Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:43 pm  

also sick of the comparisons

HULL KR - 3.5 years in admin raising money for years to stay afloat from fans... hmm there calling for our crucifixion

wakey - god forbid anything happens differently to the shouder chip extraordonaire's. They had 1 year of a license left not three and for us lay people who do not work in rfl there was no guarentee they would be kept in if crusaders did not pull out.

Widnes - only ones who seem not to be judging, they were in championship stayed in championship have had a lot of money from owners and now have a franchise.

I begrudged none of these anything at the time but it is difficult like some of the opposition fans have stated with our attitudes to not become dissillusioned with the rugby family's more inconsiderate bunch.

We dont want any special favours we the hard done by fans were not involved with these financial mistakes other than face value suggestions they were ok. We just want to survive and when rlf prior to today say nothing other than they will not negotiate we do want clarity.

Re: Fans Meeting at City Hall - Mon 7pm : Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:41 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Obviously it's going to be a protracted period of negotiations between now and the end of the season then.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the ABC Consortium had copied in the other SL clubs to their offer. That can't be right surely? To mangle your analogy that'd be like writing down your chess moves and copying them to the other players.

If it's a game of poker between the RFL and potential buyers it's a shame the administrator decided to make the coaching/backroom staff redundant immediately. That to me seemed like a mistake given the lengthy period of negotiation with a team of players but no staff. I'm not sure what message he was intending to send with that one.

I think once Potter and staff depart that will do more to foster a feeling of "being doomed". However while he and the team continue to perform against all the odds there'll be more energy than ever behind them. If anything the energy on the terraces has been all the greater since this all began. Hopefully this mess won't result in that spirit being lost, because if that happens all those mixed up in this can hang their heads in shame.

I would doubt any other clubs will have been copied in to any consortium bid in its initial submission. RFL protocol/agreement may however forward key elements therein that could affect member clubs, without the strategic business elements attached (as you point out, chess moves etc).

My core concern would be the presence of two key SL member clubs being primary movers in trying to ensure we don't remain in Super League; for the sake of argument, let's say Huddersfield and St Helen's. Indeed such clubs may well wish to see us complete our fixtures and fulfill the 2012 calendar obligations with an immediate penalty of relegation post season. The RFL may feel suitably pressured by this, especially given the influence of Chairman (let's hypothetically suggest Davy and McManus) in their summary of the consortium bids.

Obviously all speculation and both those clubs would never dream of that.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:08 pm  

domthebull wrote:

also sick of the comparisons

HULL KR - 3.5 years in admin raising money for years to stay afloat from fans... hmm there calling for our crucifixion

wakey - god forbid anything happens differently to the shouder chip extraordonaire's. They had 1 year of a license left not three and for us lay people who do not work in rfl there was no guarentee they would be kept in if crusaders did not pull out.

Widnes - only ones who seem not to be judging, they were in championship stayed in championship have had a lot of money from owners and now have a franchise.

I begrudged none of these anything at the time but it is difficult like some of the opposition fans have stated with our attitudes to not become dissillusioned with the rugby family's more inconsiderate bunch.

We dont want any special favours we the hard done by fans were not involved with these financial mistakes other than face value suggestions they were ok. We just want to survive and when rlf prior to today say nothing other than they will not negotiate we do want clarity.

Well said that man.

Widnes have conducted themselves impeccably since they entered SL and kudos to them for board level to playing level.

Wakefield I thoroughly applaud for getting to the situation they are in now; the irony being some of the selective resonance for their plight and acceptance for a 3 year licensing period when they were essentially, out.

Hull KR have also performed admirably to rise from the position they were in. I will ignore the hang em high attitude of some sections of the fanbase.

I hope those fans and clubs who are looking to enforce a Bulls demotion are equally happy to absorb the consequences of diminished revenue for their club and equally, will find pleasure in SL losing a member club that has done more to raise the profile of the competition than the sum total of most other clubs.

Sadly Rugby League has suffered for years from dumbing-down syndrome and lowest common denominator approach to many elements of our sport. It's a genuine pity.

Re: Fans Meeting at City Hall - Mon 7pm : Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:18 pm  

And yet, by am amazing coincidence, had I been one to, er, speculate, I would have used as, er, hypothetical examples precisely the same clubs.

What an amazing thing.

Re: Fans Meeting at City Hall - Mon 7pm : Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:58 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

And yet, by am amazing coincidence, had I been one to, er, speculate, I would have used as, er, hypothetical examples precisely the same clubs.

What an amazing thing.

I think you have this the wrong way round.

There have also been "key SL clubs" in (let's say) Leeds and Warrington who have clearly shown their hand in wanting the Bulls to stay in SL.

Tempting as it may be to read all this in terms of politics or blocs or conspiracy, it's more likely that the actual, objective, viability of any bid going forward is more important than the prejudice of any partial voice. And that's why you're in trouble *despite* some powerful voices wanting you to survive.

Re: Fans Meeting at City Hall - Mon 7pm : Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:09 am  

Gurus_Beard wrote:

I would doubt any other clubs will have been copied in to any consortium bid in its initial submission. RFL protocol/agreement may however forward key elements therein that could affect member clubs, without the strategic business elements attached (as you point out, chess moves etc).

My core concern would be the presence of two key SL member clubs being primary movers in trying to ensure we don't remain in Super League; for the sake of argument, let's say Huddersfield and St Helen's. Indeed such clubs may well wish to see us complete our fixtures and fulfill the 2012 calendar obligations with an immediate penalty of relegation post season. The RFL may feel suitably pressured by this, especially given the influence of Chairman (let's hypothetically suggest Davy and McManus) in their summary of the consortium bids.

Obviously all speculation and both those clubs would never dream of that.

Comedy gold. The idea that McManus will bend Lenagan and Moran to his will is laughable. Moreso that Davy coerces Hetherington, Pearson, Hudgell and Glover to do something they actually oppose. then on top of this Wood Watkins Stott and Morrow are also bounced by the fearsome McManus - Davy axis. Such a sugestion is SLE for dummies.

The core concern maybe should be that the overwhelming majority of SL clubs believe the Bulls should not be allowed into SL in 2013 AND no SL clubs actively oppose this position (even clubs who have publicly supported the bulls ). This gives the RFL executive the confidence to reject spurious offers.

As a giants fan I wish Davy had the entire sport wrapped around his little finger...but lets get real

Re: Fans Meeting at City Hall - Mon 7pm : Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:24 am  

I never knew Saints had so much power that we have a chairman who can eject another club with only the backing of one other chairman.

If Bradford are voted out, it will have to be a majority or even unanimous decision as a 50/50 split would not be enough and even 7/5 would still allow the RFL to veto any decision.

once it gets to numbers like 8/4 with one of those 4 being bradford, assuming they still get a vote? Then it's harder for the RFL to veto.

So who may vote against the bulls???

Saints - It has been stated that the boss wants a smaller league
Hull KR - has made similar noises
Warrington - possible as TS has wanted more competitive matches but not heard the money man say much
London - ??? But did bradford vote to throw them out??
Widnes - not likely given the donations
Cas/Wakey/Salford - could vote for bradford to try and help themselves for the next round and get more money in the mean time.
Hull/Wigan/Catalan/Leeds - Not sure but would imagine they would vote to keep bradford
Bradford - would vote themselves in
Huddersfield - Well you seam to think against


So could be anything from 6 to 7 against, but that would not be enough unless the RFL backed one view over another.


In the end though any vote is just a poll and not binding to the RFL.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:48 am  

domthebull wrote:

rumours were already rife that abc were to put a third bid in this year on monday?

Second party was to announce a formal bid has been placed........
And Paul a hull KR fan suggesting liquidation in a speedy process after one of your own fans mentions your 3.5 years in admin is slightly rich?

Not at all. Rovers entered into an agreement with its creditors (CVA), but from what I have read the Bulls OR had this route closed early doors by the preferential creditor - the tax man. Rovers didn't have this pressure, if it had then liquidation would have happened without a shadow of doubt.


The last thing I want to see is the Bulls going into liquidation or suffering from a period of administration. I sent the appeal fund fifty quid so don't be directing your frustration and anger my way (or other clubs supporters way).

The current problem is the false hope raised by a consortium who appear to have an agenda of their own. I ask this; why submit offers to the OR/RFL with conditions when it was made clear from the off conditional offers would be rejected? Both bids were doomed from the off. It is not the RFLs fault or the ORs, the fault lies with ABC.

The situation is dire and the reality is stark. If there are no unconditional bids on the table I cannot see how the OR can contemplate carrying on. The Bulls creditors will be aware of the latest developments and I fully expect the tax man to apply for a winding-up order now.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:52 am  

Mirfieldbull wrote:

No problem, easily confused!
His plan B was championship for 2012 though correct?

Yep The RFL allowed the club to fulfill its fixtures that season, trouble was of course we lost our best players and prior to with all the uncertainty aroind the license we could not attract quality players, all that now seems to be in the past since AG came in with his business acumen

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Aug 02, 2012 6:20 am  

Adeybull wrote:

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

If we DID we woiuld not be in this mess.

Do you think one might appear though if you go into liquidation, because a new Championship club can play out of Odsal, with rent agreed with the RFL, building from the Championship? No need to compete with people throwing huge sums of money because of a desire to get their hands on Odsal. They can just rebuild a rugby club, not establish a property empire cum community hub. I can't see there would not be someone willing to do that.

As for 2014 assurances, it would be unlawful for the RFL to do that. As an administrative body, they can't invite tenders (which is what they are) to run a franchise but have it pre-determined that one of them is definitely in. If that is the assurance they want, then ABC are asking for something as a condition that they can never have. No club can have an assurance. If it is, however, just an assurance that they can continue with the franchise until then, I wonder why the RFL don't get a vote sorted to determine that one issue. Unless it is the "all or nothing" basis that they are worried about, as I assume they want someone to run the club through the thick, not just the thin.