Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:10 pm  

Looks like the players agents are gonna be busy...isn't CC one of those.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:14 pm  

Just some points for accuracy:-

Wakefield came out of administration after the season had begun, not before as alluded to by Highlander.

Glover had no assurances for forthcoming seasons as to which league the club would be in. He prepared business plans based on whether they would be in Super League or in a lower league. As mentioned above, business plans should cover a range of scenarios not just scenario A (every decent business person knows this).

Whilst the previous management team of Bradford were awarded a 3 year licence, there is nothing to suggest what the ABC team propose as a business plan. Wakefield saw out their season when they came out of administration then applied for a licence. (The fact it was also the 3 year licence re-application period is coincidental.)

I have no issue at all if Bradford are bought out then re-apply for their licence for 2013 onwards. That is the same as the situation with Wakefield.

Remember the old Bradford management got the licence not the hypothetical new management.

If ABC can't put together a business plan, disclose their directors and funding plus listen to RFL "no conditions attached" then they sound very suspect to me. Glover had to go through a fit and proper persons assessment before he was allowed to buy Wakefield. How can the RFL deem ABC fit and proper if the directors are not disclosed.

If the MP's lead bid is more transparent and adheres to no conditions then I suspect that is a better option.

Arguments aside, best of luck over the next few days/weeks/months. You fans have suffered enough. Rugby League will always be present in Bradford no matter what. If the worst happens, I have every faith the phoenix from the flames will rise and you will be a force once again.

[Bulliac]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:21 pm  

mat wrote:

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.

Didn't Stephen Coulby say they were all "new to RL" with no possibility of any blame for the past being attached, or something very close to that? I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a bit of spin, but surely that pretty directly rules out any former directors or shareholders?

Incidentally, I feel the idea of providing three separate detailed business plans is ludicrous, though he whole charade has taken so long they've certainly had the time...

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:24 pm  

Can't help but think this guy Solly Blake at the RFL has painted himself into a corner here. This issue will be resolved by negotiating surely. By playing hardball he has left himself no wriggle room. If negotiating doesn't do it then there really is no where to go. Both offers and the one from Sutcliffe have conditions to them. The alternative is liquidation, and probably very soon now, leaving the RFL with a big hole in the ground and no revenue from it for a number of years.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:31 pm  

wildshot wrote:

Just some points for accuracy:-
As mentioned above, business plans should cover a range of scenarios not just scenario A (every decent business person knows this).
...

Eh? So if I was the bidder, and made it crystal that I ONLY want a SL club, and am not interested in running a Championship side, perhaps you can explain to me why on earth I would prepare an alternative business plan for something I am not under any circumstances going to do?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:34 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Eh? So if I was the bidder, and made it crystal that I ONLY want a SL club, and am not interested in running a Championship side, perhaps you can explain to me why on earth I would prepare an alternative business plan for something I am not under any circumstances going to do?

So, you want to buy it on condition of being in SL. No.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:36 pm  

The RFL statement suggests no detailed business plan has been submitted at all.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:40 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Eh? So if I was the bidder, and made it crystal that I ONLY want a SL club, and am not interested in running a Championship side, perhaps you can explain to me why on earth I would prepare an alternative business plan for something I am not under any circumstances going to do?

then it would indicate to me that the bidder is not a true RL fan, just a businessman looking to make a fast buck - I wouldn't touch that sort of bidder, not if I had the interests of my club at heart

what happens if the consortium is given the nod and run the business to end of the franchise period, get the new franchise refused by the RFL and drop down a division or two ?
that means by inference they would pull out of the club leaving it high and dry...

sounds all very tenous to me - too many 'ifs' and 'buts'

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:41 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Eh? So if I was the bidder, and made it crystal that I ONLY want a SL club, and am not interested in running a Championship side, perhaps you can explain to me why on earth I would prepare an alternative business plan for something I am not under any circumstances going to do?

Bang on, it’s pointless.

However, if you had your original bid rejected & it was pointed out why, would you leave in the same stipulations at the second attempt?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:43 pm  

sanjunien wrote:

then it would indicate to me that the bidder is not a true RL fan, just a businessman looking to make a fast buck - I wouldn't touch that sort of bidder, not if I had the interests of my club at heart

I agree. We don't want people to run clubs as a business we want more moneyed 'fans' pumping money in and underwriting huge losses.

For the sustainability of the sport and that.