Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:13 pm  

pie.warrior wrote:

decision now being made by the RFL .... probably deciding what to order from the breakfast menu

A 32oz fillet and double fries, followed by sauted Bulls balls

[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:33 pm  

tigertot wrote:

Perhaps coach & players should look closer to home for the route of their problems, rather than just pretend all this is the fault of the RFL.

When all is reckoned up, the amount the club is in to debt with is just a fraction of the 'fine' of losing TV money imposed by the RFL. This, lets not forget TT, is a new development, specially brought in for the Bulls and which has never been needed before.

The fine totally derailed the Omar Khan governance [much as I appreciate there were other deficiencies], since the one thing which Omar did not have was pots of money. All the later problems stemmed from this weird move by the RFL, which considering the lack or 'real' money behind their bid, was probably the one thing guaranteed to bring them down.

So why did they do it? You can't imagine they deliberately wanted the Bulls to back into admin, that would have been ludicrous, surely? But I've scoured my mind for any reasonable, half sensible reason why they imposed this new penalty on top of the points loss on a 'White Knight' regime, who had no connection whatever with the ones who let it go to wrack and ruin in the first place, and can find none. So when there is no logical reason, I guess you have to fall back on the ludicrous ones. The RFL are a waste of space.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:38 pm  

The RFL didn't do it. Omar offered and enough of the clubs, several whom were keen to kick us out there and then, were willing to accept the bribe. They then voted to distribute it amongst themselves.

If the RFL wanted some other outcome they were powerless to bring it about.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:46 pm  

I don't follow all this with enough attention to be an Adey or FA, but I would think if you take the RFL secret loan, the RFL buying the lease, the debt to the tax man & any unpaid/part paid creditors it is nothing like 'just a fraction'. Who came up with the idea of the fine, the RFL or the clubs? I thought it was the clubs who voted it? Ignoring the unfairness or not of the loss of TV money OK, or any white knight, should have been aware of all these issues before claiming to be a saviour of the club.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:48 pm  

vbfg wrote:

The RFL didn't do it. Omar offered and enough of the clubs, several whom were keen to kick us out there and then, were willing to accept the bribe. They then voted to distribute it amongst themselves.

If the RFL wanted some other outcome they were powerless to bring it about.

Were the RFL duty bound to put Omar's stupid offer to club vote?

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:50 pm  

vbfg wrote:

The RFL didn't do it. Omar offered and enough of the clubs, several whom were keen to kick us out there and then, were willing to accept the bribe. They then voted to distribute it amongst themselves.

If the RFL wanted some other outcome they were powerless to bring it about.

That's how I saw it - the alternative was relegation so Omar payed the price, so to speak.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:55 pm  

Pumpetypump wrote:

Were the RFL duty bound to put Omar's stupid offer to club vote?

It was SLE as I recall, the RFL is just one member as each of the clubs are. As far as I'm aware they're not sat at the head of the table. A member proposes, the other members vote and then the beer and sandwiches come out.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:58 pm  

...supplied by a

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:58 pm  

I thought it was the clubs that voted to suspend the Bulls acceptance back into SL unless they were deducted half the money.... before this was put to OK who had no choice but to agree....then it was voted on to split it

[Bullseye]

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:59 pm  

Aye, it was the other SL clubs that insisted that OK accept certain conditions i.e. a fine in practice. I’m not sure which clubs voted for it or if they all did. They then also voted by majority to share our allocation amongst themselves. Another great move, thanks to all that did that. However not all voted for that. Again I’d like to know how they voted. I know Leeds were one that voted against sharing our money out between clubs.

OK was a fool to accept those conditions (He obviously thought he could make up the shortfall with concerts with obscure past it 80s pop “stars” on the bill but these proved to be huge loss makers) but it was a case of accept it or have no club. A wiser man would have walked away then. Going into 2013 on half money was never going to work out. It might all have gone wrong anyway with OK in charge but it may not have happened so quick.

That there was such a “fine” when the RFL had got their money back irks me somewhat. Sure, the RFL bent over backwards to help the Hood regime and should have kept other clubs informed but they in the end didn’t lose any money. They gave the club a massive loan and got the lease in return. Had the RFL informed other clubs and a fuss ensued then fine. The Hood regime could’ve gone into admin earlier and all the OK episode avoided.

The SL club vote only served to punish the new owner for the sins of his predecessor. Had Hood or his cronies still been involved I could’ve understood the punishment. As it was it just served up another guaranteed administration.

Nobody comes out of this well.