Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:19 pm  

As a Hull fan i find it shocking that the RFL have turned down the first conditional offer and some supporters are calling for the Bulls to be kicked out.

If you pay a one million for a club, you want some of the pot SL clubs get and don't want to be in NL for that investment. Also it is common sense that those offering to save the club want to ground back. If not they are effectively buying a name and that's it.

Finally is there any club in national league that will add something as good or better than what the Bulls offer. Answer is no.

For me it's a no brainer.

Good luck and hope Bradford stuff Rovers!

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:45 pm  

REDWHITEANDBLUE wrote:

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.

The 200k figure includes the costs to open Odsal for the Two successive home fixtures against Widnes & Hull KR.

Those that attended the Guide Post supporters meeting will know that the players wage bill is £160,000

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:46 pm  

I aint panicking about this situation as bad as it is. There is too much money to be lost to all parties to allow the bulls to die. This is a pantomime with a guaranteed happy ending!

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:21 pm  

GET EM ON SIDE REF wrote:

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

It's not 'FACT' at all

Six months ago takes us back to the end of January i.e before the season had even started. At that point there was no reason to believe that things weren't progressing as normal as we built up to the start of the new season. In fact we were able to sign Karl Pryce under the salary cap at that time. There was absolutely no reason to be selling players at that stage, so far as anyone could determine.

Subsequent events proved that this confidence was misplaced, but by then it was too late to be able to make any significant amount of money from a fire sale of players

Hindsight is wonderful isn't it?

[Bulliac]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:25 pm  

Asim wrote:

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

Dunno, to be honest mate. That may well be the case, though my recollection is that the whole scheme unravelled pretty quickly after it was called in. My opinion at the time was that I couldn't understand how anybody, without a vested interest, who looked objectively, would have found anything to complain about. As you said in your earlier post there were too many sacred cows and people coming from fixed positions involved. Let them all be forever damned.

[Bulliac]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:35 pm  

GET EM ON SIDE REF wrote:

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

Nah. You need to double the font size and maybe underline it and use red to be at all convincing; see how much more factual mine looks compared with yours. It's obvious you don't truly believe your own post, and you'll certainly never get anyone else to believe it, if all you do is use caps.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:46 pm  

debaser wrote:

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.

To be fair the RFL cant just accept any offer. IF the current offers include: 1) Going into a liquidation, walking away from all of the debts and starting from scratch; and 2) Buying back the lease at a miserly rate paid over a couple of decades, the RFL wouldnt really have much option than to remove the license.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:48 pm  

I would sell now...

Bateman
Whitehead
Elima
Kearney
Lulia
Gale
Kopzak
Crookes

and anyone else deemed a decent player. This will then make the club a dam sight cheaper to buy and also to run. You could use academy lads and player loaned from other clubs as all clubs would muck in. Fair enough it would ruin your season but it's a small price to pay to start on the path back to stability. Guilfoyle should have done this weeks ago. Something stinks about this as if someone is pulling his strings trying to force this club to liquidation with the hope that the newco is a quick turnaround and that someone picks the club up for nothing with all the players still at the club.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:52 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

To be fair the RFL cant just accept any offer. IF the current offers include: 1) Going into a liquidation, walking away from all of the debts and starting from scratch; and 2) Buying back the lease at a miserly rate paid over a couple of decades, the
RFL wouldnt really have much option than to remove the license.

Just on point 1, are the rfl still creditors and if they aren't and no other rugby club is, do they have any remit to protect other creditors or are they just making a moral judgement?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:57 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

To be fair the RFL cant just accept any offer. IF the current offers include: 1) Going into a liquidation, walking away from all of the debts and starting from scratch; and 2) Buying back the lease at a miserly rate paid over a couple of decades, the RFL wouldnt really have much option than to remove the license.

Exactly.