Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:53 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I think the above statement can be shortened!


It's not what you know(think), it's what you can prove.

You may know that someone is cheating, but unless you can prove it, it's just speculation.

Forgice me if I'm wrong here but I thought the outcome of a match tended to be down to the players on the pitch and the match officials.

If you're so paranoid about collusion and match fixing then I don't think watching sport is for you as every game is therefore at risk.

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:58 pm  

Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:

Forgice me if I'm wrong here but I thought the outcome of a match tended to be down to the players on the pitch and the match officials.

If you're so paranoid about collusion and match fixing then I don't think watching sport is for you as every game is therefore at risk.

You seem to be a bit hot headed. Read again then try again.

Rather than spouting off at anyone you feel has said this should not happen, when in fact I've said the opposite.

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:06 pm  

Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:

A) If the cap fits

B) So I'm right you don't have any evidence - only RFL and the Administrator do and given you're neither...

C) Here we go another doomsday scenario. Also for RFL to accept the change in ownership and take the club out of special measures they have to show they have the funds to run the club and not only that invest in the club.

Any other moronic hypothetical straws you want to grasp at? Some clown on here even alleged that this would lead to teams throwing games.

Well aren't you pleasant. Your right, I'm privvy to only publically available facts, and have drawn a conclusion of of that, the fact in my original post I stated that, does that mean I'm open to abuse?

Funny how the Bradford fans are calling the rfl every name under the sun for not thinking through all eventualities with certain events (like the stadium lease fiasco, secret loan etc) but now were not allowed to deal in hypotheticals here ...

What more evidence is available to you that makes you certain mrs koukash is capable of running Bradford? Her cv is hardly inspiring, and the interviews just further promoted the impression she was little more than a puppet. Shocking how everyone but Bradford fans have drawn a similar conclusion.

As for your counter point for c, congratulations you saw the contradiction! It's a proof by contradiction! If she DOESNT have her own revenue stream then her bid won't get accept. It's as simple as that. Given the above statement about her credentials to run Bradford, where is this magical revenue going to come from?

I WANT Bradford out of the mess they are in - you can go through the Bradford thread on here and see the many posts I've written in favour of Bradford if you really want. I'm not hypothetically clutching at straws, to be honest, even if there IS a conflict of interest, I'm not too fussed, I want the fiasco to be over. However mrs koukash buying Bradford wouldn't be an end to it, as questions will be raised over the integrity of the bid. If you think I'm against Bradford you clearly haven't read half of what I've posted over the off season, but I do have concerns over the properness of this proposed deal.

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:11 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Well aren't you pleasant. Your right, I'm privvy to only publically available facts, and have drawn a conclusion of of that, the fact in my original post I stated that, does that mean I'm open to abuse?

Funny how the Bradford fans are calling the rfl every name under the sun for not thinking through all eventualities with certain events (like the stadium lease fiasco, secret loan etc) but now were not allowed to deal in hypotheticals here ...

What more evidence is available to you that makes you certain mrs koukash is capable of running Bradford? Her cv is hardly inspiring, and the interviews just further promoted the impression she was little more than a puppet. Shocking how everyone but Bradford fans have drawn a similar conclusion.

As for your counter point for c, congratulations you saw the contradiction! It's a proof by contradiction! If she DOESNT have her own revenue stream then her bid won't get accept. It's as simple as that. Given the above statement about her credentials to run Bradford, where is this magical revenue going to come from?

I WANT Bradford out of the mess they are in - you can go through the Bradford thread on here and see the many posts I've written in favour of Bradford if you really want. I'm not hypothetically clutching at straws, to be honest, even if there IS a conflict of interest, I'm not too fussed, I want the fiasco to be over. However mrs koukash buying Bradford wouldn't be an end to it, as questions will be raised over the integrity of the bid. If you think I'm against Bradford you clearly haven't read half of what I've posted over the off season, but I do have concerns over the properness of this proposed deal.

Ignoring the MacDull.

Her revenue streams could come from her husbands earnings. It would not matter.
There are many married couples where only one of the couple works, yet they both have access to that income stream.
In fact if you look at any ISA or SIPP, non-earners still get a tax free allowance. Or in the case of a SIPP a tax rebate. Even if not contributing tax.

People talk of marriage in terms of love etc. But the civil form of a marriage bring with it more than a simple public declaration, it brings many financial costs and benefits.

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:16 pm  

The crux is the administrator getting the best deal for the creditors.

This topic is on numerous boards (as expected) with people for and against and questions asked about the integrity of the sport. But having Bradford limp along is just as damaging and fans were just as scathing then. What's paramount is paying wages and tax and such. There is nothing in the rules for the Koukash situation, they may not even be the administrators preferred bidder, but after one disasterous ratification after another the right bidder needs to be sought for the Bradford company.

If it is Mrs Koukash, or whatever guise, and that option provides the best long term stability for people's jobs then so be it. I think some are looking at the wrong end of the wedge a little when they talk of collusion and dodgy deals.

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:19 pm  

Walshovski wrote:

Of course the RFL have a better knowledge of any bid submitted but I'm happy to apply the duck test (if it looks like a duck etc) .

I reckon the duck test with the stool's better. If she drowns, she clearly wasn't a fit and proper person.

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:21 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

Ignoring the MacDull.

Her revenue streams could come from her husbands earnings. It would not matter.
There are many married couples where only one of the couple works, yet they both have access to that income stream.
In fact if you look at any ISA or SIPP, non-earners still get a tax free allowance. Or in the case of a SIPP a tax rebate. Even if not contributing tax.

People talk of marriage in terms of love etc. But the civil form of a marriage bring with it more than a simple public declaration, it brings many financial costs and benefits.

My knowledge of the matter is a little hazy, but wouldn't a prenup be required for that to be a viable case? I have no idea if they do, but it's the only way she could have confirmed income regardless of what occurs (imagine the "doomsday example" of the doc and his wife splitting leaving her with no income and the bulls!)

It's hardly impossible to set up a situation for her to have provable facility to run the bulls day to day, and it would be hard to prove a situation like the one I posted earlier might occur. Only word from the rfl and administrator will prove the case!

It's certainly a very race horse owner thing to do that's for sure

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:22 pm  

By the way, I'm not ignorant to the hypotheticals and repocussions; I could think of a dozen of my own. All I'm saying is that is not the priority of the administrator, whoever he chooses. And if the RFL decline this ratification - I view the last in a slightly different light, "one door opens" and all that - then the merry-go-round starts again... complete with fans sticking the boot in.

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:34 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

(imagine the "doomsday example" of the doc and his wife splitting leaving her with no income and the bulls!)

As was said in another place, she can make our tea during the week and he can take us to games at the weekend.

Re: The mad doctor : Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:42 pm  

vbfg wrote:

As was said in another place, she can make our tea during the week and he can take us to games at the weekend.

Two lots of sky pocket money, sweet!