Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:35 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Its not a transparent process, its not meant to be transparent. Most comments on the subject are a combination of fact, deduction and guesswork. Ranging from 10% fact, 10% deduction and 80% guesswork to 30% fact, 30% deduction and 40% guesswork.

Even when the process is concluded we'll have very little understanding of the outcome.

Gledhill posts with absolute inside knowledge according to him, if you read his stuff you would think he sits on the board or has a track to the info. something he quite clearly does not.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:41 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

1. Mandy didn't get as far as to be bounced by the RFL. She bid too low and that was that....didn't get to 2nd base so to speak!
2. Lamb was asked to show proof of funds. He didn't......sorry, but if you've got funds available, then proof of them should be easy to provide. 24 Hours is not a long time to get a bank statement or legal draft guaranteeing funds....unless the funds aren't actually funds yet.

You skate over the main question, which is whether it was reasonable to suddenly demand something within 24 hours, in contrast to the funereal pace prior to that date. You also fail to address as to why it would be at all reasonable, given the seemingly eminently reasonable explanation why the info could have been available as soon as the Monday, not to wait that extra day.

The RFL have saved Bradford again.....instead of bitching about it, their fans should be thankful they aren't planning a trip to Hemel next year!

Nobody is bitching though. We are having a perfectly reasonable discussion and asking perfectly reasonable questions about serious issues that have been raised. It's not an "either-or" situation. Just because a new owner has been accepted, it doesn't follow that we either can't ask important questions, or abandon any concepts of fairness out of pure self interest.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:58 pm  

Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and _______ the prom queen!

Of course those who lost the bidding will whine and give if only's.

Mr Green has the pleasure of ......................... the Bulls.







Maybe he should have lost

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:10 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Nobody is bitching though.

Lamb is

Having spoken to a number of other owners, proof of funds has not been involved in the purchase of a club only the funds to buy the club

.

....a number of other owners? For the life of me, I can't think of any club that has gone into administration twice in this short space a time, so it is perfectly reasonable to make sure that you don't go for 3 times lucky!

Salford teetered on the edge, Wakefield pretty much sorted themselves out and I can't really think of a club that's changed hands in recent years that the RFL would have had concerns about along the lines that Bradford would.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

We are having a perfectly reasonable discussion and asking perfectly reasonable questions about serious issues that have been raised. It's not an "either-or" situation. Just because a new owner has been accepted, it doesn't follow that we either can't ask important questions, or abandon any concepts of fairness out of pure self interest.

As I said, Mandy didn't bid enough to get to second base so here and the old man have no real say in this. Lamb rambles on about his 2 million in SHARE CAPITAL backed consortium, but when asked if there was actually any money there, fell short. They now say "if only we had more time", but in reality, they need to ask themselves why they weren't prepared for this?
Moore et al were asked this question......I seem to recall the fact they couldn't provide proof of funds is the reason Mr Lamb got a second bite of the cherry. Then, there's the Main investor being away........I used to work for a company that carried millions of trade confirmations around the world every day by telex and fax...these were in some instances for billions of dollars between major financial institutions and were legal documents. Was this main investor on mars?

The people that lose seem quite happy to whine in a public forum only after they've lost.......but less keen to actually put up cold hard cash, or assurances against their guarantees, or actually anything of substance.

If only.....what if......it's not right......it's not happened before......

The RFL were in essence no longer prepared to accept offers for the ownership of a club that essentially offered no protection from a further collapse after this season is over.........Green may not be the winner that the fans wanted, but he at least has given the assurances that Bradford will see out this season....and the RFL, who have said they are sick of "micro-managing" clubs have now got what they wanted.

Personally, I blame Ryan Whitcu*t.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:40 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You skate over the main question, which is whether it was reasonable to suddenly demand something within 24 hours, in contrast to the funereal pace prior to that date. You also fail to address as to why it would be at all reasonable, given the seemingly eminently reasonable explanation why the info could have been available as soon as the Monday, not to wait that extra day.

Nobody is bitching though. We are having a perfectly reasonable discussion and asking perfectly reasonable questions about serious issues that have been raised. It's not an "either-or" situation. Just because a new owner has been accepted, it doesn't follow that we either can't ask important questions, or abandon any concepts of fairness out of pure self interest.

Quite.

if the "show me £1M in 24 hours or get lost" ultimatum was not in the original bidding rules by the Administrator / RFL, then they should be subject to legal challenge. If not then Lamb should have been prepared.
I strongly suspect (guess) that it is the former.

If indeed Lamb was buying it with a new company which had £2M issued share capital then this is a substantial investment which cannot be taken out like directors' loan or be secured on the clubs assets or future income stream a la Rangers.

If the RFL got a better offer than this is concrete terms, it must have been a very good offer - unless of course they didn't want Lamb so put an obstacle in the way and had already chosen who they really want in any event.

The reason the whole thing stinks is the complete lack of transparency and the apparent moving of goal posts by the RFL.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:55 am  

gutterfax wrote:

Lamb is

1. he's not. His comments seem very factual and not intemperate at all to me.
2. You said "the fans" should stop bitching; so bringing Lamb into it is just you moving the goalposts.

gutterfax wrote:

Salford teetered on the edge, Wakefield pretty much sorted themselves out and I can't really think of a club that's changed hands in recent years that the RFL would have had concerns about along the lines that Bradford would.

Typical non sequitur. It wouldn't make any logical difference if it was the Bulls' 100th administration, that would have no bearing whatsoever on the probity or ability to run a club of a new owner who was not previously part of the old club so they should be judged just the same as any other applicant, at any other club.

gutterfax wrote:

As I said, Mandy didn't bid enough to get to second base so here and the old man have no real say in this.

What does that mean, "no real say"? They are perfectly entitled to give their account of what happened between them, the RFL and the administrator.

gutterfax wrote:

Lamb rambles on about his 2 million in SHARE CAPITAL backed consortium, but when asked if there was actually any money there, fell short. They now say "if only we had more time", but in reality, they need to ask themselves why they weren't prepared for this?

He has given a reasonably detailed answer already though. I would say the ball is in the RFL's court to respond. Though I expect they won't. And you don't deal with the central issue of regardless of the above, why was it all of a sudden so damn urgent, and what stopped them from waiting till Monday, however unprepared they may or may not have been.

gutterfax wrote:

Moore et al were asked this question......I seem to recall the fact they couldn't provide proof of funds is the reason Mr Lamb got a second bite of the cherry.

Your recollection is wrong., Moore & Co. walked on the grounds that all the goalposts had been moved, the RFL DID accept them, it was they who did not accept the RFL's terms. You oddly ignore the known fact that if Moore had accepted the RFL's terms, they had agreed to his bid, and he would now be the owner. The issue in his case is whether and why they had been seriously misled, only for the goalposts to be moved at the last.

gutterfax wrote:

Then, there's the Main investor being away........I used to work for a company that carried millions of trade confirmations around the world every day by telex and fax...these were in some instances for billions of dollars between major financial institutions and were legal documents. Was this main investor on mars?

Why are you repeating that question when it is purely secondary? The obvious main question is, given the alleged proof would have been provided on the Monday, why were they not prepared to wait until then? That's what seems on the face of it extremely odd to me.

gutterfax wrote:

The RFL were in essence no longer prepared to accept offers for the ownership of a club that essentially offered no protection from a further collapse after this season is over........

Yes they were. Their solution in Moore's case wasn't to refuse them, but to accept them, in special measures.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:05 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

WHINE.

Green is your owner........you've had a few "fan favourites" love it up, so why don't you just shut the love up and be thankful you've got a team to follow!

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:34 am  

Looks life a geezer worth £8b was interested! Bradford born aswell. No money for years then at least 2 parties with significant resources interested, apparently

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:58 am  

Who was that?

I've just watched last nights Boots n All, Brian Carney talking a lot of sense about Marc Green,is he there for the long haul or his he just wanting his money back

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:00 am  

gutterfax wrote:

Green is your owner........you've had a few "fan favourites" love it up, so why don't you just shut the love up and be thankful you've got a team to follow!

Hate to say it, but.... THIS ^^