Re: Next bizarre twist : Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:54 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Having £1.3m Sky money confiscated - contributing in a very big way to the latest problems - is hardly taking the soft option.

Had you lot been faced with that penalty, I expect it would have been oblivion for you.

And a considerable number of Trinity supporters are doing a pretty fine job of looking like gloaters, driping with schadenfreude - or, at best, making it clear that seeing the Bulls wrecked OFF the park can only help your club survice in SL ON it - on these and other forums.

You didn't choose that, it was imposed.
As far as I recall the other SL chairmen were less than impressed with your antics and asked for this.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:05 pm  

I am glad that you, unlike so many others, confirm that it WAS an imposed penalty. Could you go and educate some of your fellow supporters about this?

But whether it was imposed or not is not relevant to the point at hand. Anyone taking the club on under those circumstances could never be accused of taking the "soft option". Be it OK in the first instance, or the current bord now, still having to deal with 50% of this confiscation despite being two or three generations removed from the lot who caused it all. Or, indeed, whoever finally gets their hands on this poisoned chalice.

I repeat - Having £1.3m Sky money confiscated is hardly taking the soft option.

Re: Next bizarre twist : Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:11 pm  

financialtimes wrote:

but the £500k you raised wasn't used to pay off debts, it was used to clear directors liabilities so that those that got you in to the mess originally walked away with their houses in tact
When you went in to admin (before OK took over) you still had debts, so the £500k you raised didn't save you from admin, it saved your directors from being homeless

What do you think a liability is if not a debt? Did you think that instead of putting the 500k in the bank to clear the overdraft, they should have kept it in a sack?

Look it's not our fault your club has been irrelevant for 40 years. I understand that you want our club destroyed because it increases your chances of not being relegated but stop this charade.

Re: Next bizarre twist : Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:19 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

Glover was very much the knight in White when we went bust however his financial shortfalls left us in just as much of a mess later on. Certainly Carter has done a fantastic job and when he said we would have to cut our cloth accordingly we all backed him, apart from one prominent forum member, it certainly hasn't been easy, we have all had a lot of medicine.
1/10 for perception 10/10 for missing the point.

The point is you're troll lecturing Bulls fans who put their hand in their pocket to 'do the right thing' on financial ethics when you were happy to see your club leave unpaid creditors without so much as a beetle drive. Hypocrite.

Re: Next bizarre twist : Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:39 pm  

roofaldo2 wrote:

There's no point a prospective owner going straight to the administrator if the RFL are going to turn around and say that person is not a fit and proper person to run an SL club.

IMO, speak to the RFL first, get their blessing THEN look to lay out the cash for the club. Otherwise we get a Whitc*t situation

Another point that I think everyone is missing.

It seems pretty clear that the scale of any points deduction will be closely connected with what of the thrird party creditors are repaid? For example, we saw that in the case of Salford's recent "Act of Insolvency" (under the RFL rules) - a CVA - they were deducted no points, we understand because all the creditors were to be paid.

Any prospective owner would need to secure clarity from the RFL about what the realtionship was, and what any poimnts deduction would be relative to how much he might have to fork out. BEFORE he considered putting in a bid to the administrator.

For example, if he was told "it will be 4 pts even if you pay off all your creditors" - as so many of the vicious little nasties from Wakefield keep insisting must be the case - then why the hell pay off ANY creditors? Instead, take the extra 2 points, and use the large amount of brass you saved to go buy enough new players to get you well clear of any relegation scrambles.

The above, btw, shows the total bollox that those nasties are spouting regarding fixed penalty regardless. They need to be very, very careful what they wish for. A new owner might just come in, take the points deduction, and with the shedload of cash saved go buy at team that sends THEM down.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:44 pm  

Like I said before on this forum we need some sort of sugar daddy if this club is going to have some kind of future.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:48 pm  

jsb1990 wrote:

Like I said before previously on this forum we need some sort of sugar daddy if this club is going to have some kind of future.

With the new SKY TV deal, I disagree. You'll likely need a sugar daddy to win trophies, tbh, but survival should not need to depend on a sugar daddy. Unless Koucash gets hois way and the salary cap goes up dramatically, in which case we are back to square one.

What we DO need is some way of getting through to the end of this year, when we get our full Sky money allocation back (and the othe clubs lose theoir share of it).

It just seems every bloody thing that is happening right now is making that task ever harder.

Re: Next bizarre twist : Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:01 pm  

M@islebugs wrote:

The point is you're troll lecturing Bulls fans who put their hand in their pocket to 'do the right thing' on financial ethics when you were happy to see your club leave unpaid creditors without so much as a beetle drive. Hypocrite.

We were asked, we declined and for our situation it was the right decision as it was the tip of the iceberg.
Where has that £500k got you I ask? As an outsider looking in it is very very easy to suggest it's got you nowhere!!

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:04 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

I am glad that you, unlike so many others, confirm that it WAS an imposed penalty. Could you go and educate some of your fellow supporters about this?

But whether it was imposed or not is not relevant to the point at hand. Anyone taking the club on under those circumstances could never be accused of taking the "soft option". Be it OK in the first instance, or the current bord now, still having to deal with 50% of this confiscation despite being two or three generations removed from the lot who caused it all. Or, indeed, whoever finally gets their hands on this poisoned chalice.

I repeat - Having £1.3m Sky money confiscated is hardly taking the soft option.

Would the bulls have decided upon such a penalty? I don't think so.
You have taken the soft option, SL stepped in and recognised that fact and dished out their own justice.

Re: Next bizarre twist : Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:06 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

We were asked, we declined and for our situation it was the right decision as it was the tip of the iceberg.
Where has that £500k got you I ask? As an outsider looking in it is very very easy to suggest it's got you nowhere!!

That may well be the case.

But that was not the point he was making.

His point is that we'll* take no lectures from Trinity supporters about the financial ecthics of not paying creditors when - unlike us - they declined to even make the attempt.

In any arguments about who has the right to take the moral high ground, you lot come last in line.

*Bulls supporters