Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:15 am  

[quote="Duckman]Taking these and coulbys comments at face value today am I right in thinking that these dreaded all evil "conditions" that the rfl won't even contemplate (although they have already considered them...) are actualy these;

1) Pay the RFL £1.5m, which includes a tidy profit, for the lease.
2) An agreement that we retain (not get a new one) our licence for this franchise period at be reassed along with everyone else at the next round.


If so I really can't see the problem...which I suspect is the real problem, what are we not being told? What decisions have already been made?[/quote]

Quite right from what is being detailed above you would take the offer being described as reasonable, so yes you do wonder what is being said in these darkened rooms - other than "Mr Wood can you move away from the window!"

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:16 am  

Bullnorthern wrote:

It is very difficult to find anything in Coulby's statement with which you can disagree. What he's asking for is clarity from Red Hall on what is required.
I agree with those who doubt Nigel Wood's effectiveness. To be offered a potential profit on the ground seems like a decent business deal to me , unless the payment terms were too long.
But after watching Superleague Backchat and seeing at first hand the sheer ignorance of some of the media( that sneering Rod Studd was the worst) I doubt there is enough sympathy in the game to save us. For example they were rabbitting on about how right the RL is to keep Odsal yet none of them realised it will probably be unused ,with severe restrictions on change of use and if there is a reformed club, no significant rent available from a club with few resources.
They hadn't a clue regarding the consequences of liquidation.
And these so called experts assumed we would be playing in the Championship when it's clear to me if we are not in SL we should be in C1 with Gateshead, Skolars etc. It was summed up when the hallowed Stevo said "I don't know much about this " --hear hear

I accept not a lot of sympathy for our situation (nor should they be, we've self inflicted many of these wounds!), but you would expect the RFL to be making the right decisions for the game in general, and that surely is to strike the best deal they can so they are not left with a pretty worthless asset and receiving no rent! Pragmatism should rule!

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:26 am  

Duckman wrote:

Taking these and coulbys comments at face value today am I right in thinking that these dreaded all evil "conditions" that the rfl won't even contemplate (although they have already considered them...) are actualy these;

1) Pay the RFL £1.5m, which includes a tidy profit, for the lease.
2) An agreement that we retain (not get a new one) our licence for this franchise period and be reassed along with everyone else at the next round.

If so I really can't see the problem...which I suspect is the real problem, what are we not being told? What decisions have already been made?

We don't know anything about the £1.5m "offer" though - if they are offering £1.5m straight up in cash, fair enough, if they are offering it over 5, 10 or even 20 years then it becomes much less attractive, and carries more of a risk to the RFL.

Similarly it was made clear at licence time that clubs could have their licences revoked at any time, they can't now give a guarantee that Bradford's is safe when others don't have that same security?

[Bullseye]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:31 am  

Asim wrote:

We don't know anything about the £1.5m "offer" though - if they are offering £1.5m straight up in cash, fair enough, if they are offering it over 5, 10 or even 20 years then it becomes much less attractive, and carries more of a risk to the RFL.

Just what I was thinking. I'd be amazed if the £1.5m was being offered in one lump sum.

Asim wrote:

Similarly it was made clear at licence time that clubs could have their licences revoked at any time, they can't now give a guarantee that Bradford's is safe when others don't have that same security?

I suspect some are safer than others though. If the RFL have doubts about the bidders then they'll be more reluctant to guarantee SL status.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:34 am  

Mirfield bull-- I agree entirely --that's what I would expect of the RFL . But I think the last month has revealed their limitations and perhaps their definition of what is reasonable and pragmatic is different than ours.
I don't think there is any alternative at this late stage for any bidder to going public via the media. If what is presented is a bunch of lies or half truths the League can rebut the statements. And it's not only the League which know the contents of at least the first bid-- it was circulated according to Sadler to ALL the clubs. I doubt that some of the leaders of the other franchises would be backward in coming forward to challenge ABC's claims if they are misleading.
It's over to Mr Solly and Mr Wood.

PS I look forward to seeing Rod Studd interviewing one of the current Bulls players after his comment which implied that because they were being paid they had no right to be worried and his sneering dismissal of their chances of reaching the play-offs.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:41 am  

Asim wrote:

We don't know anything about the £1.5m "offer" though - if they are offering £1.5m straight up in cash, fair enough, if they are offering it over 5, 10 or even 20 years then it becomes much less attractive, and carries more of a risk to the RFL.

Similarly it was made clear at licence time that clubs could have their licences revoked at any time, they can't now give a guarantee that Bradford's is safe when others don't have that same security?

I agree, but we can only go on what we're told, if the 1.5 is paid in stamps over a 100 years then the rfl is right to reject it. I suspect thats not the case, and rightly or wrongly this is now a matter of public record, if its wholely inaccurate to the actual deal on offer the rfl need to say so.

Licences can be removed at any time, I don't think anyone has a problem with that, I suspect the problem is if that decison has already been made already but not announced. If I was ABC I'd be asking for our current licence to be guarenteed until the next licencing round...INCLUDING the clause about removal at any time. So are we out now? If not we will have a licence until the next round by default (which could be interpretated as "guarenteed") but subject to the same rules as everyone else including removal at any time.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:44 am  

Asim wrote:

... it was made clear at licence time that clubs could have their licences revoked at any time, they can't now give a guarantee that Bradford's is safe when others don't have that same security?

This is a pure red herring. I doubt the bidders have even asked , not only for them to keep the ongoing licence, but additionally some weird requirement that it would not be revoked under any circumstances in the future whatever they do. Nobody would ask for that, nobody would grant that, and if such a ridiculous condition had been put, then even from the ROFL, we would have heard about that.

We've been plainly told they just want to know if they are keeping the SL licence. Which would be "sold as seen". They aren't asking for a better, gold-plated one. Plus, how remote are the prospects of the Bulls newco being given the remainder of the licence, and then the new club doing something so bad that it merited revocation being considered, and the ROFL actually getting round to making a decision on it within the current licence period, and the RFL being prepared to summarily execute a member despite the chaos that would cause in SL? Million to one?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:55 am  

Bullnorthern wrote:

Mirfield bull-- I agree entirely --that's what I would expect of the RFL . But I think the last month has revealed their limitations and perhaps their definition of what is reasonable and pragmatic is different than ours.
I don't think there is any alternative at this late stage for any bidder to going public via the media. If what is presented is a bunch of lies or half truths the League can rebut the statements. And it's not only the League which know the contents of at least the first bid-- it was circulated according to Sadler to ALL the clubs. I doubt that some of the leaders of the other franchises would be backward in coming forward to challenge ABC's claims if they are misleading.
It's over to Mr Solly and Mr Wood.

PS I look forward to seeing Rod Studd interviewing one of the current Bulls players after his comment which implied that because they were being paid they had no right to be worried and his sneering dismissal of their chances of reaching the play-offs.

Don't watch Backchat anymore for that very reason! So if the offer was circulated to all the clubs, very disappointed in the RFL journalist community that they can't find out what was the conditions which caused a rejection - going to 13 clubs plus the RFL plus ABC plus the administrator means a leak would be very difficult to identify - same lazy journalism as Backchat.
Agree on diffculties on reaching play offs, I think we need to win 4 out of 5 given the other fixtures and how HKR and Hudds play teams around us (including each other!)

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:23 am  

Surely Maurice Watkins is now in charge albeit on a temporary basis, certainly could mean the RFL taking a more than tougher stance than of late!

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:28 am  

Bullseye wrote:

I suspect some are safer than others though. If the RFL have doubts about the bidders then they'll be more reluctant to guarantee SL status.

Undoubtedly.

I'm amazed at how people are willing to take up the side of a mystery consortium who seem to have no intention of revealing themselves, never mind what their plans are. Going on the evidence of previous administrations I have followed I have no doubt that the RFL will have their hands tied in what they can say in public due to confidentiality clauses in the bid. If, for example, their plan to pay for the lease involves the RFL witholding portions of the SKY TV money for the next couple of years and taking that as repayment how will they finance a half-decent squad? I'm not saying that's the plan, but it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility.

At the end of the day we have no idea what the mystery consortium have asked for, or have planned - they can leak little things out through certain people which pins the blame on the RFL as it seems people are happy to unquestionably go along with it.