Re: Bradford : Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:24 pm  

Highlander wrote:

The other way of looking at the RFL's and AC's actions is shown in the RFL statement. The RFL say they want clarity on our projections for income & expenditure next year. Obviously signing the lease would give the RFL clarity. AC has been refusing to sign the lease for at least 3months. The RFL seem to have put us in special measures 2 months ago. So the other way of looking at it is that the RFL put us in special measures because we wouldn't sign the lease extension.
Really? These are the kind of muppets that run our game?

Also of note - we've handed over our estimated expenditure for moving to Dewsbury, and with the RFL killing off our ST sales with that statement, our income projections will now be off, so they can keep us in Special measures.

I agree they are a set of muppets but what do you expect them to do sit back and expect them to stand the massive financial loss, after all they bent over backwards to help Bradford and totally screwed everything up to even have other clubs now not trusting them now

Re: Bradford : Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:42 pm  

snowie wrote:

I agree they are a set of muppets but what do you expect them to do sit back and expect them to stand the massive financial loss, after all they bent over backwards to help Bradford and totally screwed everything up to even have other clubs now not trusting them now

Yes. I expect them to admit they made a mistake. A mistake which with hindsight made everything worse. And I expect them to be professional about it too, as the governing body for professional rugby league in England should be.

Does anyone expect Bradford to keep paying excessive upkeep on a stadium just to make the stupid things the RFL did look less stupid if it is going to be detrimental to the club itself, and they don't contractually have to? That in itself would be equally stupid. But it looks like this is exactly what the RFL expects...

I can understand that other clubs and fans of these clubs are (quite rightly) annoyed that the RFL did this. But, like being a kid, if you do something stupid and then tell lies about it, even if you are trying to be helpful at the time, then there is a good chance it will look an awful lot worse when the truth eventually comes out.

TBH It's not much fun being a Bulls fan. Its cost us fans money and pain and tears over the past 10 years, and it doesn't look like changing anytime soon. Could you imagine this shambles happening in any other professional sport?

Re: Bradford : Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:28 pm  

Maybe BURY F.C

Re: Bradford : Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:58 pm  

THis all seems backwards. I would have thought that had we agreed to pay excessive rent and maintenance fees the RFL should have required proof that we could pay the bills. If you paraphrase their position " If you can afford £572k a year in rent and maintenance we find it incredible that you can possibly pay £27k a year for rent and no maintenance". It really is a Through The Looking Glass world.

Re: Bradford : Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:41 pm  

Forgive it was a while ago and my memory is a bit hazy, but when BMDC paid Bradford a lump sum to take on maintenance costs of Odsal in the early 00's, how much was this figure (I have £5m in my head for some reason) and how was this money used? To improve the ground or fund the massive success of that era? Hindsight is a wonderful thing but the decision to take the money could have been the catalyst for this whole sorry saga.

Re: Bradford : Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:14 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

Forgive it was a while ago and my memory is a bit hazy, but when BMDC paid Bradford a lump sum to take on maintenance costs of Odsal in the early 00's, how much was this figure (I have £5m in my head for some reason) and how was this money used? To improve the ground or fund the massive success of that era? Hindsight is a wonderful thing but the decision to take the money could have been the catalyst for this whole sorry saga.

The only thing the whole episode proves is that even at the height of their success, Bradford, in the absence of a sugar daddy, were not financially sustainable given their income and the spending levels they had (and indeed still have).

Re: Bradford : Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:16 pm  

Mr Dog wrote:

The only thing the whole episode proves is that even at the height of their success, Bradford, in the absence of a sugar daddy, were not financially sustainable given their income and the spending levels they had (and indeed still have).

Indeed. And distorted the league with their on-field success built on selling their off-field future.

Re: Bradford : Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:29 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

Forgive it was a while ago and my memory is a bit hazy, but when BMDC paid Bradford a lump sum to take on maintenance costs of Odsal in the early 00's, how much was this figure (I have £5m in my head for some reason) and how was this money used? To improve the ground or fund the massive success of that era? Hindsight is a wonderful thing but the decision to take the money could have been the catalyst for this whole sorry saga.

The figure I had in my head was £4m, but yes you are correct.
Caisley et al chose to spend the ring fenced sinking fund monies on the squad and 'Bullmania' rather than keep it aside for its intended purpose - the upkeep of the stadium.
I don't know how the council came up with the figure, or if we'd used it properly whether it would have been enough to last this long anyway, but this is certainly one of the first steps in the gradual decline of the club.

I'm sure the Iestyn Harris saga didn't help either, and again we have Caisley to thank for that.
This assh*le actually had the gall to blame the supporters on his way out, too. Charming.

Re: Bradford : Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:45 pm  

A large chunk (£3m?) was used to build the Coral stand iirc

Re: Bradford : Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:49 pm  

Nothus wrote:

The figure I had in my head was £4m, but yes you are correct.
Caisley et al chose to spend the ring fenced sinking fund monies on the squad and 'Bullmania' rather than keep it aside for its intended purpose - the upkeep of the stadium.
I don't know how the council came up with the figure, or if we'd used it properly whether it would have been enough to last this long anyway, but this is certainly one of the first steps in the gradual decline of the club.

I'm sure the Iestyn Harris saga didn't help either, and again we have Caisley to thank for that.
This assh*le actually had the gall to blame the supporters on his way out, too. Charming.

Wasn't his plan to increase spending to gain more success that would lead to increasing crowds (and income)? Subsequent owners appear to have adopted a similar strategy and yet it's all the RFL's fault..........