Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:30 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

I'm not seeking to do anything of the sort.
I said you had chosen the soft option and that is a fact.
You seem to think that because SL saw fit to hit you with a penalty this is in some way you taking the tough option - it isn't.

...and <snip>

For the life of me, I cannot see how you could describe either of Khan or Moore/Calvert/Watt "choosing the soft option"! Nor, I suspect, will anyone else. The "Soft Option" would have been to say "I can't be bothered".

None of these people had any involvement with the Hood regime, on whose watch the club slid into a desperate situation, or the majority shareholders (not directors) led by Caisley who forced the Hood regime out after the £500k had been raised, waited two months (and doubtless spent what was left of that money), then called in administrators. Many thought to then be able to pick the pieces up from the administrator cheap, but - and maybe the RFL and the other clubs took steps to stymie that (some believe so, we really do not know), but whatever took place, no-one involved with the club before was involved in taking it over post-administration.

Will you PLEASE explain to us why what happened was the "soft" option, because I for one really don't get it. All I see is blameless new owners hamstrung by a decision by the other clubs to punish any new owners for the sins of the old, with a massive finacial penalty as well as a points penalty that actually allowed your club to make the play-offs instead of ours. Which never happened to London or Crusaders or Wakefield.

If that was a "soft option", I cannot imagine what a hard option looks like?

Re: Ownership and twists : Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:43 pm  

Well lets hope the hamstrung can find someone with the wallet to take us through to the end of the season in the event 10000 paying fans fail to materialise.

Then come November sense can be made of the ridiculous numbers the Bulls have operated under for too long with a hopefull annual £1.75 million central distribution.

Andrew Calvert deserves unanimous support tomorrow (sorry today).

I am sure he is emotionally and physically drained.

As indeed is everyone

Bring on Richard the Lionheart.

Or others suitably stacked

Re: Ownership and twists : Sun Feb 16, 2014 2:24 am  

vbfg wrote:

Just when things couldn't get more bizarre everyone switches to writing in verse.

There's only one escapee from t&a forum doing that to be fair.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sun Feb 16, 2014 2:36 am  

Noble & Honest wrote:

Here is my summary of Ok"s business acumen.Asked by the RFL what he would do about the creditors to avoid the 6 point deduction HE (yes HE can you believe it)said to get round the upset of the other super league clubs why not take half the central distribution away and share it among the others.You could not make that up.So he gives up £1.3 million over 2 years when the creditors that could have been structured to be repaid over say 5 only ended up at about £1.5 million.He should have stuck to making chapatti"s.

You are a liar and seemingly a racist. The half-money penalty was imposed at the last minute on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and to his credit OK took it despite it making no economic sense, the reason being he just wanted to stop the deal from foundering.

Noble & Honest wrote:

I have never come across such daft thinking in my life from Mr Ok.
Glad I never learnt the art of chappati making.

Do we need this sort of shiite on the forum?

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Ownership and twists : Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:07 am  

[quote="Ferocious Aardvark"]You are a liar and seemingly a racist. The half-money penalty was imposed at the last minute on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and to his credit OK took it despite it making no economic sense, the reason being he just wanted to stop the deal from foundering.

Do we need this sort of shiite on the forum?[/quote]


totally correct so can we please stop having cheeky monkeys talking poop about the subject, like the cheeky monkey FA has had to correct, and also Bradford fans moaning on about the Sky money. Without the deduction we would not be a SL team now & I think that would have spelt the end for the club.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:37 am  

My recollection is that the halving of Sky money was IMPOSED not offered. The speculation was that SOME of the other clubs were irritated by the deal previously done by the RFL regarding Odsal. It was a MAJORITY vote reported in the RL Papers as was the vote to share the money withdrawn from the new owners amongst the 13 clubs.
Many Bulls fans came on this forum to express anger-- but much of that anger was directed at the use of that confiscated money to exacerbate the disadvantage vis a vis the clubs funding. It would not have been as controversial with many of us if the money had gone to something beneficial to the game as a whole such as youth development or the amateur game.
Still most of us were just happy we still had a team to support. Last season we started well and had a chance to reach the top 8 . We failed but most agreed that the small size of the squad caught up with us and we could not cover injuries . Players who in normal circumstances would have been rested, were played. But all in all most Bulls fans felt it was a creditable effort.
The coach recruited well given the budget he had but we now see (AND ACCEPT) that the running of the club at that time was at best inefficient. The ownership issues raised their head yet again and a creditor (Marc Green ) prompted another administration.
Our major signing ,Carvell, exercised his right not to accept the transfer of his contract to the new owners but there's further confusion as those owners only have a 28 day license and may not be the eventual owners. A key player is then allowed to leave with every party agreeing that Wakefield's conduct was exemplary.
At the moment our playing resources are even thinner than last season . Our first choice 17 should on paper be able to compete but woe betide the team if we suffer significant injuries to key players.
So we are now in crisis again -- a crisis which should not attract the glee exhibited by some ( certainly not all) rival fans. I for one did not gloat when Wakefield London and Salford went through difficult times.
I just hope that the ownership issue is settled in the next few weeks, the Board ( whichever Board emerges) can satisfy the creditors , any points reduction can be seen to be fair ( without any further reduction in funding) and the coach can recruit a few new players without compromising the financial situation further.
And then we can return to arguing about performances on the pitch and revert to healthy banter between rival fans rather than the rancid insults which some of the posters on here in the last few weeks have expressed--- and that includes some fellow Bulls fans as well as some Wildcats and Black and White supporters.

Re: sammut left : Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:46 am  

Wish everyone would learn how to spoke proper,then we could all understand

Latest from Joe Tamani,we have offered Stuart Fielden a 12 month deal if he can prove his fitness.Obviously hoping we don't play on any day he is assisting coaching at the Giants

Re: sammut left : Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:35 am  

roger daly wrote:

Wish everyone would learn how to spoke proper,then we could all understand

Latest from Joe Tamani,we have offered Stuart Fielden a 12 month deal if he can prove his fitness.Obviously hoping we don't play on any day he is assisting coaching at the Giants

That is indeed correct Roger.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:21 am  

We really need to get behind the team from today, we can't afford to be arguing amongst ourselves, which includes on, off field and on terrace.

This season is massive for the clubs survival and we need to support to the max.

COYB

Re: Ownership and twists : Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:53 am  

[quote="Bullnorthern"]My recollection is that the halving of Sky money was IMPOSED not offered. The speculation was that SOME of the other clubs were irritated by the deal previously done by the RFL regarding Odsal. It was a MAJORITY vote reported in the RL Papers as was the vote to share the money withdrawn from the new owners amongst the 13 clubs.
Many Bulls fans came on this forum to express anger-- but much of that anger was directed at the use of that confiscated money to exacerbate the disadvantage vis a vis the clubs funding. It would not have been as controversial with many of us if the money had gone to something beneficial to the game as a whole such as youth development or the amateur game.
Still most of us were just happy we still had a team to support. Last season we started well and had a chance to reach the top 8 . We failed but most agreed that the small size of the squad caught up with us and we could not cover injuries . Players who in normal circumstances would have been rested, were played. But all in all most Bulls fans felt it was a creditable effort.
The coach recruited well given the budget he had but we now see (AND ACCEPT) that the running of the club at that time was at best inefficient. The ownership issues raised their head yet again and a creditor (Marc Green ) prompted another administration.
Our major signing ,Carvell, exercised his right not to accept the transfer of his contract to the new owners but there's further confusion as those owners only have a 28 day license and may not be the eventual owners. A key player is then allowed to leave with every party agreeing that Wakefield's conduct was exemplary.
At the moment our playing resources are even thinner than last season . Our first choice 17 should on paper be able to compete but woe betide the team if we suffer significant injuries to key players.
So we are now in crisis again -- a crisis which should not attract the glee exhibited by some ( certainly not all) rival fans. I for one did not gloat when Wakefield London and Salford went through difficult times.
I just hope that the ownership issue is settled in the next few weeks, the Board ( whichever Board emerges) can satisfy the creditors , any points reduction can be seen to be fair ( without any further reduction in funding) and the coach can recruit a few new players without compromising the financial situation further.
And then we can return to arguing about performances on the pitch and revert to healthy banter between rival fans rather than the rancid insults which some of the posters on here in the last few weeks have expressed--- and that includes some fellow Bulls fans as well as some Wildcats and Black and White supporters.[/quote]

My understanding was that removal of the sky money was the only way we retained SL status & as such was an offer we accepted. I agree to then divvy the money up amongst the other clubs was utter bollox