[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:21 am  

It's amusing you feel they would know the difference.

The RFL can't even work out that OK Bulls only 'failed' due to their new punishment, brought out especially for us, of a fine of competition money. No club without a 'sugar daddy' could possibly survive that and put out a competitive team. Still, I can always go back to my 'emotional attachment' I guess.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:35 am  

Hang on, the Sky report says there are two offers on the table?

We know about Lamb, but who has made the other offer?

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:37 am  

Ooh, a lamb/calvert/watt supergroup....
Interesting.
It's like X-factor, find the better businessmen in their groups, drop the others & force them together.
Who said the RFL didn't have their finger on the pulse of reality TV style Saturday night entertainment!

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:42 am  

I don't think that is the only reason OK Bulls failed, it certainly shortened the period taken to fail. I certainly am not saying thr RFL got everything right, they patently did not. It is common practice across many sports that there are sanctions for insolvency, those sanctions need to be balanced with assisting recovery. Not an easy balance and one that clearly is not yet right in RL (putting your woes to one side, London, Wakefield and Crusaders experiences demonstrate that).

The RFL are constrained by their rules, despite the flaws within them. Any insolvent club should face sanctions, but those sanctions should not leave them without hope. You will get no arguement from me that the RFL made errors at the time of the OK rescue. I do believe they are trying not to make the same mistake again.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe Moore was at least part of the problem for the RFL, whether that is fair or not (by the RFL) I do not know.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:45 am  

paulwalker71 wrote:

Hang on, the Sky report says there are two offers on the table?

We know about Lamb, but who has made the other offer?

From various comments I've seen on social media I think other offer was a last ditch attempt by OK to buy club back.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:50 am  

Highlander wrote:

Ooh, a lamb/calvert/watt supergroup....
Interesting.
It's like X-factor, find the better businessmen in their groups, drop the others & force them together.
Who said the RFL didn't have their finger on the pulse of reality TV style Saturday night entertainment!

Nigel Wood - Ant
Ralph Rimmer - Dec
Blake Solly ???????? - Tom Bailey?????

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:52 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

There's a lot of weird stuff going on, but one huge questionmark is this: on the one hand, we've been led to believe that in the new owners we had some pretty level-headed businessmen who insisted in dissecting and crunching the numbers and changing a failed business into one that lived within its means going forward - and had the financial expertise to do this; on the other hand we have the RFL basically saying that they were not convinced by these people at all, and were short of the two fundamental planks, a viable business plan end evidence of funding, and were asking for another half a million advance just to keep going.

I can't quite match the two positions up.

It looks like theres some very carefully worded accusations made in both ststements from moore and RFL. One thing I noticed is that RFL statement didnt actually address many/any of accusations levelled by moore and instead raised a series of counter complaints.

When RFL refer to 500k advanc being asked for do they mean on top of normal funding or are they lumping the 300k extra sky payment into the 500k figure?.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:13 pm  

paulwalker71 wrote:

Hang on, the Sky report says there are two offers on the table?

We know about Lamb, but who has made the other offer?

I think that Blake Solly getting muddled up, the administator clearly stated that whilst there were four interested parties there was only two bids received, the current (now-ex) incumbents and Richard Lambs. I know who i would believe in this case.

I doubt if the other two interested parties decided not to bid before the latest events then they won't want to know now. And if OK is sniffing around again it can only be because he wants his money back somehow so that is a non-starter. The only hope is Lamb but he put an interesting caveat in his speil yesterday saying how it depends on what the books say etc. Well if it correct that the RFL are paying the wages on friday then they are not going to be doing it out of the goodness of their heart, it will be coming from monies owing from sponsorship, TV etc. Probably mainly from the 300K which I doubt would have been handed over yet whilst the ownership was still incomplete. The chances are Lamb may well decide to walk away or if he does put an offer in it may well be for less than previously. Either way if he doesn't have very deep pockets then without major cuts immediately in all areas the situation won't change and the losses will mount back up. It really is the biggest mess and it may have to get even worse (if you believe that is possible) before it gets better.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:05 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

There's a lot of weird stuff going on, but one huge questionmark is this: on the one hand, we've been led to believe that in the new owners we had some pretty level-headed businessmen who insisted in dissecting and crunching the numbers and changing a failed business into one that lived within its means going forward - and had the financial expertise to do this; on the other hand we have the RFL basically saying that they were not convinced by these people at all, and were short of the two fundamental planks, a viable business plan end evidence of funding, and were asking for another half a million advance just to keep going.

I can't quite match the two positions up.

BBC - But RFL chief operating officer Ralph Rimmer said the situation was of the club's own making, caused by an attempt by Moore and former chairman Ryan Whitcut to purchase the Bulls using the club's own money.

"Throughout our dealings with them, the club's directors were unable to provide any evidence of new capital investment into Bradford Bulls and consequently, the RFL Executive had no confidence in the business plan that was presented," said Rimmer.

"We will continue to work with the administrator to find a solvent and viable solution for the club and will provide an update to the other Super League clubs at their scheduled meeting on Wednesday."

Purchasing a company with its own money used to be illegal; not sure if it still is.
Clearly according to the RFL, they were not actually putting their hands in their own pockets to fund this; not much of a vote of confidence by these saintly "saviours". Has Moore & Co said anything about using any of their own cash?

If the RFL are correct, then their bid was about as much use as a chocolate teapot. The OK group also funded it with loans, instead of capital.

I hope for the fans and the club that this nightmare comes to an end soon as you all deserve much much better. SL needs the Bulls, so good luck to you all.

(p.s. I am disgusted but not surprised that the SL Clubs including my club took the share of withheld the sky distribution. Kicking someone who is down - disgraceful behaviour)

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:10 pm  

Saints were one of the 5 who voted against I think. Don't worry about it.

I've said before that Whitcut seems to be the only constant in this whole sorry saga (in chronological order - Ok's right hand man, then general manager, then director (with others), then director by himself (when he took out the debenture), then potential owner, then not fit or proper... so I would think he'll have the answers. Hopefully the administrators report will illuminate some of it.