Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:24 pm  

What bothers me here is the RFL stating that ABC haven't provided proof of funding. As the old Chinese curse goes - we live in interesting times.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:25 pm  

One snippet from the press release:

“The position with Bradford Bulls is identical to that faced by Widnes Vikings and Wakefield Trinity Wildcats, who were taken out of administration in 2007 and 2011, respectively, by new owners without any guarantee as to which competition they would be playing in"

Some posters taking about business plans not being able to be produced because they don't know what league they are in, surely it would follow:

Plan A : Super League, Plan B : Championship, Plan C : Championship 1

There should always be a Plan B (or even Plan C) if that's not built into the business plan proposed I doubt it will be considered viable

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:32 pm  

Quote:“The position with Bradford Bulls is identical to that faced by Widnes Vikings and Wakefield Trinity Wildcats, who were taken out of administration in 2007 and 2011, respectively, by new owners without any guarantee as to which competition they would be playing in"

My only problem with that is that Widnes & WTW were taken out of administration in the off-season when funding could be tailored to which league they are in.

We are trying to come out of admin in-competition with SL wages & debts to be paid for at least 6weeks. The reason the RFL is suddenly dragging their feet re wages is that I think we have used up all the Sky money which is available to be advanced....

Other than that - yes , it is identical

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:38 pm  

The RFL might have been better advised if, instead of labouring the point about the bid being "conditional", they had described it as "incomplete".

The point about not having proof of funds might be premature. Bidders often don't provide that until they're fairly sure that an offer will be accepted. Although if the RFL have asked them to provide proof of funds and they haven't it would naturally raise concerns.

Clearly the bid is for a Super League license so any business plan, including financial forecasts would be on that basis.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:41 pm  

Highlander wrote:

Quote:“The position with Bradford Bulls is identical to that faced by Widnes Vikings and Wakefield Trinity Wildcats, who were taken out of administration in 2007 and 2011, respectively, by new owners without any guarantee as to which competition they would be playing in"

My only problem with that is that Widnes & WTW were taken out of administration in the off-season when funding could be tailored to which league they are in.

We are trying to come out of admin in-competition with SL wages & debts to be paid for at least 6weeks. The reason the RFL is suddenly dragging their feet re wages is that I think we have used up all the Sky money which is available to be advanced....

Other than that - yes , it is identical

Was there ever any suggestion that Wakefield wouldn't be allowed to compete in SL in 2011 ( the final year of their license)?. I can only remember there being uncertainty over whether they would be awarded a license for the next licensing period, which is the same situation every club is in, at least theoretically. So we aren't in same situation as Wakefield at all.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:46 pm  

"All enquirers have been informed that the RFL is only interested in receiving offers for Bradford Bulls which are free from any condition pertaining to competition membership or the re-acquisition of Odsal Stadium.
"The ABC consortium have also been informed that any unconditional offer would also have to be accompanied by a detailed business plan, the identity of all material shareholders and proposed directors and the appropriate proof that the required levels of funding are in place.
"Unfortunately the ABC consortium have been unable to supply any of the above information, leaving the RFL with no option but to deem the offer unacceptable."

So, the RFL are themselves effectively wanting to put reverse conditions on the bidders. "You must buy, without knowing what you're buying". Utterly mad. Wakey etc. may have had a bidder who wanted a club, whether in SL or not, but that was there, and this is here; we DON'T. It so happens OUR bidder ONLY wants it if it is an SL club. I can't for the life of me see why the RFL don't get that. They can't be so deluded as to think if they stick to this line, the bidders will relent and will buy "blind". Can they??

Anyhoo, that caps it off; unless either party is lying, that means end of game, so why is anyone still wasting their time? ABC definitively want what the RFL categorically will not give, so can anyone tell me WTF else there is to discuss? It is clear that ABC won't get the RFL's agreement so there is indeed no point left in their approaches. The fat lady has finally sung, and it was a funeral dirge.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:47 pm  

The Lizard wrote:

One snippet from the press release:

Some posters taking about business plans not being able to be produced because they don't know what league they are in, surely it would follow:

Plan A : Super League, Plan B : Championship, Plan C : Championship 1

There should always be a Plan B (or even Plan C) if that's not built into the business plan proposed I doubt it will be considered viable

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:50 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Anyhoo, that caps it off; unless either party is lying, that means end of game, so why is anyone still wasting their time? ABC definitively want what the RFL categorically will not give, so can anyone tell me WTF else there is to discuss? It is clear that ABC won't get the RFL's agreement so there is indeed no point left in their approaches. The fat lady has finally sung, and it was a funeral dirge.

BG now has a decision to make
As do our current "charity" workforce.
I wonder if there will be any other volunteers?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:51 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

So, the RFL are themselves effectively wanting to put reverse conditions on the bidders. "You must buy, without knowing what you're buying". Utterly mad. Wakey etc. may have had a bidder who wanted a club, whether in SL or not, but that was there, and this is here; we DON'T. It so happens OUR bidder ONLY wants it if it is an SL club. I can't for the life of me see why the RFL don't get that. They can't be so deluded as to think if they stick to this line, the bidders will relent and will buy "blind". Can they??

Anyhoo, that caps it off; unless either party is lying, that means end of game, so why is anyone still wasting their time? ABC definitively want what the RFL categorically will not give, so can anyone tell me WTF else there is to discuss? It is clear that ABC won't get the RFL's agreement so there is indeed no point left in their approaches. The fat lady has finally sung, and it was a funeral dirge.

Alternatively they do get that and that's why they are saying no? Just because the only bidder wants guaranteed SL status doesn't mean it should be given!

Tbh chances are if you are bought out of admin you'll be fine with regard staying in SL. If Bradford are liquidated that's a different story.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:54 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

The RFL might have been better advised if, instead of labouring the point about the bid being "conditional", they had described it as "incomplete".

The point about not having proof of funds might be premature. Bidders often don't provide that until they're fairly sure that an offer will be accepted. Although if the RFL have asked them to provide proof of funds and they haven't it would naturally raise concerns.

Clearly the bid is for a Super League license so any business plan, including financial forecasts would be on that basis.

Tbh the lack of disclosure of identities of potential shareholders and directors is just as big a deal breaker for rfl as the lack of business plan and proof of funding IMO. How can they accept a bid when someone banned from involvement with RL like DES Johnston could be involved?. Admittedly that an extreme example and I suspect the identities of the people refusing to be named will turn out to be names from our recent past.