Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:21 pm  

tigertot wrote:

I don't think the game is bent at all. It annoys be greatly when people make stupid, throwaway comments to try & ingratiate themselves. We have had some good administrators & some mediocre ones, same as all sports. What the RFL have to do is to try & balance the demands of powerful & rich chairmen with the sustainability of a precariously balanced game. Bradford is worth saving due to potential of the club. Your team, & my team, are probably expendable; one not both, due to the proximity. But there is no-one in the championship, at the moment, who are any better. Halifax used to be, maybe could be. Relegation might add some end of season excitement but it will lead to more financial disaster. SL needs Bradford, it doesn't need more than one of the 5 towns. Get used to it.

As you please, you can jump to what ever conclusion you choose, i don't need your support to back up or make my point. I know clearly where i stand.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:24 pm  

There lies the difference between Wakefield and The Bulls.You seem to admit the ground was sold to the RFL at "undervalue".Of course as things panned out less than 8 months later the company operating Bradford Bulls was in administration and ultimately liquidated with the creditors reported at the time to be in the region of £2 million got nothing.Watch hoods Utube available interview in January 2012 with the BBC.The iconic ground was sold to ensure the Bulls long term survival.If you admit it was transferred at "undervalue" and placed out of the rach of the creditors just 9 months later it has indeed allowed the Bulls to survive.Otherwise houses may now be started to be built on Odsal within a few years to ensure ALL the creditors were paid including Crown.And local taxpayer.Remember Caisley negotiated as deal for the Bulls to return to Odsal with maintenance responsibilities till 2019 and received a very heavy £5.4 million to enable those responsibilities to be off Bradford council and the local taxpayers hands.Look at the state of the place.The Coral stand built at £2.7 million its roof lealed soon after build yet the builder could not be found.The money was blown well in advance of 2019.The reson the sky money was withheld in my guess is the RFL felt complicit in taking that "undervalue" ground for an alleged 1 million (given to the Bulls incidentally with £5.4 million handout)and yet by August 2012 the company still owed £2 million.And now owes 31.2 million and counting.Northern relics earlier post is right.The RFL have a lot to deal with and each case is dealt with on its merits.No two cases are the same.Think I"d better get one of those nuclear protectice suits.Things are getting a bit too tasty.The RFL do not help in ensuring players contracts are protected through hell and high water.The Bulls could have done without 3 on over £100 grand at September 2012.2 have gone anyway with a 9th spot finish.All cases are different but if the Bulls and Hood had not "conned" the RFL into believing that in taking the ground all would then be well the hardline approach so derided may not have arisen.Tghe Bulls were stuffed financially in taking the 3 year super league license at October 2011.They are still stuffed today.If I were the new 4 I would be bricking it as to how to turn this thing round with a falling fan loyalty and contracts to be honoured until November 2014.Which is why I feel Bullbuilder should be building a war chestnow to be able to keep the name going if all goes t I t s up.Banks results show they are still failing everywhere.These are very tough times for EVERYONE.I doubt the fans (and noble other chairmen)will have the rsources to raise £400k in a short time as in early May 2012.Stay focuissed and do not let the emotion of Wakefield fans perception cloud the issues.Big Nige understands it all.He cannot be in there at Odsal daily to assist those that did not understand any of it

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:30 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

As you please, you can jump to what ever conclusion you choose, i don't need your support to back up or make my point. I know clearly where i stand.

I don't & haven't jumped to any conclusions. Don't jump to that conclusion.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:31 pm  

Sorry should have read "now owes £1.2 million.But maybe not after last Fridays events.We will have to wait and see.BUt that was in November.Whats the figure at the end of January.Madness.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:34 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

I dont think any rational fan would suggest you arent, but that is aver different matter to the rock and hard place ultimatum Wakefield were given for attempting to do what effectively the Bulls have done.

I contest it is NOT a very different matter, since the background to both clubs looking at administration for a second time was clearly very different. Even from what we the plebs know. Assuming your chairman WAS told what he told you he was told (and he'll not thank you if the RFL were to deny it), maybe the fact that you were broke again WITH full Sky money had a bearing? Maybe your chairman did not offer to pay enough creditors? Bearing in mind no-one knows the details of what the new bulls board proposes yet, so everyone is guessing - and jumping the gun. Maybe all sorts. Maybe a lot of what was discussed and agreed in all these cases was commercially or legally sensitive. Much surrounding the Bulls' current situation will invariably reflect the latter, given the threats of legal action being thrown around.

Maybe you WILL get some further explanation of the various circumstances. But maybe it will not be to anyone's liking, and do no-one - least of all the game - any good?

I suggest you would have been better waiting until you knew what was being proposed by the Bulls, and what the consequential sactions would be, before firing off that letter. The fact that you sent it NOW, and blasted it all round the media, would very much indicate you are seeking to influence the outcome. So let's cut the crap about it being merely a request for clarification, shall we? All it has done is further set fans against each other.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:42 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

The fact that you sent it NOW, and blasted it all round the media, would very much indicate you are seeking to influence the outcome.

Or ensuring that the matter is considered properly rather than the pre-determined whitewash leaked inadvertently last Friday. Maybe that has backed the RFL into a corner more than any letter from a Supporters Trust.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:46 pm  

The ground wasn't sold to anybody. The Council owned it then, and the Council owns it now.

As for the other bit - what? The RFL felt "complicit" at getting the lease at an undervalue, (ie not paying enough) - so forced the new owners to lose 1 year's Sky distribution, with the surplus funds being divided between the other clubs? You'll have to explain that one.

Bullbuilder "warchest"? Is this meant as a serious suggestion?

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:57 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Or ensuring that the matter is considered properly rather than the pre-determined whitewash leaked inadvertently last Friday. Maybe that has backed the RFL into a corner more than any letter from a Supporters Trust.

As I said...seeking to influence the outcome. Thank's for confirming it.

You presumably have proof about this "pre-determined whitewash" that you seem so unequivocal about? And know for a fact that, as may possibly have been the case with your own chairman that time, what our chairman thought the RFL said or meant may not have been what they actually said or meant?

For the avoidance of doubt, I honestly have no idea what the truth or otherwise of any of the above is. And I am not naive enough to think that when we DO get to hear more about what is proposed, it will be to everyone's taste - including my own. Then I will form a view, and should that mean I have an issue with what the club and the RFL have done then I shall decide what to do.

But, unless YOU do, surely setting yourselves up as judge and jury in advance of the facts would be little better than what you are objecting to?

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:07 pm  

[quote="Noble & Honest"]There lies the difference between Wakefield and The Bulls.You seem to admit the ground was sold to the RFL at "undervalue".Of course as things panned out less than 8 months later the company operating Bradford Bulls was in administration and ultimately liquidated with the creditors reported at the time to be in the region of £2 million got nothing.Watch hoods Utube available interview in January 2012 with the BBC.The iconic ground was sold to ensure the Bulls long term survival.If you admit it was transferred at "undervalue" and placed out of the rach of the creditors just 9 months later it has indeed allowed the Bulls to survive.Otherwise houses may now be started to be built on Odsal within a few years to ensure ALL the creditors were paid including Crown.And local taxpayer.Remember Caisley negotiated as deal for the Bulls to return to Odsal with maintenance responsibilities till 2019 and received a very heavy £5.4 million to enable those responsibilities to be off Bradford council and the local taxpayers hands.Look at the state of the place.The Coral stand built at £2.7 million its roof lealed soon after build yet the builder could not be found.The money was blown well in advance of 2019.The reson the sky money was withheld in my guess is the RFL felt complicit in taking that "undervalue" ground for an alleged 1 million (given to the Bulls incidentally with £5.4 million handout)and yet by August 2012 the company still owed £2 million.And now owes 31.2 million and counting.Northern relics earlier post is right.The RFL have a lot to deal with and each case is dealt with on its merits.No two cases are the same.Think I"d better get one of those nuclear protectice suits.Things are getting a bit too tasty.The RFL do not help in ensuring players contracts are protected through hell and high water.The Bulls could have done without 3 on over £100 grand at September 2012.2 have gone anyway with a 9th spot finish.All cases are different but if the Bulls and Hood had not "conned" the RFL into believing that in taking the ground all would then be well the hardline approach so derided may not have arisen.Tghe Bulls were stuffed financially in taking the 3 year super league license at October 2011.They are still stuffed today.If I were the new 4 I would be bricking it as to how to turn this thing round with a falling fan loyalty and contracts to be honoured until November 2014.Which is why I feel Bullbuilder should be building a war chestnow to be able to keep the name going if all goes t I t s up.Banks results show they are still failing everywhere.These are very tough times for EVERYONE.I doubt the fans (and noble other chairmen)will have the rsources to raise £400k in a short time as in early May 2012.Stay focuissed and do not let the emotion of Wakefield fans perception cloud the issues.Big Nige understands it all.He cannot be in there at Odsal daily to assist those that did not understand any of it[/quote]


And how much of all that is in "Your guess" ?

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:11 pm  

Whatever mealy mouthed whinges follow, it's clear that as nothing could retrospectively be done to give Wakefield their points back, all this is 100% aimed at trying to pressure the RFL into heavily penalising the Bulls. Pure special pleading.

If the RFL had already reached decisions, that wouldn't in any case mean that they hadn't considered the matter properly. That is a non sequitur. The RFL (sadly) know the whole Bulls (basket) case of necessity intimately, and have not only known what has been going on but obviously been heavily involved in it, what with vetting owners, checking plans etc. If they have the information needed to reach decisions then why shouldn't they make them?