Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:13 pm  

[quote="roger daly"]Are you well known in amateur rugby league circles[/quote]


Not as well known as you

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:27 pm  

Well as you know Mr Rigsby we have both had our moments,and very good moments at times.I remember our partnership about 10 year ago now( didn't realise it was that long) it definately brought a few try's

You always need creators and finishers.Its like love and marriage,go together like a horse and carriage

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:14 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Seemingly not. As is normal, nobody actually says, just the odd vague hint, but it wasn't "done". It was sort of said that whatever penalty had not been paid yet, would be "carried forward" to the new owners. They would have to stand the balance. But we have no idea what the balance is, and we have no idea whether or if it takes into account such advances on distribution as the RFL gave the administrator to keep the pot boiling. So whilst we don't know the figures, it seems to me far from "done", on the contrary it seems the son will be paying for the sins of the father all year.

It was my understanding that the RFL told prospective purchasers in February that there was about £350k left in the pot not vexed away from central funding.About £50000 a month to September.So no overspend maybe.
RFL had to pay net wages (from that pot ) in Jan.Something was ceratainly left.
Clear as mud all of it.
Especially the non explanation officially for that decision.

You ring big Nigel and tell him your delivering his lunch.Three Greggs and he may let you in on how much is left. Had better take him the branches of Horsforth Pudsey and Alwoodley

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:45 pm  

roger daly wrote:

Are you well known in amateur rugby league circles

Roger NO NO NO.

I am hardly likely to identify myself when there are lunatics out there (Raisemeup on the T & A board is one)who want to pillories and criticise.



The whole point of releasing information into the public domain (even though it is not the sort of news the like of Raisemeup want to hear)is to correct the misinformation that has consistently come over to fans (who are the only reason the club exists of course...no fans with money no club)from those in charge over the past three years.
It disgusts me the lies deception that Alls Well even last August those soundbites were coming forth.

Even when information that is out there many different interpretations are put on it.
Example...The decision to withhold £1.2 million sky dosh spread over 2 years.
Despite a moderator been clear how that sanction works where CONTROL of the club (as opposed to ownership of the club)through directors ,no directors(week over Christmas),maybe directors,maybe not directors,administraters,chancers,dancers(us),uncle Tom C and all....has ebbed and flowed in 7 months now,the song remains the same.

£1.2 million "fine",to be paid over 2 years.
What is not clear is as to why.When no other precedent is there and no one has yet shown a rule that says it is THE PENALTY.
Even the courts have clear sentencing guidelines for judges to follow (and tow the rules they have to) of say caution for first 5 cases of shoplifting and a free weekend away with a social worker if your really naughty,but this way the RFL and Super League work is just clear as the crack in my booty.
The whole episode turns one to anger at the treatment.
Ok could and should have done better though.
Or perhaps he did his best?
Which mirrors the Bulls on the field in 9 years

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:32 am  

Well the Saga is getting a bit more interesting again http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... d/?ref=rss I wonder if anything of real interest will come out of it!

Well the Saga is getting a bit more interesting again http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... d/?ref=rss I wonder if anything of real interest will come out of it!

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:27 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Seemingly not. As is normal, nobody actually says, just the odd vague hint, but it wasn't "done". It was sort of said that whatever penalty had not been paid yet, would be "carried forward" to the new owners. They would have to stand the balance. But we have no idea what the balance is, and we have no idea whether or if it takes into account such advances on distribution as the RFL gave the administrator to keep the pot boiling. So whilst we don't know the figures, it seems to me far from "done", on the contrary it seems the son will be paying for the sins of the father all year.

Maybe not. I'm surprised nobody has picked up on the figures stated by the Administrator in the Income & Expenditure section of his report. This clearly shows that for the months of February & March they received a total of £205,000 from "Central Funding". Which is curious as extrapolating that over a year gives a total of £1.23m which is the same amount as other SL clubs get.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:00 am  

Derwent wrote:

Maybe not. I'm surprised nobody has picked up on the figures stated by the Administrator in the Income & Expenditure section of his report. This clearly shows that for the months of February & March they received a total of £205,000 from "Central Funding". Which is curious as extrapolating that over a year gives a total of £1.23m which is the same amount as other SL clubs get.

I've only read this post and not the report itself, but my immediate thought was all teams recieved a "new sky deal sweetener" bonus of a couple of hundred grand... which some of Bradford's was held back by the RFL. Perhaps that amount is the bonus?

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:58 am  

Blotto wrote: Well the Saga is getting a bit more interesting again http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... d/?ref=rss I wonder if anything of real interest will come out of it! I think he is in denial - he hadn't a clue what was going on in his company and put "managers" in place who weren't up to the job. The press like to tag on descriptions like "successful businessman" to a lot of the owners / nearly owners the Bulls have had over the last few years - just like an April shower is "climatic catastrophe"

Blotto wrote: Well the Saga is getting a bit more interesting again http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... d/?ref=rss I wonder if anything of real interest will come out of it! I think he is in denial - he hadn't a clue what was going on in his company and put "managers" in place who weren't up to the job. The press like to tag on descriptions like "successful businessman" to a lot of the owners / nearly owners the Bulls have had over the last few years - just like an April shower is "climatic catastrophe"

[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:40 am  

Trouble with all, "successful businessmen" tends to be their past, and you'll be hard pushed to find any, even very, very successful, nationally known businessmen, even the ones who get knighted, who don't have a few admins and/or company collapses somewhere in their history.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:32 am  

Bulliac wrote:

Trouble with all, "successful businessmen" tends to be their past, and you'll be hard pushed to find any, even very, very successful, nationally known businessmen, even the ones who get knighted, who don't have a few admins and/or company collapses somewhere in their history.

Success is never guaranteed and yes people who make a success of their career in business frequently are willing to take a chance which does not come off.

However, I have never meet a genuinely successful business person who does not:

1) Know his market
2) Has a team of good reliable people
3) Knows how the business is doing day by day
4) Manages his cash

Several of our recent owners would not have been able to tick any of the above.