Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:36 pm  

broadybull87 wrote:

If that does happen, Odsal is filled in or houses built onto and a new stadium built in the area, would having BPA or BCFC in as tenants not be beneficial to all?

Now your just being too sensible lol

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:45 pm  

pulsator2k7 wrote:

Abit about Mr Riley from a Leeds United article:-

Mr Riley, who grew up on Litherland’s Ford estate, was a brilliant amateur boxer who won three national titles in 1985.

When an eye injury prevented the Rotunda ABC light welterweight prodigy from pursuing a professional career, he made the transition from pugilist to property developer. He established his property company in the late 1980s, and began buying and refurbishing terraced houses, before investing in pubs and nightclubs across the city during the mid 1990s.

In 2000 Mr Riley sold Ascot Pubs for a reported £2m, and then made the gradual transition to more substantial residential and commercial developments.

The company owns the exclusive 40-acre Shorrocks Hill country club site in Formby . Mr Riley has retained a seven-day-a-week work ethic despite becoming a self- made millionaire. Today he enjoys spending any free time with his two grandchildren, and supporting talented young boxers.

In 2009 Terry Riley was the victim of a terror campaign which threatened his life and business empire.

His Crosby home was shot at, and one occasion he was involved in a dramatic chase when gunmen on motorbikes threatened him on the Coastal Road in Ainsdale, although no shots were fired.

The terror campaign culminated in a spectacular arson attack at Shorrocks Hill , which caused up to a million pounds worth of damage. Teenager Roy Pearson was later jailed for his part in the attack, which destroyed a Chinese restaurant and Mr Riley's office suite.

In 2012 Mr Riley gave chase after a rush-hour drive-by shooting in Blundellsands .

A passenger in a blue Audi with Sefton taxi plates fired a shotgun at this windscreen, although Mr Riley survived unscathed.

Days later he was involved in a scuffle with a man in Gorsey Lane in Litherland.

Mr Riley has always refused to discuss any of these incidents with the ECHO.

Right and proper test anyone?

[Bullseye]

Re: The 5 runners and riders : Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:17 pm  

vbfg wrote:

I've been tellling myself that all day whilst formulating my plan to run round bare ar5ed flicking the Vs at everyone.

Re: The 5 runners and riders : Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:28 pm  

Which one of them will fall off their yacht in suspicious circumstances?....

Re: The 5 runners and riders : Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:31 pm  

Just been mentioned on BBC Radio Leeds that the Koukash bid is in.

Let's see.

Re: The 5 runners and riders : Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:33 pm  

It's squeaky bum time.

Re: The 5 runners and riders : Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:33 pm  

When do we find out, Friday???

Re: The 5 runners and riders : Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:33 pm  

kevinj wrote:

There is no rule in Super League which states that one family can't own two Super League clubs,the RFL might wish there was and it was a mistake not to have it in the rule book,but I can assure you the good wife of the Doctor can certainly own The Bulls.

No, but unless mrs koukash can prove her income stream (and more specifically right now, her bid) is independant of her husband, there is a conflict of interest. Which there most definitely are rules about.

For example, should the koukash's fall upon hard times, without having separate finances, and be left with just £1 remaining to invest in either Salford or Bradford, which do they choose? If mrs koukash's finances are independent however, there is no conflict (as mr koukash continues to spend what he likes from his own bank account on Salford, and mrs koukash does likewise with her bank account), and the situation is no different to any two other owners (who just happen to be close.)

The closest situation to this was when lenaghan bought Wigan, and was forced to give up his ownership of London. The hetheringtons are mere employees, and thus not regulated in the same way (no different to a husband and wife working for two big banks for example ... No underhand work goes on in that situation ... No ...)

Re: The 5 runners and riders : Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:09 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

No, but unless mrs koukash can prove her income stream (and more specifically right now, her bid) is independant of her husband, there is a conflict of interest. Which there most definitely are rules about.

For example, should the koukash's fall upon hard times, without having separate finances, and be left with just £1 remaining to invest in either Salford or Bradford, which do they choose? If mrs koukash's finances are independent however, there is no conflict (as mr koukash continues to spend what he likes from his own bank account on Salford, and mrs koukash does likewise with her bank account), and the situation is no different to any two other owners (who just happen to be close.)

The closest situation to this was when lenaghan bought Wigan, and was forced to give up his ownership of London. The hetheringtons are mere employees, and thus not regulated in the same way (no different to a husband and wife working for two big banks for example ... No underhand work goes on in that situation ... No ...)

Conflict of interests is a minefield, I fully accept that, the fact remains though Mrs Koukash can own Bradford Bulls as the rules stand,the administrator is bound by law to get the best deal for the shareholders and creditors,the RFL will be less than pleased if MRS KOUKASH gains control,personally as a rugby league supporter and saints supporter I hope and expect her to.

[Bullseye]

Re: The 5 runners and riders : Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:16 pm  

The administrator may be the least of our problems.

I'm sure if Mrs Koukash wants the club she'll know (or be told) how to make sure she appears as an independent business woman. Whether the RFL accept that is another matter.