Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:42 am  

Bulliac wrote:

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.

My point was if the club went into liquidation, not if it remainded in receivership.

[Bullseye]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:52 am  

Listening to Potter on the radio last night he's under the impression there'll be an announcement this week though he knew nothing more about it.

Have the RFL approved paying our TV money early again? If not I would expect that to be it. Otherwise could it be a decision on one of the bids? Or something else?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:54 am  

Bulliac wrote:

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?

I think the loss of the lease as a security was probably an excuse. What possible value could it have to the bank anyway? A far more likely scenario is the trajectory of the account. Having realised the 700K was a loan and recieved the deposit of the season ticket income and Christmas/pre-season merchandise income they simply took a view that despite the majority of their non TV income plus a huge one off payment, the club still had no money. They took one look at monthly payroll, saw the huge disparity and called it in.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:00 am  

Bulliac wrote:

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?

some of the bricks and mortar are the bulls ie at least the Coral Stand. IIRC thats what Hood pointed out: the ground lease of itself was not much collateral without whats built on it. The bank said that the change in the lease caused them to do a complete review, with the conclusions MB has suggested.

It would be interesting to see what provisions regarding development of the site in the sub lease with the RFL, as the business model for the last 10-15 years has been to redevelop Odsal, and it is a model that has worked well elsewhere, and was written in the South Bradford development plan, as much retail and food development as needed to fund the redevelopment of the stadium. And as the last few days have shown that is still seen to be key to the future of the Bulls, especially now there is a presumption in favour of development. On the other hand IIRC the RFL said when buying the lease that they themselves had no plans to develop Odsal, which undermines any business model for the bulls future. So the sale of the lease may have been a short term solution but a disaster for the long term unless the buyer and the RFL can come to a deal that suits both.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:18 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

I think the loss of the lease as a security was probably an excuse. What possible value could it have to the bank anyway? A far more likely scenario is the trajectory of the account. Having realised the 700K was a loan and recieved the deposit of the season ticket income and Christmas/pre-season merchandise income they simply took a view that despite the majority of their non TV income plus a huge one off payment, the club still had no money. They took one look at monthly payroll, saw the huge disparity and called it in.

Or there was enough money from the pledge, Sky etc for the seasons budget and servicing of debt but the bank saw an account with loads of money in it and decided to take an oportunity to cut their exposure thus ruining any financial planning we had.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:30 am  

jockabull wrote:

Or there was enough money from the pledge, Sky etc for the seasons budget and servicing of debt but the bank saw an account with loads of money in it and decided to take an oportunity to cut their exposure thus ruining any financial planning we had.

They stopped the overdraft. They didn't seize money which belonged to the club. I agree they saw probably the only opportunity to cut their exposure, one they didn't believe they would see again. The pledge was announced after this.

[Bulliac]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:03 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

some of the bricks and mortar are the bulls ie at least the Coral Stand. IIRC thats what Hood pointed out: the ground lease of itself was not much collateral without whats built on it. The bank said that the change in the lease caused them to do a complete review, with the conclusions MB has suggested.

It would be interesting to see what provisions regarding development of the site in the sub lease with the RFL, as the business model for the last 10-15 years has been to redevelop Odsal, and it is a model that has worked well elsewhere, and was written in the South Bradford development plan, as much retail and food development as needed to fund the redevelopment of the stadium. And as the last few days have shown that is still seen to be key to the future of the Bulls, especially now there is a presumption in favour of development. On the other hand IIRC the RFL said when buying the lease that they themselves had no plans to develop Odsal, which undermines any business model for the bulls future. So the sale of the lease may have been a short term solution but a disaster for the long term unless the buyer and the RFL can come to a deal that suits both.

Yes, the RFL statement about "having no plans" to develop, did leave it open to interpretation. Going back to the forum where PH explained the decision, I'm sure he said that the club's position was unchanged both with regard to responsibility for maintenance and development. Of course, I may have got that wrong and/or PH may have been economical with the truth, but for the sake of argument, if we say it was true, it makes the RFL announcement about having "no plans etc" just a basic statement of the position rather than one of intent.

In truth, I find it hard to imagine the RFL ever having any long term plans for Odsal and I suspect, given the brickbats they are getting from many over their involvement, they would want little more than a return on what return on what they paid, along with a cast iron guarantee that whatever happened to the ground was in the best interests of rugby league. Maybe some clauses in the sale could reflect this?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:20 pm  

M@islebugs wrote:

They stopped the overdraft. They didn't seize money which belonged to the club. I agree they saw probably the only opportunity to cut their exposure, one they didn't believe they would see again. The pledge was announced after this.

True but it was still an overdraft limit the club expected to be working with. By pledge I meant the season ticket one rather than the begging bowl. There have been quite a few posts saying we brought it on ourselves by offering cheap season tickets whereas I don't think that is definitely the case.

I'm trying to play devils advocate here anyway, just don't think we know for sure how we got here yet.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:46 pm  

jockabull wrote:

True but it was still an overdraft limit the club expected to be working with. By pledge I meant the season ticket one rather than the begging bowl. There have been quite a few posts saying we brought it on ourselves by offering cheap season tickets whereas I don't think that is definitely the case.

I'm trying to play devils advocate here anyway, just don't think we know for sure how we got here yet.

Sorry I thought you meant the Pledge for Survival. I agree we don't know the precise mechanics of how/why we got here apart from the fact that the club were losing money at an accelerating rate irrespective of the bank's decision.

I don't think the cheap season ticket is necessarily to blame as the performances on the pitch were so atrocious in the second half of 2010 we were already into the slow tailspin by then.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:01 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

In truth, I find it hard to imagine the RFL ever having any long term plans for Odsal and I suspect, given the brickbats they are getting from many over their involvement, they would want little more than a return on what return on what they paid, along with a cast iron guarantee that whatever happened to the ground was in the best interests of rugby league. Maybe some clauses in the sale could reflect this?

But isn't there a clause in the lease with Bradford Council anyway that, if the Bulls don't play the vast majority of their home games there, we have to pay them back a percentage of the Odsal settlement money handed over on our return and supposed to provide for the upkeep. Anyone buying the lease would surely therefore be bound into that until that clause expires (2019??).
It would be interesting to know if the RFL are bound by that clause or if it specifically related just to the Bull's limited company.