Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:16 pm  

Sorry FA the council own only the freehold reversion.It was a 99 year lease the Bulls secured which to all intents and purposes is as good as freehold.And plenty of houses could have been built on it(as MAY end up anyway if things do not improve)if it had passed into the hands of the liquidater.The £5.4 million was given to Bradford Bulls to "maintain" it.£2.7 million of that was spent paying for cash to bilid the Coral stand.They did not even finance long term the building of that.The rest as George Best once famously said was squandered.Chasing the dream.
What we are left with is 4 very committed individuals attempting to take this club forward with a falling fan base,demoralised playing staff,angry creditors,a 12 month owner ringing all and sundry trying to flog a dead horse for £300 grand cash as recently as last week with all paperwork to be sorted out later (as usual and in spite of the fact that would be illegal and a fraudulent preference given the crown winding up position and other serious creditors)loan sharks involved businessmen with a history of many recent insolvencies (whitcut)and an Mp who appears to have been stupid enough to take a directorship and leave his best bud to manage chaos.Bradford Concil are indeed a stakeholder.Asd at the moment are HMRC at £600k.And god knows how many little men.Bullbuilder may long term prove to be the only hope.But I wish the new 4 every success and dearly want it to survive.Gargoyle scoffed at a fans trust and at the Portsmouth lot trying the same.They are doing very nicely down there on the south coast now.The Bulls are not.Both were in admin at the same time.The difference?They found 10 or so investors prepared to part with £100000 and a shed load of fans prepared to pledge £1000 each.Could that be done in this City?You might be right I'm dreaming.But Caisley could find no great White Knight at the height of Bullmania and success.Adey has pointed out his T 'A interview in that respect in 2004 where he said "WE CANNOT KEEP LOSING MONEY WITHOUT A WHITE KNIGHT EVERY YEAR AS WE HAVE BEEN"...So what hope now.These 4 are very brave souls and thank god they know how to say NO and intend to cut costs.Let us pray

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:22 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

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?

1. Ensuring the matter is considered properly is to be welcomed surely. It doesn't determine the outcome but ensures that everything is given a proper hearing. If you have nothing to worry about, a proper consideration shouldn't worry you.

2. "pre-determined whitewash". Your chairman's inadvertent press release was bizarre, because his understanding of the situation didn't even match precedent, in that dealing with creditors properly ensured a reduction in sanction, not avoidance. The wording of the release did also seem to suggest the matter had been resolved, rather than a hope that it would be resolved in the manner he hoped.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:23 pm  

I think we should follow government thinking on the immigration issue and impose basic English as a requirement for posters to this site.

I have tried reading some of these posts standing on my head and still not sure what they were intended to mean. I hope the contributor breaths while typing or we could have the first RAB RIP?

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:26 pm  

Excuse me if my post is incorrect, this is my view of the recent situation:-

OK purchased the Bulls from the administrator for a small fee with the knowledge that investment (circa £1.5M) was needed for the next 2 to 3 years. I did hear talk of the club being purchased under a share option scheme (the same way the Glaziers bought Manchester United)?

Omar Khan then mortgaged his property empire to enable him to offer the club a loan in order to pay the wage bill.

Omar khan went on the sick and left the club (but was still 100% share holder). OK left the club in the hands of his Director Ryan Whitcut. Ryan Whitcut then arranged a loan with Mr Green which was a floating loan plus a 1% share in the company.

Has Ryan Whitcut’s actions been the downfall for OK, was OK not able to negotiate the shares sale to Mark Moore & Co as he didn’t own the Bulls outright, resulting in administration and Mark Moore getting the shares for a lower price.?

I can see a really big court case coming in the near future.

Really glad we’ve got owners who are really going to look after the club......

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:30 pm  

I think this was the release, as lifted from another site. Seems fairly unequivocal to me as the outcome. No hopes or intentions but only the determination:

"BRADFORD BULLS officials have this afternoon announced that the club will not suffer a points deduction, as a result of its former operating company entering administration.

OK Bulls Ltd was placed into administration this morning but the club has since been purchased by Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd.

And, on behalf of the new board of directors, chairman Mark Moore has confirmed that the Bulls are to remain a First Utility Super League side and will start the new season on zero points"

It is, of course, it is entirely possible that he misconstrued what he was told, and it is entirely possible that the Wakefield chairman misconstrued what he was told. Seems strange that they misconstrued in polar opposite directions.

Full and proper consideration, with transparency and openness, will clear the matter up, of course, and the concerns of the Supporters Trust will be allayed.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:34 pm  

FA I cannot explain why the RFL shared out the withheld sky money to all the other clubs.Tes some of them were creditors of the liquidated company but none for the £50k each is alleged to have received last year and presumably again this year.That does seem very strange.If they had used it to pay the creditors I could understand it.The logic may have bben Bulls got an unfair advantage over the others in not paying the creditors.but to give it then to the others for 2013 season?they seem to have their own little rules which are often in conflict with the law of the land when things go belly up.same in football.portsmouth had to pay ouit all those premier league contracts even though they were destined to play in the bottom division.The game protects the player pretty well.But is you fans that will still be all around when the like of many of them are names you barely remember.And success has eluded for 8 years now with at best journeyman sides.Many could have been offloaded last winter with RFL help.Thats why I value Bullbuilder who natured the like of Burgess Bateman kop and Whitehead who cost nowt were developed and then lost through the shambles it all has become.As with wells at City he was far from the highest paid but was their best.so he has gone now too.Invest in the future invest in Bullbuilder.What did Alan Hansen once say "you win nowt with kids"as Man U stormed to the title with seven of them home grown.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:41 pm  

snake hill if you believe that press released claptrap that he Ok released £900k from his property portfolio in August think again.
A lot of old bull.
Nothing at all.All will be revealed.Therte was no money to fund another Gargoyle administration that cost £250000.So quick in and out and the liquidator will probably be the Official Receiver.i see Ok"s lawyers are hardly rushing through emergency injunction proceedings.Dreamer I am afraid.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:43 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

1. Ensuring the matter is considered properly is to be welcomed surely. It doesn't determine the outcome but ensures that everything is given a proper hearing. If you have nothing to worry about, a proper consideration shouldn't worry you.

2. "pre-determined whitewash". Your chairman's inadvertent press release was bizarre, because his understanding of the situation didn't even match precedent, in that dealing with creditors properly ensured a reduction in sanction, not avoidance. The wording of the release did also seem to suggest the matter had been resolved, rather than a hope that it would be resolved in the manner he hoped.

You are still trying to influence the outcome.

I remember so many of the people on your forum playing merry hell when you were in trouble, and they accused others of doing precisely that.

But, it seems to me, what all this boils down to, is that:

1 - Your chairman said something, that he very probably should not have (whether because mistaken or confidential).

2 - Our chairman said something, that he very definitely should not have (and for which he apologised, saying it was him being naive and misunderstanding the process - according to him, anyway).

3 - Both sets of fans are scared to death at the prospect of relegation, and of other clubs being put at an advantage, as they see it, when faced with that.

Is that about right?

So, had BOTH chairmen had kept their gobs shut, this would be far less of an issue? Right or wrong?

If right, then surely the best option would be to let the two chairmen and the RFL go fight it out someplace, and the rest of us go down the pub?

And, if wrong, then the agenda is really not about one club having a perceived unfair advantage at all, but instead about how to damage the other club to give your own club an advantage?

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:05 pm  

Perhaps the mods should move this one to Verona and hope true love will heal the rift?

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:02 pm  

Steel City Bull wrote:

Migrated from the T&A - No Arm, No leg if you know what I mean

certainly seems likely. same rambling incoherent style, littered with spelling mistakes and presenting his guesses at situation as gospel truth.