[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:14 am  

Early Bath wrote:

Roger its up to the Administrator not the RFL - He was appointed by the Creditors

Indeed, and if all this turns out to be true it is very likely to be the only bid which settles all the debt so I can't see it being topped [how can 'paying all the debt' be topped?] from the administrator's pov.

Incidentally, I can't see how Omar can still be regarded as 'fit and proper' after the recent debacle, let alone how he would pay the debts without using current assets.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:18 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Nobody is now going to wipe off the debts, not Koukash, not Richard Branson, nobody. The RFL saw to that with the 6 point penalty, prior to which the leak from the administrator indicated a proposal to repay 100% trade creditors.

Probably the case. Maybe debts was the wrong word, immediate necessary costs and outgoings is probably a more accurate description.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:18 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Nobody is now going to wipe off the debts, not Koukash, not Richard Branson, nobody. The RFL saw to that with the 6 point penalty, prior to which the leak from the administrator indicated a proposal to repay 100% trade creditors.

I saw an quote from Solly that an appeal could be made if a new owner put money towards creditors as the situation would have changed.

But thats very much putting all the risk onto the new owner. Relying on a non-independent appeals process belonging to the RFL performing an about-turn on the points would have the same chance as a plate of doughnuts in front of Nigel Wood.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:19 am  

Bullseye wrote:

It's Koukash or bust IMO. None of the other bidders have enough money inc BPA or Lamb who I suspect isn't serious.

Lamb has been Hoodwinking us from day one.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:23 am  

redeverready wrote:

Lamb has been Hoodwinking us from day one.

Ah, I wondered which one your Hoodwinking comment from the other day came from.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:24 am  

Ross tweets both Mr and Mrs Koukash will be attending the game on Sunday and that she is 90% sure her bid will be accepted.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:30 am  

if mrs. k does win the bidding I hope we aren't re-branded and made to wear silly hats and long shirts and called the Kou Kash Klan. whoever wins though lets hope it is the last of the drama that has been going on for far too long and we can get back to the rugby, it really is very boring at the moment.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:50 am  

TheButcher wrote:

Let's get the Koukash facts correct first. He hasn't bemoaned anything. He's been working hard in communities to get new and lapsed fans back through the turnstile. He's been saying that he needs the support of the Salford public to be the final key into the rebrand. So far that's happened with two record crowds at the AJ Bell. He hasn't moaned about fans at all.

I never said he did moan about the fans but the size of the crowds, all credit to the Dr for investing in the club and trying to build it up. But to be serious about competing at the top of the league even the 7102 recent record gate a long way from numbers at Wigan and Leeds the clubs he hopes to challenge - and I think your average is still behind your "partners" Sale who don't have the benefit of local derby matches against clubs just a few miles away.

But the size of gates is a major problem for nearly every team in the league and their aspirations.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:52 am  

Yes it would be nice for the soap opera to end

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:00 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Nobody is now going to wipe off the debts, not Koukash, not Richard Branson, nobody. The RFL saw to that with the 6 point penalty, prior to which the leak from the administrator indicated a proposal to repay 100% trade creditors.

Didn't Solly say that should all creditors be paid off, we would be able to appeal against the points deduction? It was buried in one of the recent T&A articles, though I can't remember off hand which one.

As long as whoever is buying us has the finances to do so, surely it would be in the best interest to pay off the creditors and go for the points being given back? I can't see why Solly would mention it if it's wasn't a pretty strong possiblility.

I mean the deep cynic in me is say that he's done it as a convincer to get someone to shell out, only to turn around and say "lol joke, you're not getting your points back" but I'm pretty sure that's just me being paranoid after all the s**t we've been through.