Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:09 pm  

The lack of information is what has annoyed me about the rejection. What is it they have rejected?

As John Kear on Boots n all said last night, the point of the licensing system was so clubs could plan and know where they are. Here we have people wanting to invest in a big club that is days from going bust yet the RFL have rejected it if no information and no clarity and no one has any idea where the club stands!!!

We know that the owners wanted guranteed SL status and the ground back. I see no reason why the RFL couldn't sell the ground back. On the Sl license, if the RFL aren't planning on letting us retain our license, then say that so everybody knows what they are investing in. Who is going to put £3 million into a club without a ground and will be playing part time rugby. If the RFL decide to put us in the Championship, it will hurt but at least we know whats happening. I don't tihnk it's fair the on potential investors the RFL expecting people to plough money, than potentially pull the rug from under their feet.

Maybe there was something else in the bid, but the lack of information is infuriating.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:10 pm  

craigizzard wrote:

It depends on how much they offered for the lease. They may have offered £200k, we don't know.

The RFL have already been screwed over on the lease once by the (previous) Bradford Bulls. For all the talk of "iconic" investment I doubt the RFL actively *wanted* the lease, but they took it effectively as collateral on a loan that they weren't otherwise going to get anything back for. As it was also in their interests that Bradford survived, they added £500k onto the purchase price in the hope that that would solve problems too.

It's very likely that the Odsal lease was overvalued as a way of helping Bradford survive, but that money went where all the other money went, and you'd understand the RFL not wanting to take *another* bath by underselling their investment to what in their view may be a consortium of sharks coming in to make profit on their previous charity.

The RFL have already taken the bath as have we the fans. The difference being they had an audit dept they could have sent in to see the scale of the looming disaster before they a) gave the previous board a penny in secret loans and b) bought a lease they didn't want c) told us a right old story to divert attention from the real reason.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:15 pm  

Bull Mania wrote:

The lack of information is what has annoyed me about the rejection. What is it they have rejected?

As John Kear on Boots n all said last night, the point of the licensing system was so clubs could plan and know where they are. Here we have people wanting to invest in a big club that is days from going bust yet the RFL have rejected it if no information and no clarity and no one has any idea where the club stands!!!

We know that the owners wanted guranteed SL status and the ground back. I see no reason why the RFL couldn't sell the ground back. On the Sl license, if the RFL aren't planning on letting us retain our license, then say that so everybody knows what they are investing in. Who is going to put £3 million into a club without a ground and will be playing part time rugby. If the RFL decide to put us in the Championship, it will hurt but at least we know whats happening. I don't tihnk it's fair the on potential investors the RFL expecting people to plough money, than potentially pull the rug from under their feet.

Maybe there was something else in the bid, but the lack of information is infuriating.

Again this depends. I don't see a problem but it depends on what has been offered by ABC. If its peanuts cannot blame the RFL

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:20 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

I'm pretty sure Sutcliffe didn't state that they were making a bid for the lease under the same conditions of ABC.

he didnt say exactly the same rather phrasing it as similar.

The deal on the table, funded by Mr Khan, would hold similar conditions to those of ABC’s offer – the club retaining its Super League status and the new buyers getting the lease back from the RFL for Odsal Stadium.

Interestingly, listening to Sutcliffe just now on radio leeds (after hes had a day discussing details with guilfoyle), he was a lot less definite about the odsal lease at least in short term. Didnt mention super league license at all. Also mentioned funding would come from Omar Khan plus wider business community.

I'm guessing that if Sutcliffes bid involved agreeing an option to buy lease back in a couple of years once club was stable again financially and also involved paying off a suitable amount from the existing debts to creditors then the RFL would view it more favourably than they did the ABC bid. The question of the SL license wouldnt necessarily come up as we'd be going through same sequence of events as wakey and crusaders before us. AFAIK whilst RFL now have OPTION of revoking license at any time for admin they dont automatically have to unless we get liquidated.

It was also mentioned that tomorrow is deadline for guilfoyle to decide which Bids, if any, are worth negotiating further. So if a potentially acceptable bid is on table then a deal doesnt have to be finalised by end of play tomorrow.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:31 pm  

Couldnt Sutcliffe and kahn, join with the ABC and work under the idea Sutcliffe has, the possible option to buy back the ground in a couple of years.

And if Akbars or Kahn wanted to build on the site (eg, Indian res in the coral stand) they would have to get permission from the RFL which aslong as it is for the benefit of the club i couldnt see as a major stumbling block

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:37 pm  

broadybull87 wrote:

Couldnt Sutcliffe and kahn, join with the ABC and work under the idea Sutcliffe has, the possible option to buy back the ground in a couple of years.

And if Akbars or Kahn wanted to build on the site (eg, Indian res in the coral stand) they would have to get permission from the RFL which aslong as it is for the benefit of the club i couldnt see as a major stumbling block

never said that sutcliffe suggested that. Just my interpretation of why he was talking about long term future of odsal rather than immediate future and suggesting a way RFL may find bid more palatable.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:10 pm  

time is running out though now surely?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:13 pm  

mat wrote:

never said that sutcliffe suggested that. Just my interpretation of why he was talking about long term future of odsal rather than immediate future and suggesting a way RFL may find bid more palatable.

Ah ok mate, must have read more into your last post

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:22 pm  

problem is no-one apart from those involved BG, ABC & The RFL know what the £3m offer is. It may be that none of the creditors get a penny and all the investment is in the form of newco funding including the cost to buy back the lease and a guarantee of continued SL status.

That would be a big pill to swallow for the RFL, go tell the Government (HMRC) to whistle and then in 2014 ask for funding from sport england........doesn't look good

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:26 pm  

I wish we could have more idea of bids etc i really do because without it the liquidation is looming. We do not know if ABC will withdraw or revise at this stage. We do not know if a bid from gerry and omar is any more acceptable.