Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:00 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Whatever - they now surely realise what a huge and unworkable mistake it was.

The RFL always did.

It was a majority of the other SL clubs that forced the RFL's hand. Clearly those clubs neither realised nor cared. Except they enriched themselves furtehr by 1/13 each of the monies we had confiscated.

Thankfully, a wholseome minority of the other clubs DID realise. But they were outvoted.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:01 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

What you are proposing is that the new owners just agree to stand the rest of the half-price distribution that the old club agreed to pay, and pay no further "distribution penalty" of their own at all. But if it was right that OKB had to agree to a 2 year half-pay in order to be considered for SL -which had not been done to any club previously - then was that just a one-off, or did it set any precedent for future admins? If it set a precedent then how come the RFL wouldn't stick to it, or try to?

No, I am sure any "half pay" deal would have to be a brand new deal, agreed to by the brand new owners. And i fear the RFL will struggle toi find another one that will sign such an onerous deal. Perhaps more likely RFL will fudge it and find reasons for doing it differently. Or maybe just not do it and say nothing at all. Or maybe say it wasn't necessary as sufficient provision has been made for payment of old club's creditors. Whatever - they now surely realise what a huge and unworkable mistake it was.

I wasn't proposing anything. I was just commenting on whether the new company would be bound by the previous reduction as a matter of law, or whether it was a licensing condition. If you are right, then it can be viewed afresh. Like I said in the final paragraph, it would hamstring a new owner too much to be bound by the mistakes of two owners previous to it. Being penalised for the previous owner maybe, because you are getting a product at a reduced rate because of that owner, but the Sky reduction was because of the owner before OK, and so is stretching it too far.

The RFL would be entitled to look at it afresh and view it through the prism of OK Bulls alone, as it is from that mess that the new owner is buying.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:13 pm  

I've always seen, and had it confirmed that the decision of the clubs to vote for the withholding of Sky money was as much about giving the RFL a bloody nose for lending the Bradford BOD 700k without telling any of them. They were utterly livid that it came out in the week after the 'saving iconic Odsal from vultures' story which was patent nonsense.

Whoever green lit that loan set in train a disastrous sequence of events from which it seems almost impossible to recover.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:21 pm  

M@islebugs wrote:

I've always seen, and had it confirmed that the decision of the clubs to vote for the withholding of Sky money was as much about giving the RFL a bloody nose for lending the Bradford BOD 700k without telling any of them. They were utterly livid that it came out in the week after the 'saving iconic Odsal from vultures' story which was patent nonsense.

Whoever green lit that loan set in train a disastrous sequence of events from which it seems almost impossible to recover.

But uf they hadn't "loaned" then the money the the bulls would have been liquidated making that season a farce as we had already played half the fixtures.

Ive said it all along, if the RFL and clubs wanted to punish the bulls for going into admin they should have deducted more points for that season, if not all.

To have have half the sky money taken away for a club trying to get back on its feet was ridiculous. Even if OK offered it, the clubs should have thought of the bigger picture and rejected it so we could get our finances in order and get back on track. Punish the club other ways. Transfer embargo, points deduction but the having half of the sky money was a stupid decision and caused even more damage, not just to the bulls but to the sport as a whole.

I hope that it NEVER happens again to any club who goes into admin

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:26 pm  

Bull Mania wrote:

But uf they hadn't "loaned" then the money the the bulls would have been liquidated making that season a farce as we had already played half the fixtures.

Ive said it all along, if the RFL and clubs wanted to punish the bulls for going into admin they should have deducted more points for that season, if not all.

To have have half the sky money taken away for a club trying to get back on its feet was ridiculous. Even if OK offered it, the clubs should have thought of the bigger picture and rejected it so we could get our finances in order and get back on track. Punish the club other ways. Transfer embargo, points deduction but the having half of the sky money was a stupid decision and caused even more damage, not just to the bulls but to the sport as a whole.

I hope that it NEVER happens again to any club who goes into admin

They'd have gone into admin 12 months sooner, which they quite clearly needed to do. The club would still have its ground lease, we wouldn't have lost 500k and the new owners would only have been punished with a points deduction rather than the devastating £1.3 million deduction.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:33 pm  

M@islebugs wrote:

...They were utterly livid that it came out in the week after the 'saving iconic Odsal from vultures' story which was patent nonsense.
...

Or not. Turns out that Odsal is worth something like, oh, let me pluck a figure out of absolutely nowhere, er, £63m give or take a pound or two as a landfill site. Which somebody may or may not have established.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:43 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Or not. Turns out that Odsal is worth something like, oh, let me pluck a figure out of absolutely nowhere, er, £63m give or take a pound or two as a landfill site. Which somebody may or may not have established.

I think you mentioned the £63m when this was discussed at the time and by the time we had considered various leases, planning consents and the likelihood of BMDC allowing such a site to simply fall into the hands of somebody who owned the club being zero, we concluded that there the whole story was nonsense and probably lies.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:03 pm  

M@islebugs wrote:

I think you mentioned the £63m when this was discussed at the time and by the time we had considered various leases, planning consents and the likelihood of BMDC allowing such a site to simply fall into the hands of somebody who owned the club being zero, we concluded that there the whole story was nonsense and probably lies.

Indeed. But that was before I found out the valuation was correct, and somebody therefore must have had that plan. And if the Bulls had gone down the pan, or been sent to VP or Horsfall or wherever, and Odsal was standing empty, am I confident the Council would ultimately block any such deal?

No. I wouldn't be surprised if they even did similar themselves, in those circumstances.

Incidentally this aspect is one of the biggest headaches for the RFL. They need the Bulls in SL in order to be in any sort of position to pay their rent. I wonder if there is a backup plan? Maybe if the Bulls do go down the pan, a deal will be done with Wakefield council and Kath, and the Wakefield Wild Bulls could move up the road?

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:17 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Indeed. But that was before I found out the valuation was correct, and somebody therefore must have had that plan. And if the Bulls had gone down the pan, or been sent to VP or Horsfall or wherever, and Odsal was standing empty, am I confident the Council would ultimately block any such deal?

No. I wouldn't be surprised if they even did similar themselves, in those circumstances.

Incidentally this aspect is one of the biggest headaches for the RFL. They need the Bulls in SL in order to be in any sort of position to pay their rent. I wonder if there is a backup plan? Maybe if the Bulls do go down the pan, a deal will be done with Wakefield council and Kath, and the Wakefield Wild Bulls could move up the road?

IF the Bulls went anywhere, why would BMDC need the owner of the Bulls? They're sat on a vacant £63m hole whose current occupiers have just defaulted on the terms of their lease. It's a bonanza they could never have dreamed of.

Wasn't there some other theory about a guy who was going to buy the club to park lorries?

Incidentally I think we've more to feat from the north. Bradford Metropolitan District Cougars?

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:28 pm  

M@islebugs wrote:

IF the Bulls went anywhere, why would BMDC need the owner of the Bulls? They're sat on a vacant £63m hole whose current occupiers have just defaulted on the terms of their lease. It's a bonanza they could never have dreamed of.

No, I doubt the RFL have defaulted on their lease. After the World Cup, they must be able to afford a peppercorn and even if they couldn't, nobody actually pays the peppercorn.

M@islebugs wrote:

Incidentally I think we've more to feat from the north. Bradford Metropolitan District Cougars?

My money is on Bradcaswakefaxley Bullcougar WildTigers