Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:52 pm  

Derwent wrote: Green statement now public.... http://www.ssgltd.co.uk/latest-news-det ... news_id=16 Doesn't really say much to be honest. Damage limitation IMO - loons throwing accusations around on the net, doesn't warrant this, unless there were a lot more serious allegations..... I still can't understand why an obviously successful business man would loan Ryan Whitcut/the Bulls any money?!? However, Marc if all is true in your statement, you have my eternal thanks for stopping us being liquidated. I reckon M Khan may owe you few a beers too...

Derwent wrote: Green statement now public.... http://www.ssgltd.co.uk/latest-news-det ... news_id=16 Doesn't really say much to be honest. Damage limitation IMO - loons throwing accusations around on the net, doesn't warrant this, unless there were a lot more serious allegations..... I still can't understand why an obviously successful business man would loan Ryan Whitcut/the Bulls any money?!? However, Marc if all is true in your statement, you have my eternal thanks for stopping us being liquidated. I reckon M Khan may owe you few a beers too...

[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:58 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Wonder if the RFL will require Lamb to "work with" SSG to pay them their money back?

And if so - how much? Does anyone know the APR on their loan to Whitcut?

Why would they do that when they've already knocked us six points off on the presumption that he won't pay them anything back?

Apr on loans to basket cases starts at about 1000%....

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:06 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

Why would they do that when they've already knocked us six points off on the presumption that he won't pay them anything back?
....

Heppenstall said he "understood" that the delay involved talks with RFL about creditors and about "repaying" advances from RFL of Sky money.

I think we're again at the stage of the game - last minute - when the RFL seem to like to throw a few curveballs.

What if Lamb tells the RFL no, and doesn't agree to forfeit any distribution either?

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:15 pm  

Bullpower2012 wrote:

I reckon M Khan may owe you few a beers too...

M Khan is bent.

[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:38 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Heppenstall said he "understood" that the delay involved talks with RFL about creditors and about "repaying" advances from RFL of Sky money.

I think we're again at the stage of the game - last minute - when the RFL seem to like to throw a few curveballs.

What if Lamb tells the RFL no, and doesn't agree to forfeit any distribution either?

I got the impression that Lamb, having worked with the RFL was a big buddy, as it were...to be honest, I would hope he doesn't just roll over.

Maybe the talking about creditors means there is some possibility of having the reduction reduced, if not it would seem a bit pointless from our pov and I can see little point in even talking about it. What can they do? They've already done their worst.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:47 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

..

Maybe the talking about creditors means there is some possibility of having the reduction reduced, if not it would seem a bit pointless from our pov and I can see little point in even talking about it. What can they do? They've already done their worst.

Well, unless they can get Lamb to sign his name to whatever it is that they want, then they could precipitate another BB2014-stylee walk-out of talks. Because ATEOTD whatever it is they want, Lamb doesn't have to agree, and equally the RFL don't have to admit the new owners.
What if for example the RFL said either you pay a big wedge of creditors off, or else sign away a year's worth more of Sky distribution, like your predecessors?

[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:08 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Well, unless they can get Lamb to sign his name to whatever it is that they want, then they could precipitate another BB2014-stylee walk-out of talks. Because ATEOTD whatever it is they want, Lamb doesn't have to agree, and equally the RFL don't have to admit the new owners.
What if for example the RFL said either you pay a big wedge of creditors off, or else sign away a year's worth more of Sky distribution, like your predecessors?

If it were me, I'd tell the RFL to stick it where the sun don't shine. If the RFL want to destroy their own competition.....well, it just sums them up, to be honest. As it is, ie early season - I don't think they have the best hand for playing hard ball. We would go down either way round so it makes little odds [long term] for the club, though it certainly would cause immediate problems for the individuals involved. As I say, at this point in the season I'm not sure the RFL would go nuclear.

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:13 pm  

Annoyed that we are going after to wait yet another week to find out who owns our club, this has dragged on far to long

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:16 pm  

We are now on page 243 with over 2400 separate posts. So the powers that be might just gather that there is a certain amount of interest, concern and anger amongst the fan base. As FA has remarked it's as if the decision makers do not recognise fans as crucial ( in the CEO's management speak) "stakeholders" . Since the deadline for bids the " announcement" has been postponed 3 or 4 times.
Yet there has never been a statement by the RFL explaining these delays.
That sums up the attitude of Red Hall.
The vast majority of Bulls fans are fully aware that all the problems at the club have been caused by club management. But is it too much to expect that the games officials on 6 figure salaries should keep fans informed of progress.?

Re: Ownership and twists : Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:49 pm  

Bradford Mushrooms - We're MAGIC!