Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:03 am  

But whose word do we have that they didn't have the money,if the only "proof" we have is from Rimmer, it probably means the complete opposite

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:04 am  

roger daly wrote:

But whose word do we have that they didn't have the money,if the only "proof" we have is from Rimmer, it probably means the complete opposite

Oh come on - if they did have the money then none of this would be happening!!

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:17 am  

BartonFlyer wrote:

Oh come on - if they did have the money then none of this would be happening!!

I'm not trying to judge who's right and who's not,but the administrator seemed happy with their bid.Im saying i tend not to believe the RFL on anything these days

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:19 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.

was this £100k loss after the half sky money being deferred over 5-6 years..??

was it an operating loss on the ongoing season without any account for all creditors being paid at the outset....

The devil is in the detail

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:20 am  

The proof that they didn't have the money seems to be that they only collateral they could offer up to the HMRC as guarantees were their own homes.

As I read the press release, they had worked hard to come up with a business plan that was potentially sustainable in the long term, subject to avoiding relegation, but the HMRC wanted extras that they were unable to provide. Which seems a shame.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:22 am  

Northernrelic wrote:

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.

I never suggested anything was "simple", and wasn't MM's stated plan to repay the old creditors/debts over 5 years?

Northernrelic wrote:

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.

Er, that's what I said! Anyway a break-even operation rather than one making a £1/2m might be a somewhat more realistic aim.

Northernrelic wrote:

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.

No, that analogy is too strong. What I think you mean is trying to save the Bulls AS A SL FORCE without significant cash. And anyway, your argument amounts to a contention that no club can operate without a sugar daddy pumping in large sums of capital. That is clearly not true, although it is true such a team will never win any pots.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:23 am  

pie.warrior wrote:

was this £100k loss after the half sky money being deferred over 5-6 years..??

was it an operating loss on the ongoing season without any account for all creditors being paid at the outset....

The devil is in the detail

No, the devil is in the RFL not apparently being arsed to bother reading it.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:26 am  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

The proof that they didn't have the money seems to be that they only collateral they could offer up to the HMRC as guarantees were their own homes.

As I read the press release, they had worked hard to come up with a business plan that was potentially sustainable in the long term, subject to avoiding relegation, but the HMRC wanted extras that they were unable to provide. Which seems a shame.

I haven't read anything anywhere that said or alleged HMRC had any discussion with BB2014 at all. Have I missed it? Can you post a link, I'll be very interested to read it.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:48 am  

I'm assuming that what the RFL told them of the HMRC position was accurate. If the Bulls press release is correct, there is little doubt that the RFL told them of HMRC preconditions that the new company couldn't fulfil. So regardless of people's views of the RFL, it was always going to fail.

There is, therefore, only one real issue: were the RFL accurate in what the HMRC stance was?

The question has to be asked also that as one of the major creditors was the HMRC, why haven't the new company had discussions themselves with HMRC? The press release states that the Bulls hadn't had the chance for that conversation with the HMRC. Why not? They are asking for ratification of a business plan without any recourse to a major creditor? The RFL had found out that there would be extra preconditions, as far as they are aware. How could they approve it, knowing that? Or say, go away and do what we have done?

The press release is high on emotion, but when you break it down, the RFL haven't done that much wrong. If the RFL had got out the big rubber stamp, then I doubt there would have been complaints, but how could they when there were preconditions the RFL knew couldn't be met.

Why didn't Moore et al just speak to the HMRC afterwards, seeing if they could re-approach the RFL if the preconditions were lifted. Instead, there was a dummy spit which means they have probably stiffed any chance of further dealings.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:04 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

The proof that they didn't have the money seems to be that they only collateral they could offer up to the HMRC as guarantees were their own homes.

As I read the press release, they had worked hard to come up with a business plan that was potentially sustainable in the long term, subject to avoiding relegation, but the HMRC wanted extras that they were unable to provide. Which seems a shame.

Next year for us will be manna from heaven. We just have to get there. There's potentially an extra £1m of sky money when we get our full allocation of the new upgraded deal.

If Moore & co have said "look, in December, we identified that incoming was going to be £3m, outgoings £3.4m. We've worked hard and got it to, respectively, £3.1m (with extra sponsorship) and £3.2m, with staff cuts. And from november, of course, our income jumps to £4.1m. We think this is workable over the next 5years...." I can kind of see their point.