Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:20 pm  

Noble & Honest wrote:

No just sick of the blame game been pointed at the RFL when its the idiots who owned the club to blame.

The RFl are now doing what they should have done 18 months ago.
Making sure potential new owners have enough to run the club solvently.

Which given the level of losses is about right at a million to see September.
Otherwise they will be having to intervene yet again and that will be 6 times in three years.

The club is a joke sadly.
A basket case.
You cannot pay £2.5 million wages with sales of £2.5 million and expect to pay anyone else.

Its that simple really.
Unless you have money to throw at it.
That is what the RFL seek assurances on.

They have heard it all before from Hood to Khan to Whitcut to Moore.

The Bulls need a cash rich owner to stay in super league end of.

Anyone got any better idea how you pay everyone without RFL loans which they (and no doubt all other clubs)are sick and tired of giving.

I agree with all you are saying there. The RFL seem to be doing substantial checks on any new owner, but going back to Rogers question, what side are you from?

Only reason I ask, is that you have thrown quite a bit of financial figures that 'Joe Bloggs' off the street is not privy to. Who's to say the figures you quote are incorrect? Do you see where I'm coming from, why should we believe you?

[Bullseye]

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:24 pm  

As with the last administration it seems this one is a real mess with all sorts of things going on behind the scenes.

It's difficult to know who or what to believe. Meanwhile fans, staff and players carry on regardless, but how long can this mess continue? Surely not for much longer?

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:31 pm  

I'm on the fence.

Everyone seems to be slamming the RFL, yet if it's true that they are worried about the financial backing of the owners, I'm glad they are looking a little deeper.

The way that we are currently heading means that next year we will be in SL2, the new owners need to be able to run the club on a lower income. I'd be disappointed to find that we are in the same mess as the owners are not able to run the club with less funding from income streams.

I would think that both the Park Avenue and BCFC bids would fall foul of the same demands placed on Lamb. Do Willey/Park avenue owner have instant access to £1 million. Same with BCFC, they are not renounced for having cash in their coffers.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:57 pm  

So either:
1. The potential new owners were not told beforehand how much they had to put in. Which is hard to believe.
Or:
2. The potential new owners bid knowing they did not have the money to put in. Again, hard to believe.

The whole thing is beyond farce now. And the question about why the one potential new owner who apparently does have the funds was turned down apparently is still out there.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:01 pm  

Noble & Honest wrote:

No just sick of the blame game been pointed at the RFL when its the idiots who owned the club to blame.

The RFl are now doing what they should have done 18 months ago.
Making sure potential new owners have enough to run the club solvently.

Which given the level of losses is about right at a million to see September.
Otherwise they will be having to intervene yet again and that will be 6 times in three years.

The club is a joke sadly.
A basket case.
You cannot pay £2.5 million wages with sales of £2.5 million and expect to pay anyone else.

Its that simple really.
Unless you have money to throw at it.
That is what the RFL seek assurances on.

They have heard it all before from Hood to Khan to Whitcut to Moore.

The Bulls need a cash rich owner to stay in super league end of.

Anyone got any better idea how you pay everyone without RFL loans which they (and no doubt all other clubs)are sick and tired of giving.

Correct they SHOULD have done it 18 month ago when OK came to take over (Hell they had to do it when they granted BB2014 ownership) but they didn't and this mess falls squarely at their feet and those of the admin/RFL, at the time they should have done all the checks, slapped the bulls with what ever restrictions in the close season, if we lost players so be it we build up like Wakey and Salford did to an extent. We would have been on some hidings last year but we would be alot stronger now.

Slowing it all down and not accepting the bid of the potential owner who can throw some weight around (even though the RFL aren't fond of her husband) is ludicrous and it slowly killing the club, we needed players in before the KR game so we had to have had a new owner in place at the Hudds game but due to the "checks" that need to be made we are going deeper into the mire and what about player welfare we may come to a point where we are so desperate for playing staff that those who are not sideline injured but could do with a week or 2 to recover are thrown into a game, what happens if they sustain a career ending injury all because the admin/RFL are drgging their feet over the ownership.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:16 pm  

The apologists for the RFL are failing to address the key point of communication . Not a word to the general public and absolutely no suggestion that those whose livelihoods are at stake have been kept informed. And now one of the bidders has said that they have not been told the current state of play by either the administrator or Red Hall.
The administrator accepted Lamb's bid last Monday. He will have had proof of funding for the creditors.
Of course the RFL need to check everything and be sure this crisis is not merely postponed. BUT FOR GOODNESS SAKE tell us the latest state of play and give us an estimate of how long it will take.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 7:59 pm  

Maybe the RFL should put out some communication, but what can they say? Only thing they can say is that they are working with the administrator to find a resolution. They can't guarantee a quick deal, nor can they confirm how the bidding is progressing.

The big unknown for me is - is the current hold up due to the new owners waiting for communication from the RFL, or is the RFL waiting for communication from the new owners (regarding proof of funds)? If it's the latter, which is my guess, I'm becoming a little worried about our possible new owner(s), and welcome the extra checks imposed by the RFL.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:02 pm  

The RFL just tweeted a message "The administrator has responsibility for selling the club, not the RFL. Announcement expected in next 48 hours".Thats not made it any clearer!

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:08 pm  

Ah, so it's another case of manjana, manjana, then is it?

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:12 pm  

Nelson wrote:

The RFL just tweeted a message "The administrator has responsibility for selling the club, not the RFL. Announcement expected in next 48 hours".Thats not made it any clearer!

Last night Lamb tweeted that he could 'only work within the framework imposed by the RFL'

Someone is telling porkies here....