Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:33 am  

Jeez, it just gets dafter. A bid is accepted by someone who can't or is reluctant to offer proof of funding. A lower bid is rejected from someone who presumably could offer proof of funding and potentially lots of it.

In the words of one famous journalist, "you couldn't make it up". In the meantime more weeks pass and our ability to survive is reduced. Two more serious injuries as well to cope with. We are not down to the bare bones, we are down to the marrow. Yet another depressing Monday morning.

lets just hope Wakey and London keep losing as well and we can keep within touching distance until this mess is cleared up

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:33 am  

debaser wrote:

So does the administrator not insist on seeing proof of funds when he accepts and offer? You would think it was a prerequisite.
Or are the RFL just putting more and more hurdles in at every chance?
I honestly don't understand what's going in anymore. I don't know who wants to buy us, or why they are being prevented from doing so. Unless of course they have no money, in which case, why try and buy the club. And why prevent the one person who we know has money from buying the club.
I'm gradually losing faith that this will be resolved. With every week that goes by, it another game gone, another two points gone, it's like watching a badly wounded animal staggering around in pain.

In this case I am not sure the RFL are being difficult as the hard reality is a new owner really will need about £2m to right the ship, keep HMRC happy and then get us through to the end of the season. So if the bidders are not able to demonstrate this and did not have access to that amount of money then in reality the purchase would just be a further delay in the execution and we would be back in the same hole in the summer. Getting much harder to see a good outcome to all this.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:40 am  

bullsonfire wrote:

I think there should be a protest in the form of a boycott of the Magic weekend. Let's have no Bulls supporters in the crowd.

To go with no players on the pitch, you mean?

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:40 am  

why weren't any of the potential buyers of the club told how much minimum investment would be needed before bids were submitted and also told that proof of funding would be required before been ratified by rfl. all seems booty about face.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:47 am  

bullsonfire wrote:

I think there should be a protest in the form of a boycott of the Magic weekend. Let's have no Bulls supporters in the crowd.

At the present rate it won't matter, we won't have a Team to put out!

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:03 am  

Noble & Honest wrote:

Fans should remember the Bulls affairs are now extremely complicated.
Yes at least half a million injection will be needed to see through to September.l
HMRC need a £150k bond to start with on top of the £60 to £70k monthly required.
Big decision for the RFL.
The administater (even though he should consider what is best for all going forward)will be happy with £300k.£250K for Green £50k for his obscene fee.
So well done RFL (for once)
Mandy may not have offered £300k.

She should certainly not lend Lamb and his London lambs the pot to go forward with.
All or nothing for Mandy and access to Docs £900 million.
Could see yet another appointment on £50000 in Ekoku and friends.The last thuing the Bulls need.

Yes proof of funding is important.
Very important.
There are no crash barriers left to cash in.
Silence is good news for the Bulls and the docs wife.
HMRC require this money NOW.
And the RFL do not want to be paying the wages again this month or next.

Which on current crowds (8000 and 5100 and 6800)will not be enough.
The Bulls need someone with a million or two SPARE.

Not a consortium with enough to raise £300k to buy.
And the RFL know that.
Cos for two years 6 months they have had to underwrite and "loan" the Bulls.

The suspense is difficult but it is imperitive the Bulls get those with more than "good intent".
The RFL are absolutely right to take time.
Many a crook has passed through the Odsal hierarchy these past 3 years.
The club can stand no more crooks.

Whitcut"s memory is little over 5 months back.

He had nowt.
OK had nowt.
Lord Hood had nowt
All the other also rans had nowt
Including Moore and Co.

The RFL are right to take action that MAY ensure the docs wife is let in.
As sole owner for the sort of brass the club NEEDS.

I can only hope.

As its money NOW that's needed and the good doctor appears to have that.

What about your Mucker Caisley?? He had no money, is LETS NOT GO THERE SHALL WE, NOT WORTH THE RISK - PUMPERS and also vastly responsible for the current mess.....

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:16 am  

W.T.F IS GOING ON wrote:

why weren't any of the potential buyers of the club told how much minimum investment would be needed before bids were submitted and also told that proof of funding would be required before been ratified by rfl. all seems booty about face.

It seems amazing that someone would make a bid without these things.

Q: How much money do you think you'll need to put into the Bulls to make it sustainable?
A: No idea

Q: Got any money?
A: Not really. Not yet.

Welcome to the Super League, Mr Lamb!

It might be another twist with a happy ending. If the preferred bid is no good, they might refer to the second bid, which might bring Mr, sorry, Mrs Koukash back into play (unless the RFL quickly change the rules about spouses owning different clubs).

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:17 am  

bullsonfire wrote:

I think there should be a protest in the form of a boycott of the Magic weekend. Let's have no Bulls supporters in the crowd.

I will be very surprised if we make it to the magic weekend at this rate. Its not going to be much of a game anyway is it? Our academy players plus some other teams academy players making up a squad to get thrashed by Huddersfield.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:19 am  

W.T.F IS GOING ON wrote:

why weren't any of the potential buyers of the club told how much minimum investment would be needed before bids were submitted and also told that proof of funding would be required before been ratified by rfl. all seems booty about face.

Because the RFL, as we know make it up along the way!!! whether people believe they have the clubs best interest at heart or not... the constant movement of goal post just makes things harder and more damaging day by day.

Can just imagine the players reading the headline ''ownership back up for grabs because lack of proof for funds'' surely more players will just feck it, enough is enough and try find somewhere else... if they are not already!!

RFL... Khan... Hood... Caisley in that order!! feel free to add anyone I may have missed.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:28 am  

melly88 wrote:

RFL... Khan... Hood... Caisley in that order!! feel free to add anyone I may have missed.

whitc##t