing about all this is just how easy a ride the RFL got from the other clubs. Sure, there have been plenty of fans complaining about the apparent unfair treatment given to the Bulls, But very little from the clubs over what, on the face of it, appears to have been a massive breakdown in governance.

Which I suppose probably does mean there's a lot more to it than we've been told.

I am very sure of it. I have long suspected the RFL, and probably the majority of the clubs, of knowing what they were doing regarding the present crisis, and of having objectives for outcomes. But, as they say, time will tell.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:36 am  

Well at last there are voices in the paper shedding a little light onto the matter.. like a bus, nothing for ages, then 2 come at once! http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... on=success http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... lls_sale_/ Maybe now the RFL will have to say something?? They keep going on about conditional offers, but it doesn't even need to be conditional, the RFL can make their mind up NOW whether we will be allowed to continue in SL until the end of the franchise. Except they can't, because they seem to be as inept as they always have been in most aspects. How many clubs will fall by the wayside before they realise? Or do they want to go back to being an even smaller sport than we are now? Other SL clubs are struggling, eventually the big money backers at Hull, Warrington, Wigan, London will either move on or die off and we'll be left with a Super League of just Leeds.

Well at last there are voices in the paper shedding a little light onto the matter.. like a bus, nothing for ages, then 2 come at once! http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... on=success http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... lls_sale_/ Maybe now the RFL will have to say something?? They keep going on about conditional offers, but it doesn't even need to be conditional, the RFL can make their mind up NOW whether we will be allowed to continue in SL until the end of the franchise. Except they can't, because they seem to be as inept as they always have been in most aspects. How many clubs will fall by the wayside before they realise? Or do they want to go back to being an even smaller sport than we are now? Other SL clubs are struggling, eventually the big money backers at Hull, Warrington, Wigan, London will either move on or die off and we'll be left with a Super League of just Leeds.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:47 am  

VanGinger wrote: Well at last there are voices in the paper shedding a little light onto the matter.. like a bus, nothing for ages, then 2 come at once! http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... on=success http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... lls_sale_/ Maybe now the RFL will have to say something?? They keep going on about conditional offers, but it doesn't even need to be conditional, the RFL can make their mind up NOW whether we will be allowed to continue in SL until the end of the franchise. Except they can't, because they seem to be as inept as they always have been in most aspects. How many clubs will fall by the wayside before they realise? Or do they want to go back to being an even smaller sport than we are now? Other SL clubs are struggling, eventually the big money backers at Hull, Warrington, Wigan, London will either move on or die off and we'll be left with a Super League of just Leeds. One of those reports clearly states that ABC are willing to pay £1.5 million for the ground - which actually gives the RFL a profit. So why on earth don't they grab their hand off? And as the Coulby's question about whether we can stay in SL, well, he's hitting that nail on the head. Just make a decision RFL, you've had three weeks to decide if we can keep the license already granted! This is becoming more and more obvious that that the RFL intend to see us stagger through to the end of the season, then dump us into the Championship

VanGinger wrote: Well at last there are voices in the paper shedding a little light onto the matter.. like a bus, nothing for ages, then 2 come at once! http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... on=success http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... lls_sale_/ Maybe now the RFL will have to say something?? They keep going on about conditional offers, but it doesn't even need to be conditional, the RFL can make their mind up NOW whether we will be allowed to continue in SL until the end of the franchise. Except they can't, because they seem to be as inept as they always have been in most aspects. How many clubs will fall by the wayside before they realise? Or do they want to go back to being an even smaller sport than we are now? Other SL clubs are struggling, eventually the big money backers at Hull, Warrington, Wigan, London will either move on or die off and we'll be left with a Super League of just Leeds. One of those reports clearly states that ABC are willing to pay £1.5 million for the ground - which actually gives the RFL a profit. So why on earth don't they grab their hand off? And as the Coulby's question about whether we can stay in SL, well, he's hitting that nail on the head. Just make a decision RFL, you've had three weeks to decide if we can keep the license already granted! This is becoming more and more obvious that that the RFL intend to see us stagger through to the end of the season, then dump us into the Championship

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:54 am  

I know it's the TandA but this does just not add up anymore. The consortium are offering £1.5million for the lease. More than the RFL paid for it. And they won't accept it? WTF is going on?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:00 am  

£1.25 million + VAT?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:01 am  

debaser wrote:

I know it's the TandA but this does just not add up anymore. The consortium are offering £1.5million for the lease. More than the RFL paid for it. And they won't accept it? WTF is going on?

After banging on about information at least we have something, and hopefully the RFL will respond saying what they find unacceptable about these conditional offers. I guess they will be period of time to pay £1.5m - if over 20 years not attractive - but if cash - well....., and the period of guarantee for the license. One thing - strange coincidence ABC break their silence and a member of Caisley's team adds to the pressure the same day!