Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:47 pm  

mat wrote:

Yes he had two plans, one for SL and one for license loss AT END OF LICENSE PERIOD. That's point I'm making! It was never suggested that you wouldnt be allowed to complete your existing license. Fact you came put of admin a week into season is immaterial, there was never any doubt about you starting season in SL provided you were bought.

Yes and we were bought had it been like this saga we wouldnt whats the difference your clutching at issues that dont exist

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:59 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

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...

Nope you adding the important 'all' bit onto what he said. He actually said

“These people (ABC) are new to the sport, and without any doubt are totally blameless for the present state of the business

you COULD read it as the entire consortium is new to the sport but I dont think it categorically rules out former directors. Think theres definitely an element of spin in the statement.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:03 pm  

REDWHITEANDBLUE wrote:

Yes and we were bought had it been like this saga we wouldnt whats the difference your clutching at issues that dont exist

Not at all. Just disputing the RFLs statement that were in the same situation as wakefield as we plainly aren't.You were bought and allowed to finish the current license period and there was never any doubt that that was the situation you were in. When Glover bought you he knew you were going to be in SL for the 2011 season and would have to apply for your next license along with everyone else. RFL is refusing to tell groups trying to buy us whether we are going to be allowed to complete our license or not.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:06 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The final "no" is plainly wrong, though. If they didn't, why would they be wasting time effort and money? Just how keen remains to be seen but in principle that is a "yes" not a "no".

Next, in the world of corporate law, negotiations which involve more than one party are hardly unusual. You talk to one party, agree something in principle, then talk to the other, agree something in principle with them, and then the lawyers write the magic words so all the agreements are given effect at the same time. So nobody is sold a pup, they all know what they are getting.

The thing which has caused most confusion is the ROFL's use of the phrase "we will not accept conditional offers".
(1) as regards the Bulls SL licence, it isn't an offer for the ROFL to accept or reject. It's a question. (Whether they are prepared to accept the buyers and their plan is of course a different matter, but even then, that would be more like "approve the bid/bidder" than "accept an offer".
(2) as regards the lease, that is a matter entirely between the bidders and the ROFL, who will (presumably) have had a direct offer (subject of course to all deals being signed simultaneously). The RFL need only respond whether they would, or would not, sell the lease, on those terms, or at all. So it can never be a "conditional offer" from the POV of the RFL. It's an offer, of a purely one-off nature, for a purely one-off deal. Take it, leave it, or negotiate it.

That's a fair way of putting it, and I think you're right about the "conditional offer" bit, when they really mean those items can't be part of the negotiations as they can't guarantee either. If, however, ABC are saying they can only offer if there is a yes to both, then I suppose it is sort of conditional. "We will make an offer if these two conditions are met". RFL say, "we can't give a yes to either condition". Its wordings and semantics.

Wouldn't you be better off with an O'Connor or Glover who is prepared to build from the Championship, rather than the Death or Glory ABC lot?

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:09 pm  

mousey9 wrote:

game over for bradford

Banned from forum

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:20 pm  

REDWHITEANDBLUE wrote:

Wrong there was loads of uncertainty when they went into Admin there was no buyer like yourselves but our buyer had two plans one forSL and the other for license loss that was expected in the round of licenses. What he did though was put all his effort into retaining the license and some will say we stayed because of the Crus demise. The other bidder for Wakefield is like yours that one wanted assurances for SL prior to the licenses being awarded HTH

And you know the proposed buyer wanted assurances around the next round of licenses, source please. I expect mr. Guilfoyle wil go back to Football, at least there is a single penalty to apply if he sells the club - in this it is unattractive unless you are a fan purchaser as there might be a license you might be able to apply for, but no set rules, all at the discretion of the RFL

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:23 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

That's a fair way of putting it, and I think you're right about the "conditional offer" bit, when they really mean those items can't be part of the negotiations as they can't guarantee either. If, however, ABC are saying they can only offer if there is a yes to both, then I suppose it is sort of conditional. "We will make an offer if these two conditions are met". RFL say, "we can't give a yes to either condition". Its wordings and semantics.

Wouldn't you be better off with an O'Connor or Glover who is prepared to build from the Championship, rather than the Death or Glory ABC lot?

Don't disagree we might be better with an O'Conner or Glover, but being part of the Championship is a condition and they are not allowed!

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:27 pm  

We don't bloody well HAVE an O'Connor or a Glover.

If we DID we woiuld not be in this mess.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:30 pm  

Thought Brian Carney made some very good points about the Crusaders administration situation. Did the RFL have the same restrictions for them...

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:34 pm  

mat wrote:

Not at all. Just disputing the RFLs statement that were in the same situation as wakefield as we plainly aren't.You were bought and allowed to finish the current license period and there was never any doubt that that was the situation you were in. When Glover bought you he knew you were going to be in SL for the 2011 season and would have to apply for your next license along with everyone else. RFL is refusing to tell groups trying to buy us whether we are going to be allowed to complete our license or not.

When Glover took over he had to produce evidence that the funds were there to support a top flight club and a suitable business plan was in place for the 2011 season. If he hadn't done that then the club would have had its superleague licence revoked there and then. Once he did we got the ok to complete the licence. Going by the RFL's statement ABC haven't done this yet so no assurances can be given. If they do maybe that position will change.