Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:20 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

If the buyers' offers are contingent on the lease being transferred from the RFL to the new owner, and if the lease is transferred at anything less than market value, aren't you effectively asking the RFL to pay some of your debts, as the new company would acquire a saleable asset on the balance sheet for the cost of the debts less the reduction from the full market value.

I'm struggling to see why the RFL are wrong in this.

No-one has ever, at any point said that. Why do you assume it won't be sold at market value? But surely, for the good of the game, it's not about the RFL making a massive profit, it's about them doing what they said all along - "protecting the assets of the game". If they get their money back, that's all that matters surely.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:27 pm  

The RFL are the driving force behind the sale, they have brought the two preferred bidders to the administrator, the administrator refused to underwrite Decembers salaries, The RFL have stepped up to the plate. The difficulties in the process have been caused by the administrator. You will be astounded at the hourly rates the administrator is billing.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:29 pm  

We have a new "in the know" person. Yay.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:35 pm  

It's not beyond the wit of man for the RFL to propose an organization or a process to propose a fair value on the lease for what it is now for the prospective buyers, not for what it could be. The buyers take the risk that the land owner and Council would grant planning permission for whatever scheme the buyer has in place. No reasonable Bulls supporter would object to this, but what I would personally object to is if the RFL are pricing the lease based on an assumption a development would happen. In that way the RFL are looking for an extra reward with no risk.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:38 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

If the buyers' offers are contingent on the lease being transferred from the RFL to the new owner, and if the lease is transferred at anything less than market value, aren't you effectively asking the RFL to pay some of your debts, as the new company would acquire a saleable asset on the balance sheet for the cost of the debts less the reduction from the full market value.

I'm struggling to see why the RFL are wrong in this.

RFL council and SLE members would not tolerate below market value. Especially as RFL are anticipating a loss next year for the first time in ages.

Also pressure on to have due diligence that does not result lead to the 'usual' run of possible ccjs, winding up orders, shafted creditors and administration.

Sadly staff, players, fans and creditors continue to suffer because of this incompetence.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:38 pm  

Bull Mania wrote:

Suppose thats some sort of good news. Knew it would be dragged out but the end result is all i care about

Anyone knows if the players have been training today as a group, not individually.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:43 pm  

Pumpetypump wrote:

We have a new "in the know" person. Yay.

Everything's Ruined. It really is a Black Friday.

Hopefully all will be better The Morning After.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:46 pm  

Mirfieldbull wrote:

Anyone knows if the players have been training today as a group, not individually.

Not sure. I tweeted Rohan asking the question. Also Dane usually puts loads of videos on Instagram but hasn't been doing since Wednesday.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:54 pm  

debaser wrote:

No-one has ever, at any point said that. Why do you assume it won't be sold at market value? But surely, for the good of the game, it's not about the RFL making a massive profit, it's about them doing what they said all along - "protecting the assets of the game". If they get their money back, that's all that matters surely.

Depends on the difference between the two, I suppose. If, say, full market value is 1.75m and the RFL accept their money back of 1.25m, the new owner has acquired an asset at £500,000 less, which of course would go to the balance sheet as 1.75m and the £500,000, if they chose to spend it that way, be used to pay off debts. This means that the RFL have paid off some of the debts.

It's a fine line between seeing what is good for the game and what is merely good for the Bulls. For me, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it, except I didn't see the RFL stepping in as a potential purchaser of the oldest rugby league ground in the world "for the good of the game".

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:10 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Depends on the difference between the two, I suppose. If, say, full market value is 1.75m and the RFL accept their money back of 1.25m, the new owner has acquired an asset at £500,000 less, which of course would go to the balance sheet as 1.75m and the £500,000, if they chose to spend it that way, be used to pay off debts. This means that the RFL have paid off some of the debts.

It's a fine line between seeing what is good for the game and what is merely good for the Bulls. For me, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it, except I didn't see the RFL stepping in as a potential purchaser of the oldest rugby league ground in the world "for the good of the game".

So, complain to the RFL instead of bitching on here.