Re: Latest state of play posts only : Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:49 pm  

I think I'll just shut my eyes and keep my fingers crossed until someone tells me it' all over, one way or the other

[Bulliac]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:01 pm  

Interesting comment from Look North (but attributed to Guilfoyle) to the effect that, -the press haven't yet worked out who ABC are and some current assumptions are wrong. Look North actually suggested that the assumption that the A was Akbars might not be correct. They never mentioned our assumption for C, though..

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:26 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

Look North actually suggested that the assumption that the A was Akbars might not be correct.

Recommended a visiting customer staying in Leeds went to akbars tonight on that assumption

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:27 am  

Good Article in YEN, even Mick Potter more positive http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-4747894

Good Article in YEN, even Mick Potter more positive http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-4747894

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:56 am  

mat wrote:

dont see why it would be trickier as consortium arent asking that odsal just be given back to bradford. They are wanting to buy it back, presumably for a similar amount as RFL paid for it.

Mat , Mat , mat ...................' presumably for a similar amount '

RL paid £1.25m last year - they will want £1.25m this year !

ABC , I bet my last $1 , will be offering nowhere near , and I mean nowhere near. They will also want the RFL to lend them the £ to buy it back at 0% interest over 30 years. These consortiums are sharks at best I assure you.

Their first offer won't be accepted and it certainly will be a long way off their best offer. Their best may not be enough ?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:23 am  

"Whether its acceptable to me and the RFL remains to be seen".

Shouldnt "and HMRC" have been included in that sentence? Or is he presuming they'll settle the tax debts?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:29 am  

Bulliac wrote:

Interesting comment from Look North (but attributed to Guilfoyle) to the effect that, -the press haven't yet worked out who ABC are and some current assumptions are wrong. Look North actually suggested that the assumption that the A was Akbars might not be correct. They never mentioned our assumption for C, though..

AB- who knows! C stands for Caisley

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:31 am  

ABC
C stands for Caisley. I can think of another word beginning with C
Which Caisley can be labelled as!

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:55 am  

I'd be astonished in Akbar's aren't part of this - they've been freely quoted and mentioned in just about every report in the local and national media for the past week. In fact, I think they've actually said that they are involved themselves

It seems more likely that Guilfoyle's comment refers to the C not standing for Caisley as most people seem to be assuming.

Well.... we can hope

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:14 am  

paulwalker71 wrote:

I'd be astonished in Akbar's aren't part of this - they've been freely quoted and mentioned in just about every report in the local and national media for the past week. In fact, I think they've actually said that they are involved themselves

It seems more likely that Guilfoyle's comment refers to the C not standing for Caisley as most people seem to be assuming.

Well.... we can hope

Or the B not being Bradford.