Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:49 pm  

Steam Pig wrote: T&A Beat me to it, Mat and just gone on T&A now http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/9842742.Consortium_s_modified_offer_for_Bradford_Bulls_under_consideration_by_RFL/ no mention of sutcliffes bid. surely theres got to be an extension now to allow both bids to be considered?.

Steam Pig wrote: T&A Beat me to it, Mat and just gone on T&A now http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/9842742.Consortium_s_modified_offer_for_Bradford_Bulls_under_consideration_by_RFL/ no mention of sutcliffes bid. surely theres got to be an extension now to allow both bids to be considered?.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:51 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

...- never paid the Output tax, so HMRC are currently down by 1/4m. The exchequer would be the winner if it was set aside.

Also, the RFL debt was secured by debenture so they would take precedence over the unsecured creditors.

Interesting. So the RFL get paid anything first in any liquidation, and HMRC get to whistle? Would that make them more amenable than usual to any deal any interested party may propose?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:55 pm  

There's a statement dated 27th (today) on the RFL website. It begins:
The RFL is continuing to assess the details of a further modified offer to purchase Bradford Bulls from the club’s official administrator.

The latest offer has been submitted by the same business consortium whose original offer was rejected earlier this week because of the conditions attached.

Whilst the RFL remains hopeful that new owners for the club can be found and is receptive to constructive approaches from interested parties, the governing body is still unable to consider conditional offers.

My questions are:
why are they only considering one offer-- one can only surmise that no other offer has reached Red Hall
I know others on this thread have sought to explain but the 2 statements
"the governing body is still unable to consider conditional offers"
and "continuing to assess the details of a further modified offer "
are contradictory.
Still no word from the administrators (surely they would have had to announce any liquidation before close of office working hours), any individual connected to the offer or any journalist

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:57 pm  

childofthenorthern wrote: http://www.superleague.co.uk/article/25780/rfl-statement-%E2%80%93-ownership-of " the governing body is still unable to consider conditional offers." no change then so they'll reject this as well. Except, as I keep saying, the phrase is meaningless bollox, as the RFL stated in relation to the first offer that they "considered it very carefully", and rejected it not because of the existence of conditions but because they felt the conditions were "unreasonable and unrealistic". If they are and were "unable to consider" conditional offers, how did they do that, then, and if this offer contains amended conditions, why are they considering something they are unable to consider? I expect this sort of bullshhit will continue to be released as someone clearly doesn't actually understand the point. I blame educkashunal dumming downe.

childofthenorthern wrote: http://www.superleague.co.uk/article/25780/rfl-statement-%E2%80%93-ownership-of " the governing body is still unable to consider conditional offers." no change then so they'll reject this as well. Except, as I keep saying, the phrase is meaningless bollox, as the RFL stated in relation to the first offer that they "considered it very carefully", and rejected it not because of the existence of conditions but because they felt the conditions were "unreasonable and unrealistic". If they are and were "unable to consider" conditional offers, how did they do that, then, and if this offer contains amended conditions, why are they considering something they are unable to consider? I expect this sort of bullshhit will continue to be released as someone clearly doesn't actually understand the point. I blame educkashunal dumming downe.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:59 pm  

BG has finally broke his silence today by putting out a press release saying he needs the RFL to pay the players & staff for August.

No mention of an extension though...

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:00 pm  

Bullnorthern wrote:

There's a statement dated 27th (today) on the RFL website. It begins:
The RFL is continuing to assess the details of a further modified offer to purchase Bradford Bulls from the club’s official administrator.

The latest offer has been submitted by the same business consortium whose original offer was rejected earlier this week because of the conditions attached.

Whilst the RFL remains hopeful that new owners for the club can be found and is receptive to constructive approaches from interested parties, the governing body is still unable to consider conditional offers.

My questions are:
why are they only considering one offer-- one can only surmise that no other offer has reached Red Hall
I know others on this thread have sought to explain but the 2 statements
"the governing body is still unable to consider conditional offers"
and "continuing to assess the details of a further modified offer "
are contradictory.
Still no word from the administrators (surely they would have had to announce any liquidation before close of office working hours), any individual connected to the offer or any journalist

its only contradictory if the conditions still remain on the modified offer. The modification may be the removal of the conditions? Or reducing them to a more realistic level. eg not buying lease back but instead using that money to pay creditors.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:03 pm  

But aren't the RFL the ones dishing out the conditions....

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:10 pm  

jockabull wrote:

But aren't the RFL the ones dishing out the conditions....

depends what you qualify a condition as I suppose.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:34 pm  

RhinoLaney wrote:

BG has finally broke his silence today by putting out a press release saying he needs the RFL to pay the players & staff for August.

No mention of an extension though...

It's beyond me why Guilfoyle hasn't used this long and well-paid period of administration to, er, maybe sell one of the players he can't afford, thereby getting the capital to pay the other players he can't afford, instead of putting a gun to the head and demanding charity from a party whose goodwill he'll otherwise need to get out of this mess.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:54 pm  

craigizzard wrote:

It's beyond me why Guilfoyle hasn't used this long and well-paid period of administration to, er, maybe sell one of the players he can't afford, thereby getting the capital to pay the other players he can't afford, instead of putting a gun to the head and demanding charity from a party whose goodwill he'll otherwise need to get out of this mess.

He stated previously that offers he described as derisory have been received. Going off the sort of figures quoted when Wakefield went through this (£5k) we'd have to sell the whole squad to keep running for less than a month. There are no other assets so the only way to sell it as an ongoing business is with the playing squad in place.