Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:27 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

If I had to guess, I would say the RFL are desperate for a realistic proposal from a group who genuinely have the interests of the club and the game at heart, and are not playing games to further their own interests. I suspect that should they see such a firm, viable proposal, they will be inclined to take a lenient view. Equally, they can use the threat of loss of licence to deter any opportunist or less than wholesome bids. The gesture from Leeds has I suspect helped buy some more time for a bid, reflecting what the RFL are looking for, to be made.

I think thats right, and I'd agree with the rfl making the rules varied but open to their own interpretation of each individual case, because they will all be different and offer different opportunities and threats to the wider game.

People need to stop thinking this is all black and white, its just not as simple as that. I wouldn't like to be in the rfl's position tbf.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:16 pm  

Interesting reading the interpretation of the rules.

It does seem to indicate, a member will cease to be a member when they are served with a winding up order, or when an administrator is appointed, as a result of a winding up petition.

As it stands, we havn't yet been served with a winding up petition, we volunteered to go into administration.

Clutching at straws, I know....

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:23 pm  

Now that the wages have been paid for a month, the shop stock sold and Leeds have made the generous donation of the ticket proceeds, does that mean that the 27th is no longer the deadline?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:16 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Indeed.

Sick and bloody tired of being lectured by Wakey fans who, lest we forget, NEVER HAD TO ACTUALLY DO IT THEMSELVES AND SO HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER ON WHICH TO DRAW OR ACHIEVEMENT THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE.

Not unless you count the old regime's request for £100k to keep the club going. While there were some who were happy to stick with blind faith, the vast majority saw that it would have been cash down the drain so kept their hands in their pockets in case the cash could be used for a better purpose in the future. But hey, let's not allow facts to get in the way of things!

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:30 pm  

RDM wrote:

Not unless you count the old regime's request for £100k to keep the club going. While there were some who were happy to stick with blind faith, the vast majority saw that it would have been cash down the drain so kept their hands in their pockets in case the cash could be used for a better purpose in the future. But hey, let's not allow facts to get in the way of things!

I'm a Bradford fan and I did listen to Wakefield fans rather the the "informed" posters on this board and saved myself a lot of money that WOULD have been wasted if I'd listened to them. £500k is far better in a Supporter's Trust or even your own pocket than paying off Hood and Bennett's "personal" guarantees because it STILL EXISTS.

You tried Wakey fans you really did, but some people are clearly too intelligent to ever be wrong even in the face of a mountain full of facts.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:50 pm  

RDM wrote:

Not unless you count the old regime's request for £100k to keep the club going. While there were some who were happy to stick with blind faith, the vast majority saw that it would have been cash down the drain so kept their hands in their pockets in case the cash could be used for a better purpose in the future. But hey, let's not allow facts to get in the way of things!

I say again: you never had to set out to raise a fraction of that sum. Indeed, you never had to raise anything at all. So who the hell are you to tell us we should have done something that you have never attempted and have no idea whatsoever of what might have happened? Words come easy; show us your deeds so we know it can be done, eh?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:59 pm  

feebleweasel wrote:

I'm a Bradford fan and I did listen to Wakefield fans rather the the "informed" posters on this board and saved myself a lot of money that WOULD have been wasted if I'd listened to them. £500k is far better in a Supporter's Trust or even your own pocket than paying off Hood and Bennett's "personal" guarantees because it STILL EXISTS.

You tried Wakey fans you really did, but some people are clearly too intelligent to ever be wrong even in the face of a mountain full of facts.

So go on then, since you are clearly more intelligent than the several thousand fans who DID contribute and who DID save the club at the time (it was not Hood who appointed administrators) - tell us precisely how YOU would have organised a supporters' trust to raise £500k in two weeks from a standing start? and how you would have made that money available just after the Easter bank holiday to stave off Administration? Go on...we less intelligent mortals are desperate to learn from someone who clearly has huge experience in this field.

Incidentally, you are talking total bollox about the PGs, because it was only the overdraft that was so secured, and the bank was already reducing it pound for pound as money was paid in regardless. And it was far less than the 500k even before the bank started pulling it in.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:55 am  

Adeybull wrote:

I say again: you never had to set out to raise a fraction of that sum. Indeed, you never had to raise anything at all. So who the hell are you to tell us we should have done something that you have never attempted and have no idea whatsoever of what might have happened? Words come easy; show us your deeds so we know it can be done, eh?

Here you go again Wakefield needed 350K for a tax bill but the old BOD asked for 500k to be viable last season, that was in direct response to the new ground going to PI and a payment that the old board would have got at the time of approval not forthcoming. Wakefield had a structured payment with HMRC but HMRC called it in. An escrow account was formed and in the short space of time 50k was raised by fans. Nowhere near enough to save the club at that time. AG took over and the rest is history. If I have got my facts correct you (fans) were asked to raise 500k so th club could go on and admirably you did raise that but becuase of (what it looks like from an outsider) in fighting with the BOD you have gone down the pan and are currently swirling around waiting to go around the bend of oblivion or for the flusher to stop.

Whilst you may have a good knowledge on things you dont always get your facts right

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:34 am  

BGs fee must already equal Bateman, Whitehead & Kopczak plus a bit.

This madness must stop soon or there will be no future.

Its all money going out of an already under capitalised game.

No more extensions - let things crystallise.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:00 am  

REDWHITEANDBLUE wrote:

Here you go again Wakefield needed 350K for a tax bill but the old BOD asked for 500k to be viable last season, that was in direct response to the new ground going to PI and a payment that the old board would have got at the time of approval not forthcoming. Wakefield had a structured payment with HMRC but HMRC called it in. An escrow account was formed and in the short space of time 50k was raised by fans. Nowhere near enough to save the club at that time. AG took over and the rest is history. If I have got my facts correct you (fans) were asked to raise 500k so th club could go on and admirably you did raise that but becuase of (what it looks like from an outsider) in fighting with the BOD you have gone down the pan and are currently swirling around waiting to go around the bend of oblivion or for the flusher to stop.

Whilst you may have a good knowledge on things you dont always get your facts right

But the escrow account was set up by the CLUB, if I recall correctly? And the initiative was by the CLUB, right? My point is that all those who are lecturing us about the SUPPORTERS doing all this from scratch have not done that themselves.

And you have made the point too - nowhere near enough to save the club anyway.

As we said at the time, any supporters initiative would have split the donations between club and fans, sown confusion and sent out a message to potential investors that this was a club divided. In the event, Caisley did that anyway, of course, after most of the money had already been pledged.

There is not a cat in hell's chance in my opinion that the supporters collectively, in competition with the club, would have raised more than a fraction of the 500k - over 20% of which did not come from the fans anyway. And without the 500k the club would have been in administration the following week. At least we bought time, and created a fantastic united platform on which to build. Sadly, tragically, the shareholders chose instead to fight and depose each other rather than work together to save the club. They betrayed the fans, and history will damn them for it.