Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:19 pm  

The only positives of liquidation is it wipes out our debts (enabling us to start with no money owed) and it releases us from the Odsal lease, leaving the RFL with a lease to a council owned stadium which is no good to anyone.

But in this case the negatives of a liquidation far outweigh the positives. Players will leave, chances of regaining membership to the RFL significantly decreases, possible relegation, no brand as the Bulls will be over, no ground to play from.

Best case scenario for liquidation is the hope that the RFL will let us continue on in the Championship and players decide that this could be a good option for them as the season is close and chances of getting contracts elsewhere are slim at this time of year. This is blue sky thinking though and not a realistic outcome!

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:22 pm  

Nothus wrote:

It won't happen. Studd and Richard Lamb are both dreaming if they think a club of this size can be run by a supporters trust, or even just part financed by one.
We have a core support of what, 4k?
People pushing this idea always quote Rangers as the example of it working - conveniently forgetting that their support base is at least ten times the size of ours.

I'm pretty certain thata hard-core 4k fan base plus all the others who would become members but don't actually go watching would be putting a lot more money in than some business man who has personal wealth but no more.
I'm also curtain every penny would be accounted for meaning every decision made is in the interest of the club only

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:01 am  

People keep quoting people quoting Rangers as a fan owned club, saying we don't have the same size fan base. That's right, we don't. Here are some fairer comparisons: http://backpagefootball.com/the-top-ten ... -2/100169/ The fans have previously raised more money than any bidders are willing to put up to save the club, by the sound of it. Suggestions that the fan ownership model is some kind of mad dream are only true if that fan base is completely feckless.

People keep quoting people quoting Rangers as a fan owned club, saying we don't have the same size fan base. That's right, we don't. Here are some fairer comparisons: http://backpagefootball.com/the-top-ten ... -2/100169/ The fans have previously raised more money than any bidders are willing to put up to save the club, by the sound of it. Suggestions that the fan ownership model is some kind of mad dream are only true if that fan base is completely feckless.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:04 am  

Liquidation would kill the club off; no ground to play at, no guarantee of a licence to play in any league, no brand as the bulls would be gone. Then there's all the people the club owed so that would mean no sponsors, no players, no staff, no security, no catering, no financial backers, no merchandise, no players kit, no fans who'd paid for a '17 season ticket. No staff means no academy or community departments so they'll be dispanded too. It's got to the worst case scenario for the club and for rugby in bradford

[Bullseye]

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:13 am  

There will be no "fan run" club. Anyone that thinks that will happen is kidding themselves.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:59 am  

GypsumFantastic wrote: People keep quoting people quoting Rangers as a fan owned club, saying we don't have the same size fan base. That's right, we don't. Here are some fairer comparisons: http://backpagefootball.com/the-top-ten ... -2/100169/ The fans have previously raised more money than any bidders are willing to put up to save the club, by the sound of it. Suggestions that the fan ownership model is some kind of mad dream are only true if that fan base is completely feckless. All those clubs have 4,000 or more share holders (adults). Fair enough. Our attendances are about that but how many of that number are children? How many are from sponsors such as Provident etc? How many of our 4,000 plus fans would be able to afford the cost of becoming a member? Or the additional costs that come with it, eg Paying players, stadium requirements, matchday staff, catering etc? How many of those fans work? A lot of their disposable income barely affords season tickets so they are already are at their limit financially of putting into the club. Yes we did raise 500k in a week or so as a one off. It was a great achievement by fans, players, staff and the whole RL family. But that was a one off, owning a club would require this to happen a lot. And that won't happen.

GypsumFantastic wrote: People keep quoting people quoting Rangers as a fan owned club, saying we don't have the same size fan base. That's right, we don't. Here are some fairer comparisons: http://backpagefootball.com/the-top-ten ... -2/100169/ The fans have previously raised more money than any bidders are willing to put up to save the club, by the sound of it. Suggestions that the fan ownership model is some kind of mad dream are only true if that fan base is completely feckless. All those clubs have 4,000 or more share holders (adults). Fair enough. Our attendances are about that but how many of that number are children? How many are from sponsors such as Provident etc? How many of our 4,000 plus fans would be able to afford the cost of becoming a member? Or the additional costs that come with it, eg Paying players, stadium requirements, matchday staff, catering etc? How many of those fans work? A lot of their disposable income barely affords season tickets so they are already are at their limit financially of putting into the club. Yes we did raise 500k in a week or so as a one off. It was a great achievement by fans, players, staff and the whole RL family. But that was a one off, owning a club would require this to happen a lot. And that won't happen.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:09 am  

Anyone else wondering if we're set up for 'it was me or liquidation' scenario? Why
did the admin specifically ask for no speculation on bidders, is there something to hide? Seemed a strange request, especially since he was keen to fan the publicity early doors.

Anyway, I'm off out with the family for the day.. I expect to be at least page 450 when back.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:50 am  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

Anyone else wondering if we're set up for 'it was me or liquidation' scenario? .

Which is why I suggested a Green comeback.
If there is anybody who knows about Administration (although by now we should all be experts) could they answer the following:
He has to raise as much money as possible for Creditors but does that mean we have to be a going concern as a rugbly league club? IF we have had our membership is revoked ARE we a rugby club that is being sold? If somebody wants to buy us but has no intention of reapplying for membership do they still have to pass a proper persons test?
I know these questions seem illogical but what isn't in this whole situation.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:53 am  

Here we go again. A new dawn, a new day, same old Bull**** I would expect

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:56 am  

Who actually owns the coral stand? Is it Green? And is Southbank the reason for the charge against the company?