Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:16 am  

Cibaman wrote: At he beginning of February I was told by someone close to the club that everything would be hunky dory, including much of the stuff that they've claimed to be the RFL's position after the 23 Jan meeting. I'm sure that he genuinely believed this to be the RFL's position at that time and think its very likely that that was the view of the club. It would seem that, either Moore & Co completely misread the signals given by the RFL, or that the RFL's position changed radically. Perhaps after further dialogue internally or with HMRC. Which would make the anger understandable. Either way its difficult to see why or how the other parties involved in talks with the RFL are going to come up with a more acceptable package to the RFL now, when they couldn't or wouldnt do that during the 28 day period. Beg to differ, but you kept the Sky money and were docked 4 points. Don't believe me, read the administrators report here. http://www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadw ... istration/ I agree we've brought much of this on ourselves, but does our punishment fit the crime? If so what was different about your crime?

Cibaman wrote: At he beginning of February I was told by someone close to the club that everything would be hunky dory, including much of the stuff that they've claimed to be the RFL's position after the 23 Jan meeting. I'm sure that he genuinely believed this to be the RFL's position at that time and think its very likely that that was the view of the club. It would seem that, either Moore & Co completely misread the signals given by the RFL, or that the RFL's position changed radically. Perhaps after further dialogue internally or with HMRC. Which would make the anger understandable. Either way its difficult to see why or how the other parties involved in talks with the RFL are going to come up with a more acceptable package to the RFL now, when they couldn't or wouldnt do that during the 28 day period. Beg to differ, but you kept the Sky money and were docked 4 points. Don't believe me, read the administrators report here. http://www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadw ... istration/ I agree we've brought much of this on ourselves, but does our punishment fit the crime? If so what was different about your crime?

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 8:13 am  

Mirfieldbull wrote: Beg to differ, but you kept the Sky money and were docked 4 points. Don't believe me, read the administrators report here. http://www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadw ... istration/ I agree we've brought much of this on ourselves, but does our punishment fit the crime? If so what was different about your crime? Think you will find that the poster is on about the seasons 1999 & 2000 when Wakefield entered the Super League, they did not receive central funding from superleague for those first 2 seasons......and there was P & R then.... http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 87453.html

Mirfieldbull wrote: Beg to differ, but you kept the Sky money and were docked 4 points. Don't believe me, read the administrators report here. http://www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadw ... istration/ I agree we've brought much of this on ourselves, but does our punishment fit the crime? If so what was different about your crime? Think you will find that the poster is on about the seasons 1999 & 2000 when Wakefield entered the Super League, they did not receive central funding from superleague for those first 2 seasons......and there was P & R then.... http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 87453.html

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:01 am  

Notwithstanding any potential misleading that may or may not have occurred by the RFL or any other party, the cynic in me still questions how the BB2014 setup perceived that their super duper business plan was so fantastic that they would not offer up any of their own brass to support it, yet expected the RFL to advance funds to them to support a plan that would, at best (assuming the cash flow projections were accurate and targets hit) make a £100k loss in year 1.

Or am I missing something here? I'd love to see the proof of funding presented to the administrator to support the offer made for the club to see what was being offered in terms of actual cash.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:34 am  

I think the answer to that is "very little or nothing at all".

I'm afraid without any serious cash to inject any takeover is pretty much doomed. You're effectively starting a new business with zero capital whilst trying to meet some of the obligations of the old company. Folly, absolute folly.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:48 am  

I think "folly" is a bit strong. If just for the purposes of this conversation we make an assumption that the new owners were decent enough business men to the extent that they knew what they were doing, then read this;

By Thursday February 20th, the day before the RFL board decided their penalties, and with progress being made on a range of both cost cutting and new sponsorship deals, they had updated that projection to just a £100,000 shortfall for 2014.

... the result is a 100K shortfall for 2014 which - if we rashly assume normal distribution monies in 2015 - turns into a surplus; albeit a surplus unless you try to start to rebuild the squad with some more players to start to fill some of the huge holes that 2014 left.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:50 am  

gutterfax wrote:

Bradford Bills......the team that keeps on giving!

gutterfax ..... the troll that keeps on trolling

Thanks for this btw, your intelligent and thoughtful analysis adds so much. Not.

Would be nice if we could have one... just ONE... thread where, on our own forum, Bulls fans could discuss one subject without witless attempts at thread deflection.

[Bullseye]

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:13 am  

How many of the sponsorship deals are still valid now we’re in admin? The Uni have pulled out of their deal, it wasn’t for much money but it was better than nothing I suppose.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:14 am  

Damn. There goes needling people for free hospitality.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:46 am  

On February 7th they presented the RFL with a business plan which showed them requiring a £500,000 advance on next year’s tv money in order to get through this season.
By Thursday February 20th, the day before the RFL board decided their penalties, and with progress being made on a range of both cost cutting and new sponsorship deals, they had updated that projection to just a £100,000 shortfall for 2014.

£400,000 is a serious amount of money to find in 2 weeks, unless you include the £300,000 Sky windfall which was muted at that time, I guess.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:52 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I think "folly" is a bit strong. If just for the purposes of this conversation we make an assumption that the new owners were decent enough business men to the extent that they knew what they were doing, then read this;
... the result is a 100K shortfall for 2014 which - if we rashly assume normal distribution monies in 2015 - turns into a surplus; albeit a surplus unless you try to start to rebuild the squad with some more players to start to fill some of the huge holes that 2014 left.

Not quite so simple. The Operating plan would just be for current seasons operations and would not include payments to historic creditors where figures of several hundred thousand have been mentioned.

In practice it you are running at a £100k loss and then get your "stolen £500k Sky cash" back you are unlikely to get a £400k surplus because the chances are you will try to strengthen the squad again which will increase the wages bill.

So "folly" might be a strong word but trying to save the Bulls without having some significant cash to put into the business would rank up there with paying for a search for the Loch Ness monster.