Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:49 pm  

Wooden Stand wrote: Why don't you splash out a quid and buy the audited accounts? http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/90db7 ... order?ft=1 I'm a Yorkshire man so the quid stays in my pocket you spend it mate and tell us what the Bulls accounts for last year show??? Then ask if yourself if you believe them........ Or maybe go a step further and ask KPMG (the RFL auditors for the franchises) what they saw of the Bulls accounts...... Neither is worth the paper they are written on!!!

Wooden Stand wrote: Why don't you splash out a quid and buy the audited accounts? http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/90db7 ... order?ft=1 I'm a Yorkshire man so the quid stays in my pocket you spend it mate and tell us what the Bulls accounts for last year show??? Then ask if yourself if you believe them........ Or maybe go a step further and ask KPMG (the RFL auditors for the franchises) what they saw of the Bulls accounts...... Neither is worth the paper they are written on!!!

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:54 pm  

Wooden Stand wrote: Why don't you splash out a quid and buy the audited accounts? http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/90db7 ... order?ft=1 Because I already have access to a copy, because if I didn't, then I have an online account with Companies House, and because the accounts of course do not list individual players' salaries, so I would learn fsck all new about the 'points' in your witless 'argument'. (With apologies to valid points and proper arguments everywhere, for any suggestion that they are in any way connected with the drivel you post.)

Wooden Stand wrote: Why don't you splash out a quid and buy the audited accounts? http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/90db7 ... order?ft=1 Because I already have access to a copy, because if I didn't, then I have an online account with Companies House, and because the accounts of course do not list individual players' salaries, so I would learn fsck all new about the 'points' in your witless 'argument'. (With apologies to valid points and proper arguments everywhere, for any suggestion that they are in any way connected with the drivel you post.)

[Bullseye]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:55 pm  

dannynaughton wrote:

If you think the OOC players haven't explored possible opportunities elsewhere already, then you are deluded.

Thanks.

I'm not an idiot.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:56 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Perhaps use of Council services for upkeep of the stadium at Council rates rather than those we'd get from the private sector?

Apart from that I've no idea. It probably just amounts to warm words in the T&A/Council Newsletter. Perhaps we can use them to stay comfortable in when the next season starts in February.

When ABC arrived on the scene it was reported by the T&A that the Council might make them a loan to help them through the next couple of years. I dont recall them specifying what the terms of such a loan would be.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:05 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

When ABC arrived on the scene it was reported by the T&A that the Council might make them a loan to help them through the next couple of years. I dont recall them specifying what the terms of such a loan would be.

Guilfoyle referred to the council having already offered £800k of "soft" loans, which he said might be available to another party seeking to take over the club. (at the Guidepost meeting).

At the time, I recall we took it that this was the funding that Caisley reckoned he could deliver following his coup.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:18 pm  

I seem to remember this Caisley chap who was so sick of the current management, he was going to sort it all out. Whatever happened to him, I wonder? Or will that be Friday . . .

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:33 pm  

Regarding tomorrow, does a consensus exist that we're just going to be told the monotonous ...... deadline extended until next payday???

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:41 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Why don't you explain to us what the accounts show that supports whatever point you were seeking to make?

Incidentally, I DO have the accounts. And am probably as qualified as anyone who posts on here to understand and interpret them.

So go on, please enlighten our readers about just how those accounts support your statement "The harsh and regrettable economic truth is that the Bradford Bulls players are not worth what Bradford Bulls has contracted to pay them."

And when you admit you cannot and were talking the bollox that FA showed you to have been, will you be man enough to apologise and retract?

The simple truth is that no professional club should be allowed to retain a licence if it spends more than it gets in. e.g. see UEFA's 'Financial Fair Play Regulations' for example.
Extracts from Bulls' most recently published audited accounts:-
Wages and Salaries: £2,447,753
Operating loss: £373,530.
Hence if players' wages had been £373,530 lower, the Bulls would have broken even i.e. lived within its means.

[Bullseye]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:44 pm  

dannynaughton wrote:

Regarding tomorrow, does a consensus exist that we're just going to be told the monotonous ...... deadline extended until next payday???

I think it looks that way. Where this leaves the coaching staff and academy who knows!

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:48 pm  

Wooden Stand wrote: The simple truth is that no professional club should be allowed to retain a licence if it spends more than it gets in. e.g. see UEFA's 'Financial Fair Play Regulations' for example. Extracts from Bulls' most recently published audited accounts:- Wages and Salaries: £2,447,753 Operating loss: £373,530. Hence if players' wages had been £373,530 lower, the Bulls would have broken even i.e. lived within its mesans. That is certainly simple... Football is such a good example of financial morality! http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/23/premier-league-losses-2010-11-profits

Wooden Stand wrote: The simple truth is that no professional club should be allowed to retain a licence if it spends more than it gets in. e.g. see UEFA's 'Financial Fair Play Regulations' for example. Extracts from Bulls' most recently published audited accounts:- Wages and Salaries: £2,447,753 Operating loss: £373,530. Hence if players' wages had been £373,530 lower, the Bulls would have broken even i.e. lived within its mesans. That is certainly simple... Football is such a good example of financial morality! http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/23/premier-league-losses-2010-11-profits