Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:37 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

Why are we questioning Lamb's motives. I can think of many reasons to be cynical but I can't think of a single reason anyone would buy the Bulls if they weren't committed to the club remaining in SL and ultimately being succesful.

He needs to rid himself of any of the old faces.
Provide proof of funds for a budget and so take us out of special measures.
Sign 3 props and 2 second rows.
Finish 12th.

Not sure what we're so worried about.

See, it really is simple. All too easy. So lets crack on and get the announcments out of the way.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:37 am  

I can't help but speculate on the basis of the information I have at my disposal (which is none in case you were wondering):

If last time the former board had offered to repay all creditors but with minimal impact on the playing side, while Lamb was only going to pay £100k back to creditors, and was going to plough lots of money into the club, it makes sense that he lost.

The old board find that they still get a 6 point deduction, so resign, which Koukash aside leaves Lamb's bid as the next best bid, accepting the 6 points in order to conserve time and resources to allow us to perform on the pitch. Creditors get less of a good deal, we still get the points deduction, but we get a cash injection and live to fight another day. Or another two days if we're really lucky...

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:41 am  

Early Bath wrote:

...

Have to say that Mrs Koukash surely is now only interested in the Ground so she sould sell to a Property Developer. I wonder who she has in mind?
...

All she could sell assuming she got it is the sub-lease we have from the RFL. Who hold the main lease, but the ground is owned by the Council.

If I wanted development land, would such a scenario be near the top of my list of possibilities? I don't think so.

Plus, what property developer would buy a site like Odsal, anyway? WHo wants to buy property at the bottom of a deep bowl?

OTOH apparently the interest in Odsal from - shall we say - outsiders was that somebody had crunched the numbers and been advised that as a landfill site, the ground is worth £63m. I posted this previously. I am aware of the leases, covenants etc. but if a new owner by hook or by crook gets the team out of the ground, the the Council has an empty hole, the RFL has a ground with no tenant and I find it inconceivable that a deal would then not be reached to tear up any covenants and everybody gets a divvy. Well, everyone except the Bulls, naturally.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:52 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

I've read somewhere the RFL were insisting on proof of the bidders providing proof of 500k of immediate investment. Is this based in fact or more nonsense?

I would expect that it is very likely based on fact. They must be sick of fielding calls from owners and administrators asking for another 150k sub to pay the wages. If that were a requirement then the RFL Bank would at least maybe get 2 months respite.

Don't forget the RFL reportedly wanted MM & Co. to put up their houses as security, which given they had no money to put in would again fit the theory.

However there is no indication that i have seen that Lamb has that sort of money available to put up and/or any willingness to put it up even if he has, and as I said in the BB2104 case, whatever the merits may look like, I do not imagine the RFL will find any businessman who will put up his residence as security for anything and indeed find it bizarre if they asked that. To a man, these people all trade as limited companies, for obvious reasons, and while to their credit Hood & Co. had given PGs to the bank in respect of the overdraft, that's several steps down from what the RFL apparently wanted if there wasn't a dollop of cash forthcoming.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:59 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

All she could sell assuming she got it is the sub-lease we have from the RFL. Who hold the main lease, but the ground is owned by the Council.

If I wanted development land, would such a scenario be near the top of my list of possibilities? I don't think so.

Plus, what property developer would buy a site like Odsal, anyway? WHo wants to buy property at the bottom of a deep bowl?

OTOH apparently the interest in Odsal from - shall we say - outsiders was that somebody had crunched the numbers and been advised that as a landfill site, the ground is worth £63m. I posted this previously. I am aware of the leases, covenants etc. but if a new owner by hook or by crook gets the team out of the ground, the the Council has an empty hole, the RFL has a ground with no tenant and I find it inconceivable that a deal would then not be reached to tear up any covenants and everybody gets a divvy. Well, everyone except the Bulls, naturally.

Agreed, apart from, isn't the lease holder under a rep to put a team called Bradford on the pitch? If whoever takes the team away I can't see any reason why BDMC would have to give anyone anything. The RFL would be in breach of the agreement and presumably BMDC would be within their rights to take possession of the site, and/or be compensated for the breach.

My limited experience of the Asset management dept is that they truck precisely no s41t.

[Bullseye]

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:15 pm  

Lamb doesn't inspire me with confidence, he says this:

“As I’ve said all along, as and when we’ve got an understanding of how big the task is, I’ll look to find the investors to support the club going forward."

Implying he hasn't yet got an understanding of the financial side of it or investors around to take the club forward.

On the other hand he says:

“We have sought to ensure we have enough investment to take the club forward this season and future seasons.

“Fans don’t need to worry about that, but it’s down to the administrator and the RFL now."

So he's "sought to ensure" which means he's tried to find investors, not that he HAS found them.

As for fans not worrying about it well if he hasn't got investors then fans WILL worry about it because it IS worrying.

As far as having a choice over the owner is concerned I suppose we haven't any choice but we have a choice as to whether we believe everything being said.

I remain suspicious of Lamb and his rumoured backers. I've heard a lot of spin over the past 8 years and this comes over the same way.

It's gone quite on the BPA front. What's going on there?

For the record I've not got any inside info on any of this.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:25 pm  

I have no issues whatsoever with lamb. I've heard a few interviews with him and the guy talks sense. He even offered staff to make sure the London game went ahead after going in to administration.

My only gripe is that we had somebody with plenty of cash willing to take over and invest in the club from the outset. Unfortunately, whoever now takes over the club will have their efforts compared to what we hoped to get from Mrs Koukash (without actually seeing anything).

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:56 pm  

Sensei-Bull wrote:

after going in to aeffortsistration..

Jeez that sounds painful

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:56 pm  

If Mrs K has the cash to invest in a business that isn't hers why didn't she just bid enough in the first place to buy it. It seems to me she doesn't want to pay creditors - just buy a few players. Do they really want to spend the millions we all assumed they were going to spend.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:04 pm  

woolly07 wrote:

..spend the millions we all assumed they were going to spend.

I would be truly shocked if anyone even thought such a thing. I should imagine the very most anyone on here had hoped for was someone with just enough apparent resources to make us feel less vulnerable to going tits every fortnight.

My personal assumption is the Koukash's might have been able to bankroll us a little bit, but that none of the rest have any significant money to spend on us at all. It would be awesome to be wrong.