Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:28 pm  

Seem to remember Mr Green chirping on about wanting to regain the lease from the RFL, negotiations were always ongoing he said time and again.If an owner, first approved by them with little to invest, can enter into purchase negotiations, then the deal surely cannot be detrimental to any present bidder with financial clout. Key seems to be that it was not made clear of this condition in the early stages.It would be a travesty, if without added backing MG had engineered the outcome in his favour.I would thank anyone for saving the Bulls, but am unconvinced regarding his history here.Even through liquidation,I would not welcome anything less than a full on transparency with some supporter board involvement and would hope for a new owner with the funds and stability to deliver.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:32 pm  

The mendacity, hubris, and sheer ineptitude. Dammit, dammit, dammit.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:33 pm  

The administrator provides transparency in his final report. Which covers all aspects of the administration, including factors leading up to it.

What transparency will the RFL provide, in view of the legal & moral conflict of interest they created when they bought the lease?

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:34 pm  

Bull Mania wrote:

Seems like 2012 over again. Investor willing to put money into a poor sport and poor club. Want lease which is only thing of real value, RFL won't budge. Investor walks away.

Maybe im looking at this simply but couldnt the RFL say OK heres the price, which includes safeguarding Bulls playing there and we'll sell the lease. Or am i just looking at it too simply?

No, I think that's probably about the size of it. They name a (reasonable) price, the investor agrees or does not agree. End of. You wouldn't think it would be that hard really.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:38 pm  

Furthermore, if the RL or the administrator have inadvertently caused a delay and jeaopardised the bidding process, then they must be held accountable for hindering the process and endangering a positive outcome imo.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:44 pm  

I think the RFL are playing a grand game of bluff with a potential buyer to see who blinks first. They seem to have confidence that any prospective buyer of the club will come through with a big deal for the lease but ultimately the council has the final say as to what happens with Odsal. If I was in the rest of the rugby community I would be asking the 'Safeguarders of Rugby' what they are going to do with the ground after Friday.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:49 pm  

That statement to me reads:

"The administrator is saying the buyers want the Odsal lease. If they can't have it, they're not going to buy and the club will be liquidated. We're saying we will sell it if they give us enough money and promise RL will still be played there. We're not going to sell it cheap or let you use the land for something else just because the club might go under if we do."

I see a stalemate. Which I'm afraid may well lead to the L word.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:57 pm  

More twists and turns than a "Tales of the unexpected" episode (you young uns won't remember that programme) .

Followed this topic from day one and fingers crossed everything comes up roses for you to be fair there has been enough crap thrown around for that.

Hope the result of all this is what you all want, a Bradford team to support next season

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:01 pm  

In biblical terms didn't Moses seek the way by wandering off into the desert...well I just feel like wandering off to the cow and calf rocks and standing atop..and screaming to the Almighty for redemption. or maybe take a few more bottles of paracetamol!

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:27 pm  

HamsterChops wrote:

That statement to me reads:

"The administrator is saying the buyers want the Odsal lease. If they can't have it, they're not going to buy and the club will be liquidated. We're saying we will sell it if they give us enough money and promise RL will still be played there. We're not going to sell it cheap or let you use the land for something else just because the club might go under if we do."

I see a stalemate. Which I'm afraid may well lead to the L word.

Pretty much how i read it.
At this moment in time id sooner the rfl temporally take over the club rather than it go to one of these shysters and mercenaries