Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:45 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

it would be one sickening irony if the deal that was to save the 'iconic' ground became the condition that broke the deal which led to liquidation and the 'iconic' ground being filled in.

The RFL would still own the lease, they think it's an 'iconic' ground so why would they fill it in?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:50 am  

Out of the two conditions it's the SL status that has me more worried with regards to the bid falling through. As far as the lease is concerned, it's just down to a bit of haggling for a final price.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:53 am  

If they have to decide on the basis of what benefit plus/minus to SL is gained from demotion or otherwise,they could simply 'pass' and allow the Clubs' vote to stand as the decision.We must remember that other SL clubs will not be recession proof and for those without benefactors, the governing body could be the only chance of protection. It is possible imo,that we may retain SL status and be let off with a points deduction as this could be the tip of an iceberg and the governing body has to put it's own house in order and attempt to ensure financial stability through out the competition.Salary caps,I feel need to be regressed because we are reaching the stage of a few who have and a majority,who do not have the financial backing to enable them to compete.. We need a level playing field.Obviously certain clubs will attract larger crowds due to location,but some consideration to profit redistribution has to come into play in order to strengthen the fraternity.SL is only as strong as the sum of all it's parts.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:26 pm  

Nothus wrote:

Out of the two conditions it's the SL status that has me more worried with regards to the bid falling through. As far as the lease is concerned, it's just down to a bit of haggling for a final price.

My understanding is that the consortium don't want to make any upfront payment for the lease - rather they intend to pay it back on a monthly basis.

I don't think the RFL will accept either of the bids conditions

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:43 pm  

wykebull wrote:

My understanding is that the consortium don't want to make any upfront payment for the lease - rather they intend to pay it back on a monthly basis.

I don't think the RFL will accept either of the bids conditions

first time I've heard that suggestion. Can understand why RFL wouldnt be keen. Where did you hear it?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:49 pm  

wykebull wrote:

My understanding is that the consortium don't want to make any upfront payment for the lease - rather they intend to pay it back on a monthly basis.

I don't think the RFL will accept either of the bids conditions

Over what period of time?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:54 pm  

We all know what happened the last time the RFL agreed to a repayment plan with us

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:46 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Over what period of time?

not sure of that tbh, but the impression I got was over a long period.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:08 pm  

wykebull wrote:

not sure of that tbh, but the impression I got was over a long period.

Which is exactly what is happening at the moment. They paid for the lease and got their loan back up front with us effectively paying them back for the lease by paying market rent and continuing to pay for maintenance.

Do they have a long queue of people waiting to pay market rent and upkeep for Odsal? Otherwise if we cease to exist they are left with an empty ground and a worthless lease.

I would prefer that we pay them back upfront as I don't like that we tapped them in the first place but paying it back over time (with interest) has got to be better than nothing.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:34 pm  

jockabull wrote:

Which is exactly what is happening at the moment. They paid for the lease and got their loan back up front with us effectively paying them back for the lease by paying market rent and continuing to pay for maintenance.

Do they have a long queue of people waiting to pay market rent and upkeep for Odsal? Otherwise if we cease to exist they are left with an empty ground and a worthless lease.

I would prefer that we pay them back upfront as I don't like that we tapped them in the first place but paying it back over time (with interest) has got to be better than nothing.

I said this a week ago ! They will want to lease for next to nowt on 30 year repayment to RL at 0% interest or they want the RL to lend them the £ to buy it back at 0% etc etc , these consortiums that have had NOWT to do with Bulls for the last 20 years want something for nowt ALWAYS. They will be looking for min input and a path to profits. Always the same with takeover merchants who obv have some capital but none they really want to spend.