[Bullseye]

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 07, 2014 9:56 am  

It’s the sheer amount of outgoings that need covering before you can even move forward that will put off many. It’s not like a clean slate, as I expect those putting the club into admin intended. It’s more of a flattened cow pat.

Looking at some of the prospective buyers I’m not sure they have the finance. Aside from that I’m not sure they realise what they’d be getting into. The last bunch were a bit naïve I would suggest. The others like the BPA consortium and Mr Lamb say positive things but any idiot can sound convincing as we’ve learnt in the past.

If the Bulls are to remain a SL operation then it’s going to cost someone.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:13 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

Thanks FA for your response, I had a good laugh. I really think you should go back to your original post, the one that I first responded to, and compare with your last one.

You mean, when you asked:

But is not the agreement to be deducted one years worth of funding, in your example £17500 per club, over two years, which means we would indeed get £8750 for each year and the other £8750 indeed does gets divid up? I have not seen any reference to the agreement being that we receive 1/27th of the funding over two years, which is your first example

... and I answered your reasonable question by pointing out:

No. It is to receive half the distribution that other clubs do.

Which it was.

martinwildbull wrote:

Now please grace this post with your usual five page response contradicting everything you have said in the last ten minutes.

No further response needed, the position remains just the same. I'm not sure why it seems to annoy you so much.

martinwildbull wrote:

Oh, and get a life.

Thanks, but I prefer to devote it to selflessly answering your questions.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:20 am  

Bullseye wrote:

It’s the sheer amount of outgoings that need covering before you can even move forward that will put off many. It’s not like a clean slate, as I expect those putting the club into admin intended. It’s more of a flattened cow pat.

Wouldn't that be "bull pat"?

Bullseye wrote:

If the Bulls are to remain a SL operation then it’s going to cost someone.

Indeed, and no combination of zero capital introduction with reduced distribution share is ever going to cut it. And that is even discounting that the last suitors were proposing to spend part of whatever limited money did scrape in, in paying off trade creditors somehow.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:28 am  

I'm intrigued why Lamb and other potential buyers would bid now when they didn't earlier. The administrator might be prepared to accept a lower offer, but the RFL would have to insist on the same conditions as demanded from Moore & Co and presumably the tax man will still want a bond and security. I cant see that any of them have the funds to pay off the creditors and get the points deduction reversed so they would still face the apocalypse brought on by relegation.

Has something changed?

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:36 am  

Cibaman wrote:

I'm intrigued why Lamb and other potential buyers would bid now when they didn't earlier. The administrator might be prepared to accept a lower offer, but the RFL would have to insist on the same conditions as demanded from Moore & Co and presumably the tax man will still want a bond and security. I cant see that any of them have the funds to pay off the creditors and get the points deduction reversed so they would still face the apocalypse brought on by relegation.

Has something changed?

Lamb did put a bid in last time - it wasn't successful. Read into that what you will.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:42 am  

Indeed, the administrator will have accepted what was the best deal for creditors, so whatever happens next (if anything) will surely be a worse result for them.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:47 am  

Nothus wrote:

Lamb did put a bid in last time - it wasn't successful. Read into that what you will.

It wasnt successful because the administrator took view that bb2014 bid meant more money going to the creditors. Admininstrator isnt concerned with RFL's criteria for owners just financial terms for his creditors. Since bb2014 bid isn't on table anymore then Lamb should win, unless BPA or BCFC put in a bid that improves on his terms, unless administrator takes view that he'll get a better return for creditors by liquidating remaining assets. considering players are effectively free agents assets are basically worth peanuts.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:33 am  

mat wrote:

It wasnt successful because the administrator took view that bb2014 bid meant more money going to the creditors. Admininstrator isnt concerned with RFL's criteria for owners just financial terms for his creditors. Since bb2014 bid isn't on table anymore then Lamb should win, unless BPA or BCFC put in a bid that improves on his terms, unless administrator takes view that he'll get a better return for creditors by liquidating remaining assets. considering players are effectively free agents assets are basically worth peanuts.

So could creditors take action against the RFL for getting them a worse deal?

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:44 am  

childofthenorthern wrote:

So could creditors take action against the RFL for getting them a worse deal?

Let's hope so,no incentive to pay anybody now,thanks to the idiots at Red Hall

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:44 am  

With regard to TUPE, and the strange question of whether you could be TUPE'd to someone sort of "provisionally", for a bit, but the reverse-Tupe'd back to where you came from, if the deal turned out to have been a provisional deal that was never completed, I think the consensus on here was that no such TUPE hokey cokey is possible.

What does that mean? Well, presumably, that it was proposed to TUPE the staff to BB2014 and they were all notified, but it never happened.

In which case they never actually left the employ of BB2104.

Carvell in the T&A yesterday said that he had refused to be TUPE'd. Which would of course have been his right. However, here's my point; if we accepted that the issue of TUPE was just a future plan, of which due notice had been given, but never actually happened, then the TUPE provisions would never actually come into play. So Carvell never became a "free agent".

just another of the weird and unexplained twists in the neverending saga.