Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:38 pm  

Noble & Honest wrote:

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.

No need to apologise, easy mistake to make and you do make a few. The Council own the land. The RFL leases the land. The Bulls took a sublease of the land.

It wasn't a 99 year lease. A lease isn't as good as a freehold, though a 999 year lease comes close, but this isn't one.

Noble & Honest wrote:

And plenty of houses could have been built on it(as MAY end up anyway if things do not improve)

Nope. The Bulls had no right to build houses on the land. And unless the Council wanted that to happen, it never will. Unless the RFL wanted that to happen, it won't happen for the rest of the term of their lease. Just because you are a tenant doesn't mean you can get the builders in.

Noble & Honest wrote:

...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

You're confusing the business with the shares in the company. Any shareholder can sell their shares whenever they want to whoever they want at whatever price they want. In this case the sale of the shares was between OK on the one hand, and MM and RW on the other. All of whom are private individuals. The shares won't be worth that much right now, whoever owns them.

Noble & Honest wrote:

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

Or let's not waste a second on superstitious claptrap. Anyway, even if there was a god, why would he be remotely concerned with the travails of a small northern private company? Surely he'd have more pressing prayers to deal with?

IMHO if the club did fold then there would always be some group of people who would look to carry it on in some way, but keeping a name going would be a pretty hollow 'victory'. I don't see providing for such a scenario as any function of Bullbuilder. Anyway, the Portsmouth Trust had to raise several million to buy, have £8m debts to repay over 4 years, and the first penny after that starts to fund ongoing costs like players and staff. And that's just to be allowed to play in League 2. So no, I don't see anything remotely comparable being achievable in Bradford. Not least because any "investors" (was there ever a more misused word in this context) that might have been interested have had a hundred opportunities to step in and buy at a song for some years now. And could come in and buy a majority shareholding in a SL team today. They haven't. Why would starting from scratch attract the big money men?

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:00 pm  

All of the above posts over so many pages just shows why these decisions should not be taken by votes of the clubs. That leads to decisions based on self interest rather than what is right. There are very few of us that would not at least be tempted to vote for short term benefit to our club rather than the greater good. I think that applies to Chairmen as much as fans.

To the actual issue, what we have is confusion and fear. Did the RFL tell Wakefield in September if they went into administration they would be relegated, I am inclined to believe they did, Wakefield had a substantial debt to HMRC, avoiding such an obligation should be harshly punished. So I can see why Wakefield (and London) would be miffed, but are there significant differences in the situation?

Yes there is, firstly timing, in September it was entirely possible to promote Fax/Fev/Leigh, a fortnight before the season, that is not really fair. A few folk have pointed to similarities with Rangers relegation in Scottish football but look what happened to Dundee last season getting promoted 2 days before the season started, they never had a chance, that would happen to Fax/Fev/Leigh.

There are rules against insolvency and it seems to me on the limited information available probable that Omar Khan has not been a willing participant in this takeover and is going to lose money. That has given Bradford a competitive advantage and seems to fit the RFL guidelines as appropriate for sanction. What should that sanction be? It must be a disincentive to others but also returning to Scottish Football must not put Bradford in a Hearts situation where they have no chance of survival.

Returning to the dreadful governance of footbal north of the border, loads of bad decisions made as clubs voted in self interest for short term benefit. RL must not go down that line, Nigel Wood, Blake Solly et all have in my opinion made some awful decisions (such as the Odsal buy out and subsequent Sky monies cut by a remarkably similar amount to appease others when that came out). Those decisions though were not made by clubs with a vested interest.

I do worry that this issue will become Bradford's "merger", that issue damaged the Giants badly and we get stick for it to this day Shudds etc. I do not know what should be done, there is surely more to consider than is in the publiv domain, but if there is no sanction the damage may be much worse than the loss of say 4 points which seems to be a precedent for going into Admin but paying off HMRC.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:23 pm  

Hi FA I do have to agree with you that the Bulls unlike Portsmouth have had chance after chance to find significant investors and none have stepped up to the plate.I think they all see it for the black hole it has become.My view of Bullbuilder and a war chest would be that they do build up funds so if 12 months down the line the 4 good intentional men cannot pull this round a club can still carry forward at whatever level.Having just been reminded of photos on another forum of Horton Park Avenue in 1980 stage of demolition I can tell you from personal experience that is something that affects many with extreme sadness to this day.

Rather than just throw money into holding back what some may feel may prove inevitable the way the game is going without sugar daddies at least a team in RAB could survive if the worst came about through Bullbilder.

Ok last week was clearly a very desperate man and it matter little what he was trying to get £300k for business or share.As sole owner at that stage lots of hoops would have had to have been passed through for anyone daft enough to have been taken in.The man with the apparent baseball bat would worry anyone and I2m just glad that little episode appears to have been overcome.We hope.

Regarding the land and ground the RFL now have an unexpired long leasehold on it was not my intention to imply the Bulls could just build houses on it.Clearly there are a lot of current stakeholders in that land that not only include the Bulls but the RFL,Bradford Council and not least (particularly if it was undervalued in transfer)HMRC.Plaanning can be difficult but if all thought in the best long term interest Bradford Council now receive moneys direct from central government linked to how many houses are built in accordance with the perceived future need for many many more.A deal may be beneficial to all including the Bulls in the long term.But who knows.all I see is a big money pit that Bradford Council could not wait to offload its maintenance responsibilities 10 years ago.And looks preety forlorn and sad right now with little prospect of The RFl or the Bulls going forward to have the inclination or funding to improve.Things are picking up that way though and Miller and others are starting to build and plan again no doubt with these incentives behind that improvement.Many would be heartbroken to leave the bowl.But the days of 102000 flat caps adorning the old place have gone forever.The modern fan and league seem to expect more these days.The grounds vacation could prove the Bulls salvation if all stakeholders committed to the future of Bradford Bulls in the city.Right now as tenants as long as the Bulls can pay the £70k annual rent (peanuts compared to the approaching £400k BCFC have to find after similarly losing their freehold through insolvency)the Bulls are in a strong position with the RFL as a partner in any potential future development of the site for houses.Personally that's what I would aim for.But the subject is sensitive and would not be universally popular.I look at Park avenue rotting as it has (the football side of it)for over 30 years and bleed.The coral Stand alone which is little more than the school terrapins I recall education in is hardly inspiring at a cost of £2.7 million.with leaky roof and builders that ran.There have been some terrible decisions made these past 10 years or so.The new 4 are inheriting very little.Someone even is suggesting the rent on the training facilities has not been paid in 6 months and a notice to quit has been served.Oh dear.Before anyone jumps on me I dearly want success and survival as all Bulls fans on here.But we are all right to be worried given a ten year history and success at rock bottom for the club and City Of Bradford.They even want to knock Richard Dunn down.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:41 pm  

GiantDee wrote:

To the actual issue, what we have is confusion and fear. Did the RFL tell Wakefield in September if they went into administration they would be relegated, I am inclined to believe they did, Wakefield had a substantial debt to HMRC, avoiding such an obligation should be harshly punished.

Dunno what Wakefield think they were told, but a straight out ‘do this and you will be instantly relegated’ would be unusual and not within any of the RFLs bye-Laws or Policy Documents. Apparently the Wakefield Chairman is going on the radio tommorrow night and will provide cast iron proof of all his claims.

So I can see why Wakefield (and London) would be miffed, but are there significant differences in the situation?

There certainly are differences...The Wakefield Board of Directors sought to avoid payment of a large HMRC debt, plus another £350k of supplier debt.

Yes there is, firstly timing, in September it was entirely possible to promote Fax/Fev/Leigh, a fortnight before the season, that is not really fair

.
Why would London be miffed? Just like Wakefield, our BFFs from the South recieved quite a lot of help from the RFL when they had an Insolvency Event(as defined in the RFL Bye-Laws) of their own back in November/ December.

There are rules against insolvency and it seems to me on the limited information available probable that Omar Khan has not been a willing participant in this takeover and is going to lose money. That has given Bradford a competitive advantage and seems to fit the RFL guidelines as appropriate for sanction. What should that sanction be? It must be a disincentive to others but also returning to Scottish Football must not put Bradford in a Hearts situation where they have no chance of survival.

As you say information is limited and only Wakefield fans appear to know the full, gwads honest guv, version of what happened to the Bulls last week. More normal folk will have to wait for actual facts before determining if the Bulls can be deemed to have gained a 'competitive advantage' or not.

I do worry that this issue will become Bradford's "merger", that issue damaged the Giants badly and we get stick for it to this day Shudds etc. I do not know what should be done, there is surely more to consider than is in the publiv domain, but if there is no sanction the damage may be much worse than the loss of say 4 points which seems to be a precedent for going into Admin but paying off HMRC.

Heh, friendly banter makes the game more interesting, and I’ll take your Shuddersfield and raise you an odslum.
On the sanctions issue, I've dont yet know whether the clubs Breach of the RFLs Insolvency Bye-Laws warrants a points deduction...If the RFL board conclude the Newco have gained a competetive advantage and have made no effort to come to terms with creditors of the oldco then I have no doubt a points deduction will follow.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:55 pm  

How on earth the RFL could possibly conclude that our current financial situation gives us an unfair advantage is beyond me.

An unfair disadvantage possibly.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:48 pm  

If anyone wants a giggle have a look at the Wakey board on the Koukash article. There now calling the RFL
Corrupt because thu have to play Salford first. Has anyone told them everyone plays each other twice? Except us who has to play last seasons top toppers 3
Times while Wakey get Cas!

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:02 pm  

Bull Mania wrote:

If anyone wants a giggle have a look at the Wakey board on the Koukash article. There now calling the RFL
Corrupt because thu have to play Salford first. Has anyone told them everyone plays each other twice? Except us who has to play last seasons top toppers 3
Times while Wakey get Cas!

You know full well that the point being made, is not simply about being Salfords first game, it's about how every team starting a season on a high and with something to prove, seems to be given Wakefield at their home.

It does seem more than just a coincidence. But don't let that stop your one-eyed misrepresentation of the facts.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:09 pm  

dboy wrote:

You know full well that the point being made, is not simply about being Salfords first game, it's about how every team starting a season on a high and with something to prove, seems to be given Wakefield at their home.

It does seem more than just a coincidence. But don't let that stop your one-eyed misrepresentation of the facts.

Comedy gold Wakefield fan making him self look silly now I never.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:16 pm  

In what sense?

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:33 pm  

dboy wrote:

In what sense?

In the sense that Wakefield fans have started insinuating that other teams being drawn against Wakefield is a conspiracy to make their opposition's life easier. If only there was some kind of level playing field where you got to play with yourselves.