Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:18 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this ludicrous suggestion that Green has done what he has to "get his money back".

So why do you think he bought it? and indeed you wonder what OK was thinking when he bought it? Two owners with no apparent connection with or previous interest in the game.

However costs have been reduced by a suggested £0.5m and if we are still in the SL next session the TV money would be about £1m more - so a £1.5m turnaround even without getting more fans through the gate - so not so far fetched to imagine over the course of a few seasons Mr Green could recover his cash - or be able to sell a stabilised club on to a new owner. Green appears to be a hard headed business man, keen to get some control back into the business, so he must think it is to his advantage to own the club.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:31 am  

Noble & Honest wrote:

Re your suggestion initially the business was operated through Ok"s other business accounts.

That also appears to have been the case more recently with Moore and Calverts firms bank accounts/pay portals been utilised.

All that would be picked up in a Cssh Flow Statement ( statement of Source and Application of Funds Statement to the older generation).

Equally more could have been taken out than was put in this way.The administraters job (and ultimately liquidaters)will be clear as mud.
Don't know who would fund an investigation when there is no money left.

Guilfoyles costs were over quarter million.
he had to accept what he got from OK less incidental expenses of his last game in charge.
So his liquidation review allowed all the past miscreants not to be properly investigated.

Perhaps were all better off coming back as serial white collar fraudsters.
Seems so easy to get away with it eh

chuff me its replying to itself now....

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:33 am  

Noble & Honest wrote:

The administrater to date has ascertained what amounts went in and out of the bank from OK.
There has been no Cash Flow Statement (previously called Statement Source Application of Funds).
Cash reconciliations have not even started and with such records as kept will be an enormous task.
Whitcut and Khan have been associated consistently together with failed ventures.

They have worked together for many years.

Whitcut cannot have had responsibility for accounts.
In every other company he has been a director of none were ever filed.

Frightening that you can stick up for him/them with a serial insolvency history.

I have no idea if FA has had a history of serial insolvency, and I certainly have never stuck up for Whitlessc**t

Word of advice - lay off the sherry before posting eh!

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:59 am  

Northernrelic wrote:

So why do you think he bought it? and indeed you wonder what OK was thinking when he bought it? Two owners with no apparent connection with or previous interest in the game.

OK bought it to save the club, as no-one else would. Whether he had any further private motivations, who knows, but only fools and trolls (not aimed at you of course btw) believe he did it thinking it would somehow make him money - from the off it was always going to be a money pit, especially initially, and especially with the distribution robbery (which remains unique to OKB). I do find it hard to accept that anyone on here, or anywhere, believes that the Bulls (or any professional sports club) is a vehicle to personally "make money". So no, I am sure whatever else, it won't have been that, and not sure what else there is.

Northernrelic wrote:

However costs have been reduced by a suggested £0.5m and if we are still in the SL next session the TV money would be about £1m more

Would it? We just read a very short sentnece thrown in a T&A report that the new company would have to, in effect, "pay off" the rest of the last company's distribution loss, but since then, I know of no further comment, and don't know how much was still owd. Then we read that the new owners would have to repay the RFL advances to the administrator, but don't know how much that is, or if it was confirmed when the deal was done. Then we heard that the winning bid would likely have to include some form of old creditor repayment but again, not a word about that. And of course (unless OKB is going to be the only SL club ever to suffer a one year distribution fine) the powers that be have been conspicuously silent as to whether any similar fine is going to be applied to BBNL. By which I mean, they have not said it will, and curiously nobody has yet said that it won't, either.

But depending what the actual position truly is regarding these issues, our share of any distribution money over the next year or two might easily be (net) a whole lot less than anyone elses. And I do think it is ridiculous and unacceptable that we have not been told one way or the other and are left to guess.

Northernrelic wrote:

- so a £1.5m turnaround even without getting more fans through the gate - so not so far fetched to imagine over the course of a few seasons Mr Green could recover his cash

I do find that notion very far fetched, but if he somehow ran a pr SL club at such an exceptionally profitable rate, and eventually recouped by way of taking profits, the amount of his loan, that would be more a case of simply very successfully running a notoriously unprofitable category of business, and a surprising reward for doing so. How would it represent "recovering his money"? If it WAS "recovering his money", then that means in effect the company made zero profit. And anyway if he did miraculously make the club profitable to that degree then it would have to pay a bunch of tax on any such profits. Whereas normally we can't even afford to pay the day to day HMRC bill. So no, i don't see that at all.

Northernrelic wrote:

- or be able to sell a stabilised club on to a new owner.

Possibly so, but do you believe that a purchaser would, in effect, pay a price that included a profit on the purchase price, PLUS in effect repayment to Green of all he will have had to spend (to run the business, pay the RFL, debts, advances etc)? What would THAT figure be? Would anyone really pay it? Wouldn't they just be very posthumously repaying the old debts of OKB, or the equivalent? If not, then you have to also take into account all that money that Green would have waved goodbye to forever.

Northernrelic wrote:

Green appears to be a hard headed business man, keen to get some control back into the business, so he must think it is to his advantage to own the club.

I presume he decided it was for whatever reasons better than the alternatives, and maybe he also has other motives that we haven't so far heard about. But paraphrasing someone else, if you were in this context that hard headed a businessman, would you have (a) lent the money to a basket case being run by a basket case in the first place, and (b) bought a serially failed RL club? I don't realy understand how Green got himself sucked into all this in the first place, but the loan wasn't my idea of hard headed business. Was it yours?

[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:05 am  

Northernrelic wrote:

So why do you think he bought it? and indeed you wonder what OK was thinking when he bought it? Two owners with no apparent connection with or previous interest in the game.

Have to say, OK comes across to me as a guy who likes to be liked, so whatever motives he had I don't feel he had any real idea of making a 'killing' out of the club. Maybe more a feeling that he was doing some good which might earn him credit and make him more liked? I certainly don't think he went into the implications of running a professional rugby club in any meaningful way before the purchase and quickly got out of his depth. Though it coulld be that I'm talking total rubbish and ought to leave the psychoanalysis to the real shrinks ..

To be fair, none of us is inside their heads. My initial, and I admit cynical, view of Mr Green was that he would take what he could from the business to get his cash back. However it seems he's done the exact opposite and is investing in the company with a new player and just as importantly new 'backroom' people, including managing and finance directors. All in all he gives the appearance of gravitas and being businesslike - which is a nice change..

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:33 am  

[quote="Ferocious Aardvark

I don't realy understand how Green got himself sucked into all this in the first place, but the loan wasn't my idea of hard headed business. Was it yours?[/quote]

Apparently after being approached by Mr Whitcut - so maybe he had had a serious bang to his hard business head before the meeting?

However if you do bring the Bulls back to an even keel there are numerous ways of getting some pay back - directors fees, interest on loans, pension contributions, employing relatives and friends. If £'m's were at stake then no he couldn't reasonable expect to get the cash back - but £'000's is possible.

As for OK - he might have deleted Mr Sutcliffe and Greenwood from his Christmas card list?

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:47 am  

Green has been very pragmatic from the outset, the administrator notes that when the 6 weeks repayment date was not met he agreed to installments and to reduce the interest. He also moved to appoint his own administrator, which appears to have given him much more control over costs thereof. that agreement for installments would have been when Moore etc were getting to grips with things and announcing the cost cutting, and I would have thought he insisted on seeing what the figures looked like to see if the repayment was feasible. So he would already have had a good idea of what cost cutting was needed, and the opportunities that the trio were looking at. The increase in central funding is a big pot of gold, if he has got the club at break even for this year (hence Ferres) and had to spend a bit on two props to try to ensure SL survival. So IF yes IF that all worked that way, he would see a massive increase in income the following year without needing to spend a fortune on anything. Yes, tax will be payable, but theres always management charges he could make - with considerable justification too - to recoup money, I am sure he has a good tax advisor to tell him how to do it.

And FA, you are obsessed by the sky funding deduction issue, so to repeat myself, have you looked at the RFL statements around the time of the trios takeover, as I thought Solly or Wood said that it simply rolled over as is, same terms and conditions, as if it too had been TUPEd. I remember waiting for a comment about it from you at the time, but you clearly did not see it. update... I have had another look and here it is from the TnA 1st February:-
Blake Solly, the RFL’s director of licensing and standards, confirmed the change of ownership would not affect the central money allocated to the Bulls and that the club would again receive only half of the usual amount for the second successive year.

I have seen no further announcements to change this. Solly would have known bb2014 takeover was conditional so other owners could replace them, hence he refers to "the Bulls" and "the club" not to bb2014 thereby including any owners.

good comments northernrelic, on the same wavelength re payback. and if at the same time he has turned us into the Stoke of Sleague, break even and mid table, then the future is good beyond that too. yes a lot of ifs.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:14 am  

Northernrelic wrote:

Apparently after being approached by Mr Whitcut - so maybe he had had a serious bang to his hard business head before the meeting?

Yes, that would certainly be one explanation!

Do you think he would have lent the money, with the benefit of hindsight?

Northernrelic wrote:

However if you do bring the Bulls back to an even keel there are numerous ways of getting some pay back - directors fees, interest on loans, pension contributions, employing relatives and friends. If £'m's were at stake then no he couldn't reasonable expect to get the cash back - but £'000's is possible.

I'm not arguing otherwise - just if you had a load of money to invest in a business with the aim of making more money ... would you pick that one? Or one without any baggage and at least in an industry where profits are actually heard of from time to time?

Northernrelic wrote:

As for OK - he might have deleted Mr Sutcliffe and Greenwood from his Christmas card list?

Christmas?

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:23 am  

Unless you are in love with the sport or town the only reason I can see for buying a team is as a penis substitute. Mrs K possibly excepted.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:25 am  

tigertot wrote:

Unless you are in love with the sport or town the only reason I can see for buying a team is as a penis substitute. Mrs K possibly excepted.

Who knows about Mrs K - has the good Dr been measured by Max Clifford's doctor? Apparently he offers "extended payment terms"