Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:51 pm  

The fair play regs are a load of crap anyway.

Man City spent a couple of hundred million last year and they will never see that money again, same goes for chelsea they have never made a profit IIRC as they spend well above what the club earns back, the only reason they are still going is because they have sugar daddies to write off their debt, but if for some reason Red Rom leaves chelsea and the shiek leaves city then they will fold under a HUGE mountain of debt.

So the rich keep on spending and the rest lose out same goes for some SL clubs, some have people behind them who can pay them out of trouble and others are stuck with what they can make, so many have to live beyond their means just to survive with a team that can challenge. If you could only spend what you earnt in a season there may only be 5-6 teams in the league.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:54 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 means.

No, the simple truth is that what you said was a load of bollox. You said "The harsh and regrettable economic truth is that the Bradford Bulls players are not worth what Bradford Bulls has contracted to pay them." And nothing you said in anyway proved that. So, lets have that apology please?

And go look at the accounts of the majority of SL clubs before you make glib statements like that. Then go tell THEM that none of THEM should retain a licence.

Also, are you so dumb that you cannot understand that if income falls short in a year, against expectations, you cannot just cut your costs overnight? Esepcially platyer costs, where you would have to pay up the rest of their contracts?

Now, unless you can actually contribute something useful to the debate, how about leaving the discussion to those who have some idea what they are talking about?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:56 pm  

Omar Khan is well connected locally politically. I don't know if that will help move his bid along any compared to ABC. It won't hurt anyway. He was also on the board of Bradford Trident which was one of those "New Deal" community development groups which basically covered BD5 Manchester Road & surrounds. I think we all know that any bid will have to involve development/regeneration of the area around the ground which means significant council involvement and renegotiation. OK may have an edge there.

Omar Khan is well connected locally politically. I don't know if that will help move his bid along any compared to ABC. It won't hurt anyway. He was also on the board of Bradford Trident which was one of those "New Deal" community development groups which basically covered BD5 Manchester Road & surrounds. I think we all know that any bid will have to involve development/regeneration of the area around the ground which means significant council involvement and renegotiation. OK may have an edge there.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:59 pm  

According to the BBC Sport Website

The RFL have rejected the conditional offer for the Bradford Bulls

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:07 pm  

Marvellous.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:08 pm  

Why am I not surprised!

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:12 pm  

And rightly so!

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:16 pm  

http://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/25 ... -offer-for

http://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/25 ... -offer-for

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:17 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.
...

Now there's a fine example. Under those regulations, by as soon as 2018 clubs will be expected to bring their annual losses below £8.8 million. I bet they're sweating. Why, this will give their accountants hardly any time at all to find a fiddle around it.

I do believe that the Bulls already more than comply with this ideal, so we are way ahead of UEFA. Maybe they should appoint Hood to show them how we did it.

Oh, and the £8.8m doesn't include "non-football" losses.

PPS - it also doesn't take any account of leveraged buyouts, so you can still borrow a few hundred mill to buy a club, and then pay huge interest repayments out of income, and those payments "don't count"

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:18 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

I'm not an idiot.