Re: Bulls Takeover : Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:20 pm  

Blotto wrote: Perhaps Sport England should be the ones to start an investigation into the RFL https://www.totalrl.com/calls-growing-f ... ium-lease/ NRL grand final day there was a guy turned up to our club to talk about monies the RFL have held back from amateur clubs once a junior has made a first team appearance. He went on to say it's in sport England best interest to protect odsal and rugby in bradford. God knows what that meant but seemed to be some legs in it

Blotto wrote: Perhaps Sport England should be the ones to start an investigation into the RFL https://www.totalrl.com/calls-growing-f ... ium-lease/ NRL grand final day there was a guy turned up to our club to talk about monies the RFL have held back from amateur clubs once a junior has made a first team appearance. He went on to say it's in sport England best interest to protect odsal and rugby in bradford. God knows what that meant but seemed to be some legs in it

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Bulls Takeover : Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:01 pm  

thepimp007 wrote:

it's in sport England best interest to protect odsal and rugby in bradford.

That's odd. Why would Sport's England have an opinion either way? Intriguing.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:19 pm  

Pumpetypump wrote:

That's odd. Why would Sport's England have an opinion either way? Intriguing.

The only connections I have are -
The RFL get a lot of funding from Sport England - millions annually. This is based on many factors, including participation (falling), development pathways (mainly academies, although the rfl sacking all their regional development officers was shortsighted here).
Bradford academy is therefore important (1/15th?) towards the funding the RFL get for the game as a whole. Another factor is governance - specifically transparency, accountability and avoiding conflicts of interest. The RFL haven't racked up a lot of bonus funding in this area recently either...
The Sports England criteria is online somewhere, I read it a couple of years ago.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:54 pm  

Highlander wrote:

The numbers (or ball park) I have are rent £72k. Business Rates low 6 figures. Permanent and match day staff low 6 figures. Utilities & public indemnity insurance mid to high 5 figures. So that's about £350k. Maintenance is the one I've no number on. You're saying it's zero. If that's not true, and if the 30k plumbing bill from a few years ago isn't an urban myth, then we could get to £500k quite quickly.

the 30k plumbing bill was from when we held the head lease so maybe not quite relevent. It was an example hood used to justify the sale. A more recent example would be the 5k bill for floodlight bulbs which we certainly had to pay this year. Its always been common knowledge that club are responsible for upkeep not the RFL so not sure why 'nutjobs' trying to suggest otherwise.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:28 pm  

snowie wrote:

A tried and tested method that it was quoted that both Michael and Chris both put their houses on the line and also they said that the club would have to run on its own feet, sounds like all you want is someone with money to spend with no idea of how to run the club

Well clearly and with respect, you don't know us mate, or what we stand for. Would be interested to learn whether Chris would put bricks and mortar on the line for BB17.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:55 pm  

nestegg wrote:

Well clearly and with respect, you don't know us mate, or what we stand for. Would be interested to learn whether Chris would put bricks and mortar on the line for BB17.

After coming away from Wakefield it would surprise me if he did want to get get back into RL but it wouldn't surprise me if he was there in a guiding way while others in the consortium invested and he was paid for his services, ask him at the forum

[Bulliac]

Re: Bulls Takeover : Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:45 pm  

mat wrote:

the 30k plumbing bill was from when we held the head lease so maybe not quite relevent. It was an example hood used to justify the sale. A more recent example would be the 5k bill for floodlight bulbs which we certainly had to pay this year. Its always been common knowledge that club are responsible for upkeep not the RFL so not sure why 'nutjobs' trying to suggest otherwise.

Didn't AC say the lights were bought by a sponsor?

That's correct about the upkeep (hence the sponsor and the lights). I can remember Hood (yeah, I know..) saying that the club was still responsible for upkeep after the RFL took on the head lease and I've heard nothing different since. Though, that said, we've not hear much at all for some time.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:22 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

Didn't AC say the lights were bought by a sponsor?

That's correct about the upkeep (hence the sponsor and the lights). I can remember Hood (yeah, I know..) saying that the club was still responsible for upkeep after the RFL took on the head lease and I've heard nothing different since. Though, that said, we've not hear much at all for some time.

May have been. Certainly wasn't RFL though. If they had been responsible for upkeep we would have been complaining about state odsal was getting into all the time.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:03 pm  

nestegg wrote:

Well clearly and with respect, you don't know us mate, or what we stand for. Would be interested to learn whether Chris would put bricks and mortar on the line for BB17.

I reckon what you stand for won't be worth much more than what I'd find down the back of my sofa.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:00 am  

nestegg wrote:

Well clearly and with respect, you don't know us mate, or what we stand for. Would be interested to learn whether Chris would put bricks and mortar on the line for BB17.

Are you in any position whatsoever to challenge the takeover backed with considerable funds and able to seriously offer a more palatable solution?