Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:31 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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

All our recent owners/bidders seem to know each other - OK brings in Whitcut (very serious mistake) then Moore initially joined Whitcut - so I assume they knew each other - then Whitcut approaches Green for a loan - again Green not in the news previously - so Whitcut must have had some reason to try that avenue.

It's a bit like watching a group playing pass the parcel with a stick of sweaty dynamite - with the rfl holding the detonator

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:25 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

OK bought it to save the club, as no-one else would.

Sorry FA but that bit is not correct, there was a few other bidders on the table (with better offers) when OK was involved, it was the fact that OK had Sutcliffe in his corner making the RFL believe the council was involved with the takeover therefore making it "look" rosier, and yes he bought it to save the club but was on par with him and Sutcliffe trying to make a name for themsleves.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 2:11 pm  

Northernrelic wrote:

All our recent owners/bidders seem to know each other - OK brings in Whitcut (very serious mistake) then Moore initially joined Whitcut - so I assume they knew each other - then Whitcut approaches Green for a loan - again Green not in the news previously - so Whitcut must have had some reason to try that avenue.

It's a bit like watching a group playing pass the parcel with a stick of sweaty dynamite - with the rfl holding the detonator

Moores co are/were sponsors, and wasnt he part of the "business club" OK was trying to put together? seems more likely Whitcut knew Green. But there is still FA's excellent question to answer, along the lines of why did Green do so? Its a very big favour for a mate, or insanity.

Anyway, enough, back to team talk over on the Salford squad topic

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 2:38 pm  

pulsator2k7 wrote:

Sorry FA but that bit is not correct, there was a few other bidders on the table (with better offers) when OK was involved, it was the fact that OK had Sutcliffe in his corner making the RFL believe the council was involved with the takeover therefore making it "look" rosier, and yes he bought it to save the club but was on par with him and Sutcliffe trying to make a name for themsleves.

The former Minister of Sport who occupies a Westminster seat which is pretty much unlose-able piggy backed a bid to buy the Bulls to make a name for himself?

And the administrator broke the law by accepting a lower bid than was achievable because the RFL were under the total misapprehension that Bradford Council were behind Omar Khan?

Where you get this stuff?

[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 3:36 pm  

I'm not sure why people think Green's loan to Whitcut was automatically, " bad business".

There are a few companies which make loans to 'basket cases', or people with poor credit histories. This is the business model of the Wonga's and, dare I say it, our main sponsor. They do so for sufficiently large rates of interest that if one or two go down the tubes then there is still a solid profit - particularly,. as in Mr Green's case, when you have taken a debenture out.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:11 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

...
And FA, you are obsessed by the sky funding deduction issue,

To say I'm "obsessed" by it is a bit strange. I am very concerned about my club not getting the full distribution and I am extremely worried - in the absence of being told anything specific by anyone - that we might again be hugely worse off than the other clubs.

martinwildbull wrote:

...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 did see it and I did comment on it. It was highly unspecific as to know the numbers, you'd need to know how much had been paid in the second year and how much was still to come, but those figures never came then, and they have never come now.

Anyway, that remark, vague as it is, related to the takeover by BB2014 as you say - so far as I am aware NOTHING has been said about distribution penalties for BBNL. You might think that a second change of ownership also "would not affect the central money" but unless someone says so we don't even know that, and in any case, we don't know the figures, which is the real information we need.

I also have repeatedly posed the question of WHY this would be so. Why did the change of ownership to OKB effect a 50% reduction in distribution x 2 years, but the next change of ownership following a second administration situation NOT effect ANY reduction in distribution? I keep asking this as i want the RFL to explain why they crippled OKB like that, if nobody else is ever to suffer that fate.

I understand the words reported by Solly but I completely fail to understand WHY this would be the case. If you are in doubt the issue I have is why the RFL crippled my club by the last-minute one year - no money penalty, but never anyone before, nor since. Why were OKB treated that way but not BBNL? Of corse I don't WANT us to be given a fresh year's money penalty, but I do want to understand why that catastrophic penalty was visited on owners just once. And whether the RFL now admit that it was a disastrous mistake.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:19 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

lol.......without the RFL you'd have gone bust years ago! Short memories some folk on here!

That was a Rhetorical comment, as no one can answer the question, and those that live in glass house shouldn't heave bricks!

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:22 pm  

pulsator2k7 wrote:

Sorry FA but that bit is not correct, there was a few other bidders on the table (with better offers) when OK was involved, it was the fact that OK had Sutcliffe in his corner making the RFL believe the council was involved with the takeover therefore making it "look" rosier, and yes he bought it to save the club but was on par with him and Sutcliffe trying to make a name for themsleves.

You are right that other people had expressed an interest, but the administrator only actually received 2 bids, and the RFL did not accept the other one so that in effect meant OK was the only game in town (I am not counting the RFL's own "Neonrain" bid, as that would only have been the RFL/SL's fallback interim solution not a proper buyer.)

People who buy sports clubs aren't often shy and retiring or adverse to publicity. What you say is likely to have truth, but I don't see it as particularly relevant, as you could say similar things about most people rich enough to buy a sports club.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:26 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

To say I'm "obsessed" by it is a bit strange. I am very concerned about my club not getting the full distribution and I am extremely worried - in the absence of being told anything specific by anyone - that we might again be hugely worse off than the other clubs.

I did see it and I did comment on it. It was highly unspecific as to know the numbers, you'd need to know how much had been paid in the second year and how much was still to come, but those figures never came then, and they have never come now.

Anyway, that remark, vague as it is, related to the takeover by BB2014 as you say - so far as I am aware NOTHING has been said about distribution penalties for BBNL. You might think that a second change of ownership also "would not affect the central money" but unless someone says so we don't even know that, and in any case, we don't know the figures, which is the real information we need.

I also have repeatedly posed the question of WHY this would be so. Why did the change of ownership to OKB effect a 50% reduction in distribution x 2 years, but the next change of ownership following a second administration situation NOT effect ANY reduction in distribution? I keep asking this as i want the RFL to explain why they crippled OKB like that, if nobody else is ever to suffer that fate.

I understand the words reported by Solly but I completely fail to understand WHY this would be the case. If you are in doubt the issue I have is why the RFL crippled my club by the last-minute one year - no money penalty, but never anyone before, nor since. Why were OKB treated that way but not BBNL? Of corse I don't WANT us to be given a fresh year's money penalty, but I do want to understand why that catastrophic penalty was visited on owners just once. And whether the RFL now admit that it was a disastrous mistake.

It is a completely different set of circumstances now. When OK took over the club was guaranteed a SL place by way of licensing, therefore there was a future guaranteed income to apply sanctions to. Now that licensing has been scrapped then there is no guarantee that the club will have any SL income next year. What would be the point of imposing a deduction on income that the club wouldn't even receive should they be relegated ?

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:53 pm  

Rarebreed wrote:

That was a Rhetorical comment, as no one can answer the question, and those that live in glass house shouldn't heave bricks!

Bricks?
Nah......the RFL haven't bought us any bricks and with the best will in the world, you'll be hard pressed to show anyone that the RFL has financed London at the same level that Bradford have received!
We're going down and probably bust because we were run badly.....you've had loans and leases purchased and more second chances than anyone.