Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:30 am  

SIMMSFAXTEDDY wrote:

i hope any potential investors out there are not reading this forum. As to me it seems as if you have already given up!

If you do loose your licence and have to start up again in a lower league, do the Championship clubs get to vote on if we want you in our league?

If SL clubs are reading this forum they can't but fail to be impressed by the quality of moron supporting current Championship sides.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:42 am  

tigertot wrote:

If SL clubs are reading this forum they can't but fail to be impressed by the quality of moron supporting current Championship sides.

THIS

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:58 am  

tigertot wrote:

If SL clubs are reading this forum they can't but fail to be impressed by the quality of moron supporting current Championship sides.

Compared to the Wakey trolls?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:24 am  

It just seems to me now that the RFL have no interest in saving us. They want us to get through to the end of the season to avoid any embarassment but after that goodbye. I would like to know their reasons for turning down a bid that saves the club. But no doubt it will be one of the many things we will never be told.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:12 pm  

tigertot wrote:

If SL clubs are reading this forum they can't but fail to be impressed by the quality of moron supporting current Championship sides.

Hmmm, basing a judgement on a handful of people who post on here is hardly representative. There are equally "moronic" comments from the SL "family" too.

Most people just want the situation to be dealt with fairly, nothing more, nothing less (and the same treatment offered to ALL RL clubs).

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:24 pm  

paulwalker71 wrote:

This rubbish about selling players for these ridiculous amounts needs nailing once and for all

Yes, Warrington did offer 'a six figure sum' for John Bateman a few months back, but that value immediately started to fall from that point, and dramatically fell at the point of Administration. I strongly suspect that the 'derisory' offers for our players at that stage were in the region of £5-10K. And they'd be even less now, as we teeter on the brink of our players being made free agents.

Selling players for such a small amount makes barely a dent in the monthly wage bill, whilst reducing the value of the asset that is being offered for sale by more than that amount.

I have to believe that the people who keep spouting this are either idiots or are just plain trolling

FACT you should have sold players and reduced the wage bill 6 months ago feel for the supporters but Bradford are now getting treatment NO other clud has ever had in the same situation

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:27 pm  

200k for wages again that makes 2.4 million a year in pay to players in my book, is there players outside of the first team squad also getting paid? the cap is about 1.7 million isnt it? I understand there are a couple of staff running the club but its a joke if they have to get paint from leeds for the pitch markings as they cannot afford it but can claim a 200k wage bill a month for players this needs sorting or hopefully someone is being intrusive into where this money is going.

[Bulliac]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:44 pm  

Asim wrote:

While Bradford is clearly no millionaire's playground there are plenty of businesses and people with a bit of money, however most didn't get to that position by pissing their money away.

Odsal Stadium, and it's running costs is the deep rooted problem in this whole business - restaurant owners are probably about the only group of people who could turn what is there (i.e. the Coral Stand) into something that could make money to underpin the operation.

John Prescott's decision to insist on one of Labour's beloved public enquiries when we had an actual realistic re-development plan, and the decisions taken by the club in the aftermath of that decision, are what underpins the whole mess IMO.

Wasn't John Prescott, the minister concerned was Stephen Byers.

[Bulliac]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:49 pm  

Wooden Stand wrote:

The RFL should not advance payments to any club whilst it is in administration.

This obsession with doing anything to see a club, artificially, through to the end of the season is a waste of money and should stop.

If the Bulls or any other club can't fulfil fixtures during the season, the 2 points (or 3 points in the Championships) should just be awarded to the opponents on the day the match should have been played.

Not ideal, but a fair enough rule that should be in place I think.

Better than the concept of trying to 'expunge from the record' games that have in fact previously been played.

So Leeds should get six points for their games against us whilst all the others get four, yeah seems about fair - I'm sure everyone will be delighted with that one. Well it won't affect us anyway.

Please let us know if you come up with any more cunning plans..

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:14 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

Asim wrote:

While Bradford is clearly no millionaire's playground there are plenty of businesses and people with a bit of money, however most didn't get to that position by pissing their money away.

Odsal Stadium, and it's running costs is the deep rooted problem in this whole business - restaurant owners are probably about the only group of people who could turn what is there (i.e. the Coral Stand) into something that could make money to underpin the operation.

John Prescott's decision to insist on one of Labour's beloved public enquiries when we
ad an actual realistic re-development plan, and the decisions taken by the club in the aftermath of that decision, are what underpins the whole mess IMO.

Wasn't John Prescott, the minister concerned was Stephen Byers.

Ah yes that rings a bell, wasn't Prescott asked to overturn it at a later date though, after a re-organisation?