Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:35 am  

Northern Lad wrote:

They did know they were struggling as they've probably known for years. They thought they had a plan to deal with it, I'm sure they would claim circumstances conspired against them.

The RFL calling in their debt didn't help.
But of course the RFL are doing everything they can to help...

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:01 am  

The RFL have still got a few questions to answer as to why the lent us such a huge sum in the first place. And what happened to the money?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:04 am  

Blotto wrote:

Caisley knew what was happening and panicked just to save his Directors liabilty is what his intrvention looks like!

While not a Caisley supporter the above is wide of the mark as he hasn't been a director for some time - a shareholder yes - but he resigned as a director several years ago.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:21 am  

Bank withdrawing overdraft facilities was another unforseen action whch caught us. Doesn't the Stobart sponsorship of the league only "Pay" in advertising and not funding, that would be another loss of revenue this season over last as presumably with Engage as sponsors all the clubs would get something unless I am mistaken.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:47 am  

debaser wrote:

The RFL calling in their debt didn't help.
But of course the RFL are doing everything they can to help...

To be fair to the RFL, they lent us circa £700k when they probably shouldn't have given us anything. Further than that, we didn't make a single repayment for over a year. If anything I'd say they've been quite generous towards us.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:36 am  

BeechwoodBull wrote:

Bank withdrawing overdraft facilities was another unforseen action whch caught us. Doesn't the Stobart sponsorship of the league only "Pay" in advertising and not funding, that would be another loss of revenue this season over last as presumably with Engage as sponsors all the clubs would get something unless I am mistaken.

In light of what's emerged the bank did the only sensible thing.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:40 am  

Nothus wrote:

To be fair to the RFL, they lent us circa £700k when they probably shouldn't have given us anything. Further than that, we didn't make a single repayment for over a year. If anything I'd say they've been quite generous towards us.

There's no probably about it. Had the RFL sent their own accountants in at that time we could/should have entered admininistration at that time and the lease would not now be the issue that it is and the fans would not be 500k out of pocket.

[Bulliac]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:07 am  

The Chronicler of Chiswic wrote:

I'm thinking here more of next season, although a temporary 'exemption', as we had for the overseas quota for ex Crusaders' players, wouldn't surprise me.

But this whole section of the thread (about selling players) is predicated on the belief of a fan from Wakey that we should have sold players towards the end of this season, to reduce the wages bill and to pay both the wages of the remaining staff and also costs going forward. It is the idea that selling players now, to get them off the books this season, along with the notion that there a lots of clubs who can pick them up, that is unrealistic, and has nothing to do with the usual end of season merry-go-round - which, I guess, is going on without us anyway, and I assume the players off-contract at Bradford will have agents looking around, irrespective of whether they want to stay or not. I certainly would.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:08 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

In light of what's emerged the bank did the only sensible thing.

Chicken and the egg surely though - would we be in this position if they hadn't done it? I don't think we can know. Its what I'm trying to puzzle out with the whole situation, was it incompetance and a poor financial model or was there a feasible plan there that was ruined by circumstances and bad luck.

Difficult to know given how little actual facts there are.

[Bulliac]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:30 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

In light of what's emerged the bank did the only sensible thing.

I'm not sure why you say that.

I can understand that the change in the lease, which was the stated reason from the bank, wasn't the best deal we've ever done, and that probably the consequences weren't thought through as fully as they might have been, but as I understand it, the change from being primary leaseholders to a sub lease shouldn't have affected the value of the ground as collateral, I mean the physical asset, the bricks mortar and land was never ours to sell, whatever the lease.

In fact, didn't PH say the ground wasn't held as collateral by the bank anyway, or did I misunderstand the position?