Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:58 pm  

mat wrote:

If thats the case then why is he refusing to allow bidders to improve their bids, as mrs koukash wanted to do. Surely a bidding war with club going to highest bidder is best financial result for the creditors?.

Was it just that you could not up the bid once a better one has been accepted????

If that's the case, then that bid has been rejected and everyone surely is free to change their bids?

It does make you wonder whether an ebay style system would not have been better,

ie here are the books and you can put in an offer to pay the creditors until 7pm 25/03/14.

Pick up only, cash on collection.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:00 pm  

mat wrote:

If thats the case then why is he refusing to allow bidders to improve their bids, as mrs koukash wanted to do. Surely a bidding war with club going to highest bidder is best financial result for the creditors?.

That kind of assumes the other bidders were able to increase their offers. The interested parties to date all seem to be failing the rfl test that they have the readies to see the club through to the end of the season - if they cannot do this now - how could they find more to pay the administrator?

Perhaps the K's knowing the other bidders lacked the financial muscle to run the club to the end of the season are bidding their time knowing that even if they are not on the rfl Christmas card list they could well be the only financially credible option. But as the situation continues to deteriorate we might find no serious bidders if the hope of SL football next season has gone up in smoke?

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm  

Derwent wrote:

But you don't know what purchase price Mrs Koukash offered. Yes I'm sure £300k would be worth more than the totality of the sellable assets, but £30k might not be.

It was a similar sum to what OKB paid for it.

Derwent wrote:

There will be a plethora of assets that the administrator could sell ranging from office equipment (PC's, photocopiers etc), furniture, bar and hospitality area fixtures and fittings, stock (bar, food, merchandise, medical etc), catering equipment, training and gym equipment, grounds maintenance equipment etc etc etc

That is I'm afraid just nonsense. The cost of removal, sale and auction would not produce any meaningful surplus whatsoever, and there would be a serious risk of a loss. The sheriffs and their auctioneers are piling stacks of such goods onto the auction market every day, have you ever been to one of these auctions?

Derwent wrote:

Unless you know how much Mrs Koukash bid, and how much the assets would realise under liquidation, then you can't definitively state that the administrator would be compelled to sell to her.

I think I know more than enough to be very confident though. The assets are not worth a net carrot, and thus any bid exceeding one carrot is better than the alternative.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:10 pm  

My starting bid is 2 carrots

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:12 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

My starting bid is 2 carrots

Can you prove you have these carrots? And have you a further 2 carrots to see us through until the end of the season?

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:14 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

My starting bid is 2 carrots

Yes but can you prove to the RFL you've got a spare million spondulicks lying around?

If yes, I've long thought you are easily the best mod on these boards and a great bloke to boot.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:15 pm  

mat wrote:

If thats the case then why is he refusing to allow bidders to improve their bids, as mrs koukash wanted to do. Surely a bidding war with club going to highest bidder is best financial result for the creditors?.

^^This^^
I am guessing that the allowance for parties to increase their bids could/would become a tedious matter that would not benefit anyone but in simplistic terms and with some common sense rules it might well be a viable way to sort out the problems of the creditors and the Bulls.

I am perplexed at the bids of Koukash and Lamb being refused yet nothing concrete is in place regarding an accepted offer. This looks like potentially the RFL setting themselves up for a fall - nothing new there!!

That being said i can see grounds for both being refused, low bid and not showing sufficient funds in the reports i read for Mrs K and Lamb but equally have the other investors proven funds and if not does that mean the low offer to the creditors due to the RFL rules is now the highest offer?

As ever the plot thickens!!

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:20 pm  

inside man wrote:

Pmsl @ petition.

why dont you go have a scrap on terraces with the rest of the moronic wakefield t0ssers

By the way not a pop at all wakey fans just the horrible vindictive kind

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:24 pm  

Bradford Bulls need to exist as a club to have any value at all, surely the RFL should be engaging with Mandy Koukash and all other potential buyers and saying here is what you need to do, go away and do it and then those proven to pass the RFL's test can work with the administrator to get an acceptable offer on the table.

Right now, the administrator has accepted two bids which have then failed to because of the RFL, it seems entirely backwards.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:28 pm  

thepimp007 wrote:

why dont you go have a scrap on terraces with the rest of the moronic wakefield t0ssers

By the way not a pop at all wakey fans just the horrible vindictive kind

You know what I'm going to say don't you. Don't get riled by one malicious troll. He spreads misery on the vt too so any bite will be delightful to him.