Creditors owed £2m by collapse of Bradford Bulls Holdings, new report reveals

Creditors owed £2m by collapse of Bradford Bulls Holdings, new report reveals

REPORT: Brendan Guilfoyle, joint liquidator of Bradford Bulls Holdings

File photo dated 27/3/2012 of Bradford Bulls Rugby ground, Odsal Stadium. PRESS ASSOCIATION Photo. Issue date: Tuesday June 26, 2012. Bradford Bulls have gone into administration after failing to find new investment, joint administrator Brendan Guilfoyle

First published in News
Last updated
Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , T&A Reporter

A DEFUNCT Bradford Bulls company owes creditors £2 million a year on from when it went into liquidation, a new report reveals.

The figure - £1.97m to unsecured creditors and £31,000 to preferential creditors - is revealed in a report by liquidators the P&A Partnership, which produced the first annual progress report into the former Bradford Bulls Holdings as a statutory requirement one year on from liquidation.

Brendan Guilfoyle, joint liquidator, said the debt will never be met. He added that he did not know who the creditors were.

He added: "That money will never be seen.

"We have complied with a statutory requirement. The directors co-operated fully and we submitted our report.

"There is nothing exceptional there - it is much smaller than football."

The £1.97m is an increase from £1.3m of debts the defunct Bulls company had when it plunged into administration, before then entering liquidation, last year.

The report covers July 1 last year to June 30 this year and includes figures of £1,258 for liquidators' expenses and disbursements, and £16,268 for the work done on the report.

The total figure includes £558,480 yet to be claimed by HM Revenue and Customs.

The report states: "Pursuant to rule 11.7 of the Insolvency Rules 1986, I am required to give notice to creditors that the joint liquidators are unable to declare a dividend to creditors as the funds realised have been used in defraying the expenses of the liquidation."

It finishes by stating: "The joint liquidators are required to provide creditors with an annual progress report within two months of the anniversary of the liquidation. Should the liquidation have been completed prior to the anniversary then a draft final report will be issued prior to the convening and holding of the final meeting of creditors."

Last year, a progress report into the financial affairs of Bradford Bulls Holdings by the P&A Partnership shows the former company had moved into creditors voluntary liquidation after receiving £28,681 claims from preferential creditors and £1,120,667 from unsecured creditors.

The Telegraph & Argus reported last year that creditors of the former company include Revenue and Customs, Bradford Council, and Integrated Bradford LEP.

Smaller Bradford businesses Panache cheerleading school, Direct Cleaning Bradford and Wakefield’s County Catering Special Event were among others to lose out when the company collapsed.

Comments (57)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:53am Wed 3 Sep 14

Albion. says...

It's wrong how sports clubs and other businesses can simply change the listed owner and escape their debts while creditors (and the rest of us) are left out of pocket.
It's wrong how sports clubs and other businesses can simply change the listed owner and escape their debts while creditors (and the rest of us) are left out of pocket. Albion.
  • Score: 47

7:41am Wed 3 Sep 14

axelf1963 says...

Should get the money from new company as we ALL know its the same crowd with a different puppetmaster
Should get the money from new company as we ALL know its the same crowd with a different puppetmaster axelf1963
  • Score: -1

7:48am Wed 3 Sep 14

Out of site says...

If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.
If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people. Out of site
  • Score: -36

7:49am Wed 3 Sep 14

Bone_idle18 says...

axelf1963 wrote:
Should get the money from new company as we ALL know its the same crowd with a different puppetmaster
Again you prove how stupid you are.
[quote][p][bold]axelf1963[/bold] wrote: Should get the money from new company as we ALL know its the same crowd with a different puppetmaster[/p][/quote]Again you prove how stupid you are. Bone_idle18
  • Score: 23

7:52am Wed 3 Sep 14

StevieLad says...

Don't know who the creditors are. Amazing how in a liquidation all accounting records tend to vanish to the twilight zone, isn't it? Don't bother punching on that question T&A it mightn't be the last time you need to approach BG for comment.

Best case some of it was owed to oldco and OK
Don't know who the creditors are. Amazing how in a liquidation all accounting records tend to vanish to the twilight zone, isn't it? Don't bother punching on that question T&A it mightn't be the last time you need to approach BG for comment. Best case some of it was owed to oldco and OK StevieLad
  • Score: 10

7:54am Wed 3 Sep 14

Bone_idle18 says...

Out of site wrote:
If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.
It happens every day in all walks of like, personal bancrupcy is on the increase, people run up debt and then walk away.

This is nothing to do with the players or fans and everything to do with a mismanaged holding company. But, as it is a limited company, this is what happens.

At least the new owners won't let this happen again.

I'd guess there are plenty of SL clubs who would owe a lot more if the worst happened.
[quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.[/p][/quote]It happens every day in all walks of like, personal bancrupcy is on the increase, people run up debt and then walk away. This is nothing to do with the players or fans and everything to do with a mismanaged holding company. But, as it is a limited company, this is what happens. At least the new owners won't let this happen again. I'd guess there are plenty of SL clubs who would owe a lot more if the worst happened. Bone_idle18
  • Score: 14

8:04am Wed 3 Sep 14

Out of site says...

Personal bankruptcy may be on the increase but not many if any are allowed to get to the sort of debt that the bullocks and other sports teams get into.someone is making a fortune out of all this and it's not the clubs,find them and prosecute them and if they haven't any money take anything they have and sell it.
Personal bankruptcy may be on the increase but not many if any are allowed to get to the sort of debt that the bullocks and other sports teams get into.someone is making a fortune out of all this and it's not the clubs,find them and prosecute them and if they haven't any money take anything they have and sell it. Out of site
  • Score: -8

8:09am Wed 3 Sep 14

1964gc says...

Bone_idle18 wrote:
Out of site wrote:
If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.
It happens every day in all walks of like, personal bancrupcy is on the increase, people run up debt and then walk away.

This is nothing to do with the players or fans and everything to do with a mismanaged holding company. But, as it is a limited company, this is what happens.

At least the new owners won't let this happen again.

I'd guess there are plenty of SL clubs who would owe a lot more if the worst happened.
Think you'll find companies ,people get money written off on a daily basis,some of the weathiest people have been bankrupt at some point,

Peter jones dragons den went bust about 15 years ago no doubt leaving a trail of debt,its common ..
[quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.[/p][/quote]It happens every day in all walks of like, personal bancrupcy is on the increase, people run up debt and then walk away. This is nothing to do with the players or fans and everything to do with a mismanaged holding company. But, as it is a limited company, this is what happens. At least the new owners won't let this happen again. I'd guess there are plenty of SL clubs who would owe a lot more if the worst happened.[/p][/quote]Think you'll find companies ,people get money written off on a daily basis,some of the weathiest people have been bankrupt at some point, Peter jones dragons den went bust about 15 years ago no doubt leaving a trail of debt,its common .. 1964gc
  • Score: 11

8:10am Wed 3 Sep 14

llos25 says...

Any news from OK and GS oh I forgot its not in the public interest to talk about our money.
Whats happened at Odsal has happened numerous times at City you will get used to it.
Any news from OK and GS oh I forgot its not in the public interest to talk about our money. Whats happened at Odsal has happened numerous times at City you will get used to it. llos25
  • Score: 17

8:11am Wed 3 Sep 14

axelf1963 says...

The same one eyed myopic views from 1964 and bone idle
The same one eyed myopic views from 1964 and bone idle axelf1963
  • Score: -16

8:26am Wed 3 Sep 14

Avro says...

Meanwhile, Bradford Council insists it is not in the public interest to reveal how much of a £200,000 loan of taxpayer cash to former Bradford Bulls owner Omar Khan has been repaid?????????????
Meanwhile, Bradford Council insists it is not in the public interest to reveal how much of a £200,000 loan of taxpayer cash to former Bradford Bulls owner Omar Khan has been repaid????????????? Avro
  • Score: 38

8:27am Wed 3 Sep 14

Bullmaniac says...

Out of site wrote:
Personal bankruptcy may be on the increase but not many if any are allowed to get to the sort of debt that the bullocks and other sports teams get into.someone is making a fortune out of all this and it's not the clubs,find them and prosecute them and if they haven't any money take anything they have and sell it.
And there was me thinking you'd stand up for the Bulls, oh wait, I forgot you have some sort of ax to grind with the club at Odsal. Did they drop you as a junior (preferably on your head) or are you just one of those people who is constantly bitter and twisted?
[quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: Personal bankruptcy may be on the increase but not many if any are allowed to get to the sort of debt that the bullocks and other sports teams get into.someone is making a fortune out of all this and it's not the clubs,find them and prosecute them and if they haven't any money take anything they have and sell it.[/p][/quote]And there was me thinking you'd stand up for the Bulls, oh wait, I forgot you have some sort of ax to grind with the club at Odsal. Did they drop you as a junior (preferably on your head) or are you just one of those people who is constantly bitter and twisted? Bullmaniac
  • Score: 7

8:28am Wed 3 Sep 14

llos25 says...

axelf1963 wrote:
The same one eyed myopic views from 1964 and bone idle
Yes maybe but its correct somebody is is using this as a vehicle to make a lot of money they certainly are not interested in sport or the fans.
[quote][p][bold]axelf1963[/bold] wrote: The same one eyed myopic views from 1964 and bone idle[/p][/quote]Yes maybe but its correct somebody is is using this as a vehicle to make a lot of money they certainly are not interested in sport or the fans. llos25
  • Score: 8

8:38am Wed 3 Sep 14

spanglishbull.uk says...

Out of Site,
I think you should pay off the debts from your flourishing Pub business.Oh,wait a minute,it is nothing to do with you is it.Neither is it anything to do with the present Board at Odsal you thickhead.Now get out of bed and get off to work and earn a living.Oh,forgot,Wet
herspoons is open ,it opens early for you pan crack people doesn,t it.
Out of Site, I think you should pay off the debts from your flourishing Pub business.Oh,wait a minute,it is nothing to do with you is it.Neither is it anything to do with the present Board at Odsal you thickhead.Now get out of bed and get off to work and earn a living.Oh,forgot,Wet herspoons is open ,it opens early for you pan crack people doesn,t it. spanglishbull.uk
  • Score: -1

8:38am Wed 3 Sep 14

bd7 helper says...

Excuses excuses now stop lying
Excuses excuses now stop lying bd7 helper
  • Score: 2

8:44am Wed 3 Sep 14

axelf1963 says...

spanglishbull.uk wrote:
Out of Site,
I think you should pay off the debts from your flourishing Pub business.Oh,wait a minute,it is nothing to do with you is it.Neither is it anything to do with the present Board at Odsal you thickhead.Now get out of bed and get off to work and earn a living.Oh,forgot,Wet

herspoons is open ,it opens early for you pan crack people doesn,t it.
Come on Spangles don't show yourself to be like the rest with blinkers on, I am sure had this been a club down the road peoples views on here would be different ?
[quote][p][bold]spanglishbull.uk[/bold] wrote: Out of Site, I think you should pay off the debts from your flourishing Pub business.Oh,wait a minute,it is nothing to do with you is it.Neither is it anything to do with the present Board at Odsal you thickhead.Now get out of bed and get off to work and earn a living.Oh,forgot,Wet herspoons is open ,it opens early for you pan crack people doesn,t it.[/p][/quote]Come on Spangles don't show yourself to be like the rest with blinkers on, I am sure had this been a club down the road peoples views on here would be different ? axelf1963
  • Score: 0

8:48am Wed 3 Sep 14

monobrow man says...

Think that just about adds up to the money withheld by sky and the 200 000 loan from the council. Seems fair enough to me.
Think that just about adds up to the money withheld by sky and the 200 000 loan from the council. Seems fair enough to me. monobrow man
  • Score: -6

9:05am Wed 3 Sep 14

1964gc says...

axelf1963 wrote:
The same one eyed myopic views from 1964 and bone idle
Plz explain,or are you just commenting that someone has a view or opinion.

Pointless
[quote][p][bold]axelf1963[/bold] wrote: The same one eyed myopic views from 1964 and bone idle[/p][/quote]Plz explain,or are you just commenting that someone has a view or opinion. Pointless 1964gc
  • Score: -1

9:13am Wed 3 Sep 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

This is why the RFL were right to withhold 50% of the sky monies as with full sky monies and all debts removed the Bulls would have gained an unfair advantage.

What was wrong is the money going to the other clubs, it should have been placed in the pot to pay the creditors off.

When rules are broken punishments should be handed out but in some circumstances the RFL appear to move the goalposts. Like how Batley who used an ineligible player in a game which they won, and he scored a try not only have the result of that game stand, but no further punishment is dealt out.

If there is any justice, Doncaster will beat Batley on Sunday and relegate them because the RFL have bottled the decision they originally made.
This is why the RFL were right to withhold 50% of the sky monies as with full sky monies and all debts removed the Bulls would have gained an unfair advantage. What was wrong is the money going to the other clubs, it should have been placed in the pot to pay the creditors off. When rules are broken punishments should be handed out but in some circumstances the RFL appear to move the goalposts. Like how Batley who used an ineligible player in a game which they won, and he scored a try not only have the result of that game stand, but no further punishment is dealt out. If there is any justice, Doncaster will beat Batley on Sunday and relegate them because the RFL have bottled the decision they originally made. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 13

9:14am Wed 3 Sep 14

ajohnboy79 says...

Out of site wrote:
If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.
Out of site...........and certainly out of my mind with comments like that! Idiot!
[quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.[/p][/quote]Out of site...........and certainly out of my mind with comments like that! Idiot! ajohnboy79
  • Score: 5

9:24am Wed 3 Sep 14

llos25 says...

ajohnboy79 wrote:
Out of site wrote:
If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.
Out of site...........and certainly out of my mind with comments like that! Idiot!
I really think you are the idiot you seem unable to see what is happening perhaps removing those rose tinted spectacles might help.
[quote][p][bold]ajohnboy79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.[/p][/quote]Out of site...........and certainly out of my mind with comments like that! Idiot![/p][/quote]I really think you are the idiot you seem unable to see what is happening perhaps removing those rose tinted spectacles might help. llos25
  • Score: -6

9:38am Wed 3 Sep 14

ajohnboy79 says...

llos25 wrote:
ajohnboy79 wrote:
Out of site wrote:
If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.
Out of site...........and certainly out of my mind with comments like that! Idiot!
I really think you are the idiot you seem unable to see what is happening perhaps removing those rose tinted spectacles might help.
I believe that you need to have your cataracts removed! If the current owners of the Bulls picked up this debt then the club would be back at square one. I agree that the debt needs paying off, but only by the owner of the previous holding company.
Believe it or not the Bulls are a good thing in this dying City and long may they and the other sporting teams continue.
[quote][p][bold]llos25[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ajohnboy79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.[/p][/quote]Out of site...........and certainly out of my mind with comments like that! Idiot![/p][/quote]I really think you are the idiot you seem unable to see what is happening perhaps removing those rose tinted spectacles might help.[/p][/quote]I believe that you need to have your cataracts removed! If the current owners of the Bulls picked up this debt then the club would be back at square one. I agree that the debt needs paying off, but only by the owner of the previous holding company. Believe it or not the Bulls are a good thing in this dying City and long may they and the other sporting teams continue. ajohnboy79
  • Score: 17

9:39am Wed 3 Sep 14

Mumby was the best says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
This is why the RFL were right to withhold 50% of the sky monies as with full sky monies and all debts removed the Bulls would have gained an unfair advantage.

What was wrong is the money going to the other clubs, it should have been placed in the pot to pay the creditors off.

When rules are broken punishments should be handed out but in some circumstances the RFL appear to move the goalposts. Like how Batley who used an ineligible player in a game which they won, and he scored a try not only have the result of that game stand, but no further punishment is dealt out.

If there is any justice, Doncaster will beat Batley on Sunday and relegate them because the RFL have bottled the decision they originally made.
Regarding the last paragraph weren`t the Cougars one of the five who escaped punishment last year for the same offence which meant Batley and Doncaster could appeal this time round. Also you are always harping on about how Bulls fan slag the RFL off, now its your turn. Enjoy watching Hemel Stags Gloucester Golds and more mickey mouse teams.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: This is why the RFL were right to withhold 50% of the sky monies as with full sky monies and all debts removed the Bulls would have gained an unfair advantage. What was wrong is the money going to the other clubs, it should have been placed in the pot to pay the creditors off. When rules are broken punishments should be handed out but in some circumstances the RFL appear to move the goalposts. Like how Batley who used an ineligible player in a game which they won, and he scored a try not only have the result of that game stand, but no further punishment is dealt out. If there is any justice, Doncaster will beat Batley on Sunday and relegate them because the RFL have bottled the decision they originally made.[/p][/quote]Regarding the last paragraph weren`t the Cougars one of the five who escaped punishment last year for the same offence which meant Batley and Doncaster could appeal this time round. Also you are always harping on about how Bulls fan slag the RFL off, now its your turn. Enjoy watching Hemel Stags Gloucester Golds and more mickey mouse teams. Mumby was the best
  • Score: 0

9:52am Wed 3 Sep 14

Bone_idle18 says...

axelf1963 wrote:
The same one eyed myopic views from 1964 and bone idle
OK, tell me who the same people are then?

One eye might be myopic, but my other eye is perfect ...thanks!
[quote][p][bold]axelf1963[/bold] wrote: The same one eyed myopic views from 1964 and bone idle[/p][/quote]OK, tell me who the same people are then? One eye might be myopic, but my other eye is perfect ...thanks! Bone_idle18
  • Score: 1

10:06am Wed 3 Sep 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Mumby was the best wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: This is why the RFL were right to withhold 50% of the sky monies as with full sky monies and all debts removed the Bulls would have gained an unfair advantage. What was wrong is the money going to the other clubs, it should have been placed in the pot to pay the creditors off. When rules are broken punishments should be handed out but in some circumstances the RFL appear to move the goalposts. Like how Batley who used an ineligible player in a game which they won, and he scored a try not only have the result of that game stand, but no further punishment is dealt out. If there is any justice, Doncaster will beat Batley on Sunday and relegate them because the RFL have bottled the decision they originally made.
Regarding the last paragraph weren`t the Cougars one of the five who escaped punishment last year for the same offence which meant Batley and Doncaster could appeal this time round. Also you are always harping on about how Bulls fan slag the RFL off, now its your turn. Enjoy watching Hemel Stags Gloucester Golds and more mickey mouse teams.
Sorry to disapoint but Cougars weren't one of those teams to field ineligible players. Not sure where your getting this info from.

This story itself shows that Bulls had over £2m in debt written off for their £1.2m withheld sky monies, but don't let these facts cloud your judgement.

I'm all for fair play, if your suggesting an ineligible player playing in a game, scoring a try and winning the game should go unpunished then they are your views.

As for seeing the mickey mouse teams, I don't really care. I'm not really a cougars fan but I do wonder down to watch them when I've a free Sunday now and again. Will probably watch them this weekend. If they win, great, if not I won't lose any sleep over it. I'm more a fan of the sport than I am a team. Unlike football where my colours are firmly nailed to the mast.
[quote][p][bold]Mumby was the best[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: This is why the RFL were right to withhold 50% of the sky monies as with full sky monies and all debts removed the Bulls would have gained an unfair advantage. What was wrong is the money going to the other clubs, it should have been placed in the pot to pay the creditors off. When rules are broken punishments should be handed out but in some circumstances the RFL appear to move the goalposts. Like how Batley who used an ineligible player in a game which they won, and he scored a try not only have the result of that game stand, but no further punishment is dealt out. If there is any justice, Doncaster will beat Batley on Sunday and relegate them because the RFL have bottled the decision they originally made.[/p][/quote]Regarding the last paragraph weren`t the Cougars one of the five who escaped punishment last year for the same offence which meant Batley and Doncaster could appeal this time round. Also you are always harping on about how Bulls fan slag the RFL off, now its your turn. Enjoy watching Hemel Stags Gloucester Golds and more mickey mouse teams.[/p][/quote]Sorry to disapoint but Cougars weren't one of those teams to field ineligible players. Not sure where your getting this info from. This story itself shows that Bulls had over £2m in debt written off for their £1.2m withheld sky monies, but don't let these facts cloud your judgement. I'm all for fair play, if your suggesting an ineligible player playing in a game, scoring a try and winning the game should go unpunished then they are your views. As for seeing the mickey mouse teams, I don't really care. I'm not really a cougars fan but I do wonder down to watch them when I've a free Sunday now and again. Will probably watch them this weekend. If they win, great, if not I won't lose any sleep over it. I'm more a fan of the sport than I am a team. Unlike football where my colours are firmly nailed to the mast. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 7

10:26am Wed 3 Sep 14

Avro says...

1964gc wrote:
Bone_idle18 wrote:
Out of site wrote:
If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.
It happens every day in all walks of like, personal bancrupcy is on the increase, people run up debt and then walk away.

This is nothing to do with the players or fans and everything to do with a mismanaged holding company. But, as it is a limited company, this is what happens.

At least the new owners won't let this happen again.

I'd guess there are plenty of SL clubs who would owe a lot more if the worst happened.
Think you'll find companies ,people get money written off on a daily basis,some of the weathiest people have been bankrupt at some point,

Peter jones dragons den went bust about 15 years ago no doubt leaving a trail of debt,its common ..
But it don't make it right does it, and especially so, where other business' are put at risk of going bust because of money owed!!
[quote][p][bold]1964gc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.[/p][/quote]It happens every day in all walks of like, personal bancrupcy is on the increase, people run up debt and then walk away. This is nothing to do with the players or fans and everything to do with a mismanaged holding company. But, as it is a limited company, this is what happens. At least the new owners won't let this happen again. I'd guess there are plenty of SL clubs who would owe a lot more if the worst happened.[/p][/quote]Think you'll find companies ,people get money written off on a daily basis,some of the weathiest people have been bankrupt at some point, Peter jones dragons den went bust about 15 years ago no doubt leaving a trail of debt,its common ..[/p][/quote]But it don't make it right does it, and especially so, where other business' are put at risk of going bust because of money owed!! Avro
  • Score: 9

10:31am Wed 3 Sep 14

Bone_idle18 says...

Avro wrote:
1964gc wrote:
Bone_idle18 wrote:
Out of site wrote:
If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.
It happens every day in all walks of like, personal bancrupcy is on the increase, people run up debt and then walk away.

This is nothing to do with the players or fans and everything to do with a mismanaged holding company. But, as it is a limited company, this is what happens.

At least the new owners won't let this happen again.

I'd guess there are plenty of SL clubs who would owe a lot more if the worst happened.
Think you'll find companies ,people get money written off on a daily basis,some of the weathiest people have been bankrupt at some point,

Peter jones dragons den went bust about 15 years ago no doubt leaving a trail of debt,its common ..
But it don't make it right does it, and especially so, where other business' are put at risk of going bust because of money owed!!
Not saying it does, but it's legal.

the previous owners are at fault, not the players, the current club or the fans.

How much of the £16 plus million did BCFC pay back? I'd hope there's not City fans thinking what were doing is wrong, but what they did was ok!
[quote][p][bold]Avro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]1964gc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.[/p][/quote]It happens every day in all walks of like, personal bancrupcy is on the increase, people run up debt and then walk away. This is nothing to do with the players or fans and everything to do with a mismanaged holding company. But, as it is a limited company, this is what happens. At least the new owners won't let this happen again. I'd guess there are plenty of SL clubs who would owe a lot more if the worst happened.[/p][/quote]Think you'll find companies ,people get money written off on a daily basis,some of the weathiest people have been bankrupt at some point, Peter jones dragons den went bust about 15 years ago no doubt leaving a trail of debt,its common ..[/p][/quote]But it don't make it right does it, and especially so, where other business' are put at risk of going bust because of money owed!![/p][/quote]Not saying it does, but it's legal. the previous owners are at fault, not the players, the current club or the fans. How much of the £16 plus million did BCFC pay back? I'd hope there's not City fans thinking what were doing is wrong, but what they did was ok! Bone_idle18
  • Score: 4

10:45am Wed 3 Sep 14

Videoref says...

Out of site wrote:
Personal bankruptcy may be on the increase but not many if any are allowed to get to the sort of debt that the bullocks and other sports teams get into.someone is making a fortune out of all this and it's not the clubs,find them and prosecute them and if they haven't any money take anything they have and sell it.
You are talking complete rubbish. The only people who are making money from this is the same sort of people who always make money from others misfortune ie liquidaters and lawyers. (AKA Ambulance Chasers)
Read the article-No creditors will be paid as the assets only cover the fees. This means "when I've paid myself there is nothing left for you lot. The good news is my company is doing very well, thank you"
[quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: Personal bankruptcy may be on the increase but not many if any are allowed to get to the sort of debt that the bullocks and other sports teams get into.someone is making a fortune out of all this and it's not the clubs,find them and prosecute them and if they haven't any money take anything they have and sell it.[/p][/quote]You are talking complete rubbish. The only people who are making money from this is the same sort of people who always make money from others misfortune ie liquidaters and lawyers. (AKA Ambulance Chasers) Read the article-No creditors will be paid as the assets only cover the fees. This means "when I've paid myself there is nothing left for you lot. The good news is my company is doing very well, thank you" Videoref
  • Score: 9

10:54am Wed 3 Sep 14

fedupwiththeBS says...

Part of the bidding process was an undertaking to pay off the creditors and especially the HMRC as the new owners took on the debt.

The Administrator had a complete list of all creditors so this all yet again stinks.

We need a full public enquiry into the actions of all the respective Boards, Council, RFL and the recent bidding process to get this all into the open once and for all.
Part of the bidding process was an undertaking to pay off the creditors and especially the HMRC as the new owners took on the debt. The Administrator had a complete list of all creditors so this all yet again stinks. We need a full public enquiry into the actions of all the respective Boards, Council, RFL and the recent bidding process to get this all into the open once and for all. fedupwiththeBS
  • Score: 14

10:56am Wed 3 Sep 14

spanglishbull.uk says...

T.V.O.R.
At last you agree that the R.F.L move the goalposts to suit themselves.You are quite correct in your assessment that if a team breaks the rule regarding players then they should be punished.However the R.F.L. themselves created this mess with the dual registration situation.Once again this idea was brought in without any thought given to what might happen if this situation occurred.I will give you another thought that the R.F.L. have not considered.Next season if a Club goes into Admin.they are going to be docked 12 points.If they bring the bonus point situation into play that could in fact be less than they are docked now (6 points),also when the bottom four in S.L. join the top four in the Championship for the right to compete in S.L. all points are rescinded and all eight teams start on zero.Does that mean any team that goes into Admin with the 12 point deduction are on minus points do they start with zero points and are still eligible to go back into S.L.This question has ,by the way,been asked of S.L. and believe it or not a decision has not been made on that point.See what I have been on about for months about the R.F.L.
T.V.O.R. At last you agree that the R.F.L move the goalposts to suit themselves.You are quite correct in your assessment that if a team breaks the rule regarding players then they should be punished.However the R.F.L. themselves created this mess with the dual registration situation.Once again this idea was brought in without any thought given to what might happen if this situation occurred.I will give you another thought that the R.F.L. have not considered.Next season if a Club goes into Admin.they are going to be docked 12 points.If they bring the bonus point situation into play that could in fact be less than they are docked now (6 points),also when the bottom four in S.L. join the top four in the Championship for the right to compete in S.L. all points are rescinded and all eight teams start on zero.Does that mean any team that goes into Admin with the 12 point deduction are on minus points do they start with zero points and are still eligible to go back into S.L.This question has ,by the way,been asked of S.L. and believe it or not a decision has not been made on that point.See what I have been on about for months about the R.F.L. spanglishbull.uk
  • Score: -2

11:11am Wed 3 Sep 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

spanglishbull.uk wrote:
T.V.O.R. At last you agree that the R.F.L move the goalposts to suit themselves.You are quite correct in your assessment that if a team breaks the rule regarding players then they should be punished.However the R.F.L. themselves created this mess with the dual registration situation.Once again this idea was brought in without any thought given to what might happen if this situation occurred.I will give you another thought that the R.F.L. have not considered.Next season if a Club goes into Admin.they are going to be docked 12 points.If they bring the bonus point situation into play that could in fact be less than they are docked now (6 points),also when the bottom four in S.L. join the top four in the Championship for the right to compete in S.L. all points are rescinded and all eight teams start on zero.Does that mean any team that goes into Admin with the 12 point deduction are on minus points do they start with zero points and are still eligible to go back into S.L.This question has ,by the way,been asked of S.L. and believe it or not a decision has not been made on that point.See what I have been on about for months about the R.F.L.
Bulls deserved their punishment for running up massive debts. I've always support that.
Batley and Doncaster deserve punishment for their fielding of an ineligible player.
Doncaster could overhaul Fev in 2nd which would be the difference between £450k and £200k in funding. Batley could avoid the drop, in itself massive.
Fev should have second wrapped up already, and Batley should be as good as down if punishment were made, but Doncaster have a chance of second place and Batley could use the 3 points they gained by fielding an ineligble player to avoid relegation.
With such figures on the line and potential futures of clubs the RFL's decision not to punish the two will no doubt open a can of worms.
Fev won't go quietly if they lose £250k in central fund, and anyone who goes down in place of Batley will no doubt scream the house down.
[quote][p][bold]spanglishbull.uk[/bold] wrote: T.V.O.R. At last you agree that the R.F.L move the goalposts to suit themselves.You are quite correct in your assessment that if a team breaks the rule regarding players then they should be punished.However the R.F.L. themselves created this mess with the dual registration situation.Once again this idea was brought in without any thought given to what might happen if this situation occurred.I will give you another thought that the R.F.L. have not considered.Next season if a Club goes into Admin.they are going to be docked 12 points.If they bring the bonus point situation into play that could in fact be less than they are docked now (6 points),also when the bottom four in S.L. join the top four in the Championship for the right to compete in S.L. all points are rescinded and all eight teams start on zero.Does that mean any team that goes into Admin with the 12 point deduction are on minus points do they start with zero points and are still eligible to go back into S.L.This question has ,by the way,been asked of S.L. and believe it or not a decision has not been made on that point.See what I have been on about for months about the R.F.L.[/p][/quote]Bulls deserved their punishment for running up massive debts. I've always support that. Batley and Doncaster deserve punishment for their fielding of an ineligible player. Doncaster could overhaul Fev in 2nd which would be the difference between £450k and £200k in funding. Batley could avoid the drop, in itself massive. Fev should have second wrapped up already, and Batley should be as good as down if punishment were made, but Doncaster have a chance of second place and Batley could use the 3 points they gained by fielding an ineligble player to avoid relegation. With such figures on the line and potential futures of clubs the RFL's decision not to punish the two will no doubt open a can of worms. Fev won't go quietly if they lose £250k in central fund, and anyone who goes down in place of Batley will no doubt scream the house down. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: -1

11:17am Wed 3 Sep 14

Videoref says...

Out of site wrote:
Personal bankruptcy may be on the increase but not many if any are allowed to get to the sort of debt that the bullocks and other sports teams get into.someone is making a fortune out of all this and it's not the clubs,find them and prosecute them and if they haven't any money take anything they have and sell it.
You are talking complete rubbish. The only people who are making money from this is the same sort of people who always make money from others misfortune ie liquidaters and lawyers. (AKA Ambulance Chasers)
Read the article-No creditors will be paid as the assets only cover the fees. This means "when I've paid myself there is nothing left for you lot. The good news is my company is doing very well, thank you"
[quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: Personal bankruptcy may be on the increase but not many if any are allowed to get to the sort of debt that the bullocks and other sports teams get into.someone is making a fortune out of all this and it's not the clubs,find them and prosecute them and if they haven't any money take anything they have and sell it.[/p][/quote]You are talking complete rubbish. The only people who are making money from this is the same sort of people who always make money from others misfortune ie liquidaters and lawyers. (AKA Ambulance Chasers) Read the article-No creditors will be paid as the assets only cover the fees. This means "when I've paid myself there is nothing left for you lot. The good news is my company is doing very well, thank you" Videoref
  • Score: 4

11:45am Wed 3 Sep 14

Gordonite says...

Videoref wrote:
Out of site wrote:
Personal bankruptcy may be on the increase but not many if any are allowed to get to the sort of debt that the bullocks and other sports teams get into.someone is making a fortune out of all this and it's not the clubs,find them and prosecute them and if they haven't any money take anything they have and sell it.
You are talking complete rubbish. The only people who are making money from this is the same sort of people who always make money from others misfortune ie liquidaters and lawyers. (AKA Ambulance Chasers)
Read the article-No creditors will be paid as the assets only cover the fees. This means "when I've paid myself there is nothing left for you lot. The good news is my company is doing very well, thank you"
Ambulance chasing is a little unfair, if the first Administration mechanism wasn't instigated, HMRC would have issued a winding-up petition, and the original company would have been wound up by the Court. Therefore no more Bulls. Same process with the second administration this year.

Fortunately the 'business' was sold to current director who appears to be ok.

It is unfair that the Administrators / Liquidators seem to be the only people to benefit from this, but as a result the Bulls still continue exist.

Such is life.
[quote][p][bold]Videoref[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: Personal bankruptcy may be on the increase but not many if any are allowed to get to the sort of debt that the bullocks and other sports teams get into.someone is making a fortune out of all this and it's not the clubs,find them and prosecute them and if they haven't any money take anything they have and sell it.[/p][/quote]You are talking complete rubbish. The only people who are making money from this is the same sort of people who always make money from others misfortune ie liquidaters and lawyers. (AKA Ambulance Chasers) Read the article-No creditors will be paid as the assets only cover the fees. This means "when I've paid myself there is nothing left for you lot. The good news is my company is doing very well, thank you"[/p][/quote]Ambulance chasing is a little unfair, if the first Administration mechanism wasn't instigated, HMRC would have issued a winding-up petition, and the original company would have been wound up by the Court. Therefore no more Bulls. Same process with the second administration this year. Fortunately the 'business' was sold to current director who appears to be ok. It is unfair that the Administrators / Liquidators seem to be the only people to benefit from this, but as a result the Bulls still continue exist. Such is life. Gordonite
  • Score: 3

12:26pm Wed 3 Sep 14

bartsbull says...

Why would the adiministrator not have a list of creditors who are owed money when Guilfoyle was brought in by Mr Caisley and his group to run the club was there a statement saying there was a list of creditors that had not received any monies

Surley there was a list of creditors or how would he know what amount of monies were outstanding and owing to people

If you have your bank statement you know what you have and what bills require paying .
We will never know where all the money the fans raised disapeared and no one is held accountable it is shocking
Why would the adiministrator not have a list of creditors who are owed money when Guilfoyle was brought in by Mr Caisley and his group to run the club was there a statement saying there was a list of creditors that had not received any monies Surley there was a list of creditors or how would he know what amount of monies were outstanding and owing to people If you have your bank statement you know what you have and what bills require paying . We will never know where all the money the fans raised disapeared and no one is held accountable it is shocking bartsbull
  • Score: 5

1:22pm Wed 3 Sep 14

StevieLad says...

bartsbull wrote:
Why would the adiministrator not have a list of creditors who are owed money when Guilfoyle was brought in by Mr Caisley and his group to run the club was there a statement saying there was a list of creditors that had not received any monies

Surley there was a list of creditors or how would he know what amount of monies were outstanding and owing to people

If you have your bank statement you know what you have and what bills require paying .
We will never know where all the money the fans raised disapeared and no one is held accountable it is shocking
Different company different list of creditors. This is the holding company thats why the headline says HOLDINGS.

Public enquiries cost hundreds of thousands of pounds... All that, just so that a few mentalists can know exactly who to be angry at? Not with my tax dollars matey
[quote][p][bold]bartsbull[/bold] wrote: Why would the adiministrator not have a list of creditors who are owed money when Guilfoyle was brought in by Mr Caisley and his group to run the club was there a statement saying there was a list of creditors that had not received any monies Surley there was a list of creditors or how would he know what amount of monies were outstanding and owing to people If you have your bank statement you know what you have and what bills require paying . We will never know where all the money the fans raised disapeared and no one is held accountable it is shocking[/p][/quote]Different company different list of creditors. This is the holding company thats why the headline says HOLDINGS. Public enquiries cost hundreds of thousands of pounds... All that, just so that a few mentalists can know exactly who to be angry at? Not with my tax dollars matey StevieLad
  • Score: 3

1:30pm Wed 3 Sep 14

StevieLad says...

bartsbull wrote:
Why would the adiministrator not have a list of creditors who are owed money when Guilfoyle was brought in by Mr Caisley and his group to run the club was there a statement saying there was a list of creditors that had not received any monies

Surley there was a list of creditors or how would he know what amount of monies were outstanding and owing to people

If you have your bank statement you know what you have and what bills require paying .
We will never know where all the money the fans raised disapeared and no one is held accountable it is shocking
As I said records like that tend to disappear in these situations. Can you prove that list was wilfully destroyed rather than lost/never existed? Didn't think so.

How much does it cost to liquidate a non-trading company with no employees?

Whatever BG can get away with
[quote][p][bold]bartsbull[/bold] wrote: Why would the adiministrator not have a list of creditors who are owed money when Guilfoyle was brought in by Mr Caisley and his group to run the club was there a statement saying there was a list of creditors that had not received any monies Surley there was a list of creditors or how would he know what amount of monies were outstanding and owing to people If you have your bank statement you know what you have and what bills require paying . We will never know where all the money the fans raised disapeared and no one is held accountable it is shocking[/p][/quote]As I said records like that tend to disappear in these situations. Can you prove that list was wilfully destroyed rather than lost/never existed? Didn't think so. How much does it cost to liquidate a non-trading company with no employees? Whatever BG can get away with StevieLad
  • Score: 3

1:32pm Wed 3 Sep 14

vbfg says...

Out of site wrote:
If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.
They were put out of business. That's what administration is you great witless dandy.
[quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.[/p][/quote]They were put out of business. That's what administration is you great witless dandy. vbfg
  • Score: 9

2:07pm Wed 3 Sep 14

portugalbull says...

fedupwiththeBS wrote:
Part of the bidding process was an undertaking to pay off the creditors and especially the HMRC as the new owners took on the debt.

The Administrator had a complete list of all creditors so this all yet again stinks.

We need a full public enquiry into the actions of all the respective Boards, Council, RFL and the recent bidding process to get this all into the open once and for all.
There won't be any enquiry as the RFL will not want their part public.

We will never know why the statement "we don't know who the creditors are" because the administrators must have a list to enable a final total. By the look of it many must have jumped on the bandwagon or inflated claims for the total to have risen over 50% from the date of administration. (Same as with BP in the Gulf of Mexico)

The administrator is the only one to make money from the situation and when he retires could make more by writing a tell all book. That's the only way we are going to get to know and for many would be too little too late.
[quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: Part of the bidding process was an undertaking to pay off the creditors and especially the HMRC as the new owners took on the debt. The Administrator had a complete list of all creditors so this all yet again stinks. We need a full public enquiry into the actions of all the respective Boards, Council, RFL and the recent bidding process to get this all into the open once and for all.[/p][/quote]There won't be any enquiry as the RFL will not want their part public. We will never know why the statement "we don't know who the creditors are" because the administrators must have a list to enable a final total. By the look of it many must have jumped on the bandwagon or inflated claims for the total to have risen over 50% from the date of administration. (Same as with BP in the Gulf of Mexico) The administrator is the only one to make money from the situation and when he retires could make more by writing a tell all book. That's the only way we are going to get to know and for many would be too little too late. portugalbull
  • Score: 0

2:59pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Gordonite says...

I think it might be time to move on....

The former Administrator / Liquidator will have a list of creditors if he has stated their value. Simply because the reports he has issued will have been sent to them all.

If he hasn't got a clue who the creditors are, his regulatory body might wish to know why.

Talk of a public enquiry is beyond ridiculous...this country has more serious issues to deal (issues in Rotherham etc)....
I think it might be time to move on.... The former Administrator / Liquidator will have a list of creditors if he has stated their value. Simply because the reports he has issued will have been sent to them all. If he hasn't got a clue who the creditors are, his regulatory body might wish to know why. Talk of a public enquiry is beyond ridiculous...this country has more serious issues to deal (issues in Rotherham etc).... Gordonite
  • Score: 1

3:38pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Mr Perks says...

Avro wrote:
Meanwhile, Bradford Council insists it is not in the public interest to reveal how much of a £200,000 loan of taxpayer cash to former Bradford Bulls owner Omar Khan has been repaid?????????????
Wonder if an FOI request could force the beggars to reveal it? It is everybody within the district's money after all!
[quote][p][bold]Avro[/bold] wrote: Meanwhile, Bradford Council insists it is not in the public interest to reveal how much of a £200,000 loan of taxpayer cash to former Bradford Bulls owner Omar Khan has been repaid?????????????[/p][/quote]Wonder if an FOI request could force the beggars to reveal it? It is everybody within the district's money after all! Mr Perks
  • Score: 1

3:48pm Wed 3 Sep 14

raisemeup says...

Bone_idle18 wrote:
Out of site wrote:
If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.
It happens every day in all walks of like, personal bancrupcy is on the increase, people run up debt and then walk away.

This is nothing to do with the players or fans and everything to do with a mismanaged holding company. But, as it is a limited company, this is what happens.

At least the new owners won't let this happen again.

I'd guess there are plenty of SL clubs who would owe a lot more if the worst happened.
St Helens reported a loss of over £1m, so it looks like unless a Financial backer, isn't on board it would be a similar story for many clubs, in football and in Rugby.
[quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.[/p][/quote]It happens every day in all walks of like, personal bancrupcy is on the increase, people run up debt and then walk away. This is nothing to do with the players or fans and everything to do with a mismanaged holding company. But, as it is a limited company, this is what happens. At least the new owners won't let this happen again. I'd guess there are plenty of SL clubs who would owe a lot more if the worst happened.[/p][/quote]St Helens reported a loss of over £1m, so it looks like unless a Financial backer, isn't on board it would be a similar story for many clubs, in football and in Rugby. raisemeup
  • Score: 2

4:00pm Wed 3 Sep 14

1964gc says...

Avro wrote:
1964gc wrote:
Bone_idle18 wrote:
Out of site wrote:
If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.
It happens every day in all walks of like, personal bancrupcy is on the increase, people run up debt and then walk away.

This is nothing to do with the players or fans and everything to do with a mismanaged holding company. But, as it is a limited company, this is what happens.

At least the new owners won't let this happen again.

I'd guess there are plenty of SL clubs who would owe a lot more if the worst happened.
Think you'll find companies ,people get money written off on a daily basis,some of the weathiest people have been bankrupt at some point,

Peter jones dragons den went bust about 15 years ago no doubt leaving a trail of debt,its common ..
But it don't make it right does it, and especially so, where other business' are put at risk of going bust because of money owed!!
its not ideal ,but running a business is not an easy thing .I suspect many shouting the odds have never ran a business .

as I said before some of the wealthiest people around have had run ins with debt ,yet the process allows them start again and be successful as will the bulls I feel.
it cuts both ways
[quote][p][bold]Avro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]1964gc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: If the bullocks can't pay off this debt the should be put out of business,it's disgraceful the way sports clubs keep getting away with this.if I owed the money I would have to pay.it wouldn't be a big loss to lose the bullocks,it's not as if it's played and watched by many people.[/p][/quote]It happens every day in all walks of like, personal bancrupcy is on the increase, people run up debt and then walk away. This is nothing to do with the players or fans and everything to do with a mismanaged holding company. But, as it is a limited company, this is what happens. At least the new owners won't let this happen again. I'd guess there are plenty of SL clubs who would owe a lot more if the worst happened.[/p][/quote]Think you'll find companies ,people get money written off on a daily basis,some of the weathiest people have been bankrupt at some point, Peter jones dragons den went bust about 15 years ago no doubt leaving a trail of debt,its common ..[/p][/quote]But it don't make it right does it, and especially so, where other business' are put at risk of going bust because of money owed!![/p][/quote]its not ideal ,but running a business is not an easy thing .I suspect many shouting the odds have never ran a business . as I said before some of the wealthiest people around have had run ins with debt ,yet the process allows them start again and be successful as will the bulls I feel. it cuts both ways 1964gc
  • Score: 3

4:03pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Bull4Life says...

Mr Perks wrote:
Avro wrote:
Meanwhile, Bradford Council insists it is not in the public interest to reveal how much of a £200,000 loan of taxpayer cash to former Bradford Bulls owner Omar Khan has been repaid?????????????
Wonder if an FOI request could force the beggars to reveal it? It is everybody within the district's money after all!
Wow, I am completely dumbfounded by the amount of people who clearly did not actually read that article!

Those who did, would see that the Council did NOT insist there was no public interest....

What they actually said was that due to a confidentiality clause in the loan agreement, the information surrounding it was completely exempt from being revealed under the Freedom Of Information Act and that the question of whether or not it was in the public interest simply did not apply.

That is vastly different to "insisting it is not in the public interest".

Not only was the title of that article unprofessional and misleading by the T&A, it was designed to instigate a response from it's readers that the T&A then couldn't handle and later in the day they pathetically disabled the comments section and removed the comments that had been added!

For those who wish to revisit that article and actually READ it, it's here:

http://www.thetelegr
aphandargus.co.uk/sp
ort/sportbulls/11431
767._Not_in_public_i
nterest__to_reveal_h
ow_much_of_Omar_Khan
_loan_has_been_repai
d__Council_insists/
[quote][p][bold]Mr Perks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Avro[/bold] wrote: Meanwhile, Bradford Council insists it is not in the public interest to reveal how much of a £200,000 loan of taxpayer cash to former Bradford Bulls owner Omar Khan has been repaid?????????????[/p][/quote]Wonder if an FOI request could force the beggars to reveal it? It is everybody within the district's money after all![/p][/quote]Wow, I am completely dumbfounded by the amount of people who clearly did not actually read that article! Those who did, would see that the Council did NOT insist there was no public interest.... What they actually said was that due to a confidentiality clause in the loan agreement, the information surrounding it was completely exempt from being revealed under the Freedom Of Information Act and that the question of whether or not it was in the public interest simply did not apply. That is vastly different to "insisting it is not in the public interest". Not only was the title of that article unprofessional and misleading by the T&A, it was designed to instigate a response from it's readers that the T&A then couldn't handle and later in the day they pathetically disabled the comments section and removed the comments that had been added! For those who wish to revisit that article and actually READ it, it's here: http://www.thetelegr aphandargus.co.uk/sp ort/sportbulls/11431 767._Not_in_public_i nterest__to_reveal_h ow_much_of_Omar_Khan _loan_has_been_repai d__Council_insists/ Bull4Life
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Wed 3 Sep 14

food_for_thought says...

Bull4Life wrote:
Mr Perks wrote:
Avro wrote:
Meanwhile, Bradford Council insists it is not in the public interest to reveal how much of a £200,000 loan of taxpayer cash to former Bradford Bulls owner Omar Khan has been repaid?????????????
Wonder if an FOI request could force the beggars to reveal it? It is everybody within the district's money after all!
Wow, I am completely dumbfounded by the amount of people who clearly did not actually read that article!

Those who did, would see that the Council did NOT insist there was no public interest....

What they actually said was that due to a confidentiality clause in the loan agreement, the information surrounding it was completely exempt from being revealed under the Freedom Of Information Act and that the question of whether or not it was in the public interest simply did not apply.

That is vastly different to "insisting it is not in the public interest".

Not only was the title of that article unprofessional and misleading by the T&A, it was designed to instigate a response from it's readers that the T&A then couldn't handle and later in the day they pathetically disabled the comments section and removed the comments that had been added!

For those who wish to revisit that article and actually READ it, it's here:

http://www.thetelegr

aphandargus.co.uk/sp

ort/sportbulls/11431

767._Not_in_public_i

nterest__to_reveal_h

ow_much_of_Omar_Khan

_loan_has_been_repai

d__Council_insists/
Thank you for explaining that to the hard of thinking.

I made the same points in a posting on the original article as yet another demonstration of how the T&A (and many of its readers) completely missed the point of the Council's statement. The postings on the original article were all removed - without explanation.
[quote][p][bold]Bull4Life[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Perks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Avro[/bold] wrote: Meanwhile, Bradford Council insists it is not in the public interest to reveal how much of a £200,000 loan of taxpayer cash to former Bradford Bulls owner Omar Khan has been repaid?????????????[/p][/quote]Wonder if an FOI request could force the beggars to reveal it? It is everybody within the district's money after all![/p][/quote]Wow, I am completely dumbfounded by the amount of people who clearly did not actually read that article! Those who did, would see that the Council did NOT insist there was no public interest.... What they actually said was that due to a confidentiality clause in the loan agreement, the information surrounding it was completely exempt from being revealed under the Freedom Of Information Act and that the question of whether or not it was in the public interest simply did not apply. That is vastly different to "insisting it is not in the public interest". Not only was the title of that article unprofessional and misleading by the T&A, it was designed to instigate a response from it's readers that the T&A then couldn't handle and later in the day they pathetically disabled the comments section and removed the comments that had been added! For those who wish to revisit that article and actually READ it, it's here: http://www.thetelegr aphandargus.co.uk/sp ort/sportbulls/11431 767._Not_in_public_i nterest__to_reveal_h ow_much_of_Omar_Khan _loan_has_been_repai d__Council_insists/[/p][/quote]Thank you for explaining that to the hard of thinking. I made the same points in a posting on the original article as yet another demonstration of how the T&A (and many of its readers) completely missed the point of the Council's statement. The postings on the original article were all removed - without explanation. food_for_thought
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Wed 3 Sep 14

raisemeup says...

fedupwiththeBS wrote:
Part of the bidding process was an undertaking to pay off the creditors and especially the HMRC as the new owners took on the debt.

The Administrator had a complete list of all creditors so this all yet again stinks.

We need a full public enquiry into the actions of all the respective Boards, Council, RFL and the recent bidding process to get this all into the open once and for all.
And of course the RFL turned down the two offers from ABC consortium that were prepared to offer this as a condition when purchasing the club from the original holding company?
Otherwise the only condition was when OK took over, that the deal was unconditional, as we know the deal then involved two further concessions from OK if the Bulls were to remain is SL. One being that he would accept the loss of SKY money, which he agreed. And if the Bulls qualified for SL in 2014 he would agree to pay £600k back to them that was advanced in 2013. ( The original deal I understand was that the Bulls would lose all the SKY money for 2013 of £1.2m, but OK asked that this money would be deferred for 2 years with the RFL paying £600k per year of the compensation package (ie £1.1(circa) million over 2 years instead of the £2.2m other Super league clubs would be allocated) if any concessions were made to pay creditors, it was the sainted RFL who spurned the deals. OK never made that promise, and the other directors who did make that promise were not allowed to fulfill it, because the club was put into administration a second time, with a further 6 point deduction. Those people were not even allowed by the RFL and/or OK to buy the club. So it helps to get facts straight doesn't it? You seem to be confusing the timings of everything. Plus as a creditor of the original company, I have had the final report from the P&A partnership, plus I saw the initial insolvency report, where all creditors were invited to submit their accounts, and what's more every known creditor was listed in the actual debt column. I must admit to not following the articles logic or the need to once again get the supporters wound up about it all?
But it's nice to hear from the likes of TVOR--Out of Site---Axelf....and of course yourself, who always manages to find the Half empty glass.
Whatever we say or do, nothing will change. If we as supporters are to carry on with Rugby league in the City of Bradford, it's time to draw a line through the unfortunate episodes of the past.
COYB
[quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: Part of the bidding process was an undertaking to pay off the creditors and especially the HMRC as the new owners took on the debt. The Administrator had a complete list of all creditors so this all yet again stinks. We need a full public enquiry into the actions of all the respective Boards, Council, RFL and the recent bidding process to get this all into the open once and for all.[/p][/quote]And of course the RFL turned down the two offers from ABC consortium that were prepared to offer this as a condition when purchasing the club from the original holding company? Otherwise the only condition was when OK took over, that the deal was unconditional, as we know the deal then involved two further concessions from OK if the Bulls were to remain is SL. One being that he would accept the loss of SKY money, which he agreed. And if the Bulls qualified for SL in 2014 he would agree to pay £600k back to them that was advanced in 2013. ( The original deal I understand was that the Bulls would lose all the SKY money for 2013 of £1.2m, but OK asked that this money would be deferred for 2 years with the RFL paying £600k per year of the compensation package (ie £1.1(circa) million over 2 years instead of the £2.2m other Super league clubs would be allocated) if any concessions were made to pay creditors, it was the sainted RFL who spurned the deals. OK never made that promise, and the other directors who did make that promise were not allowed to fulfill it, because the club was put into administration a second time, with a further 6 point deduction. Those people were not even allowed by the RFL and/or OK to buy the club. So it helps to get facts straight doesn't it? You seem to be confusing the timings of everything. Plus as a creditor of the original company, I have had the final report from the P&A partnership, plus I saw the initial insolvency report, where all creditors were invited to submit their accounts, and what's more every known creditor was listed in the actual debt column. I must admit to not following the articles logic or the need to once again get the supporters wound up about it all? But it's nice to hear from the likes of TVOR--Out of Site---Axelf....and of course yourself, who always manages to find the Half empty glass. Whatever we say or do, nothing will change. If we as supporters are to carry on with Rugby league in the City of Bradford, it's time to draw a line through the unfortunate episodes of the past. COYB raisemeup
  • Score: 2

5:16pm Wed 3 Sep 14

spanglishbull.uk says...

Raisemeup,
At last somebody who seems to know the TRUE facts,something you will never hear from the R.F.L. As you say,you was one of the losers,I unfortunately have been in this situation with the other sports team in this City,but as you say time to move on and hope we can keep both City and the Bulls in the Football league and the Rugby League.Maybe now the barrack room lawyers will keep their guesswork to themselves.
Raisemeup, At last somebody who seems to know the TRUE facts,something you will never hear from the R.F.L. As you say,you was one of the losers,I unfortunately have been in this situation with the other sports team in this City,but as you say time to move on and hope we can keep both City and the Bulls in the Football league and the Rugby League.Maybe now the barrack room lawyers will keep their guesswork to themselves. spanglishbull.uk
  • Score: 1

6:18pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Hudzilla says...

Are we still flogging this dead horse?!

No ones getting any money recovered from Khant. Close case, move on.
Are we still flogging this dead horse?! No ones getting any money recovered from Khant. Close case, move on. Hudzilla
  • Score: -1

7:21pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Wipsi says...

It's a business, it happens every day, if companies have lost revenue through the Bulls going bust It's tough but that's the risk you take when you are in business. Not great but life goes on get used to it, it won't change.
It's a business, it happens every day, if companies have lost revenue through the Bulls going bust It's tough but that's the risk you take when you are in business. Not great but life goes on get used to it, it won't change. Wipsi
  • Score: -3

8:29pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Alhaurinrhino says...

So long dulls.

Your small time club with a terrible credit rating won't be bothering SL for a good few years :)
So long dulls. Your small time club with a terrible credit rating won't be bothering SL for a good few years :) Alhaurinrhino
  • Score: 1

9:03pm Wed 3 Sep 14

bradfordbronco says...

Which company does this article relate to?

I thought it was Bradford Bulls Holdings (Peter Hood & co) NOT OK Bull Ltd (Omar Khan) or Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd (Moore ,Calvert & Witt)

How can BG not know who money was owed to? Is he just stupid? What exactly was his job and how can he justify taking even a penny when he can't even do basic paperwork?
Which company does this article relate to? I thought it was Bradford Bulls Holdings (Peter Hood & co) NOT OK Bull Ltd (Omar Khan) or Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd (Moore ,Calvert & Witt) How can BG not know who money was owed to? Is he just stupid? What exactly was his job and how can he justify taking even a penny when he can't even do basic paperwork? bradfordbronco
  • Score: 2

9:18pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Gordonite says...

Alhaurinrhino wrote:
So long dulls.

Your small time club with a terrible credit rating won't be bothering SL for a good few years :)
Dulls?

Go fishing elsewhere and bore off.
[quote][p][bold]Alhaurinrhino[/bold] wrote: So long dulls. Your small time club with a terrible credit rating won't be bothering SL for a good few years :)[/p][/quote]Dulls? Go fishing elsewhere and bore off. Gordonite
  • Score: -2

11:44pm Wed 3 Sep 14

parkofl says...

Mr khan springs to mind
Article the other day about where is the loan he took
Still hasn't been repaid roughly the amount that is owed
Still the good old t&a didn't let you post on that article
Have a good look people I think you will realize who has the money and who never came up with any money to invest
He's a paracites take take take using the race card all his life
Can't tell me one little curry shop make you
Ask any chippy owner
Think about it
Mr khan springs to mind Article the other day about where is the loan he took Still hasn't been repaid roughly the amount that is owed Still the good old t&a didn't let you post on that article Have a good look people I think you will realize who has the money and who never came up with any money to invest He's a paracites take take take using the race card all his life Can't tell me one little curry shop make you Ask any chippy owner Think about it parkofl
  • Score: 4

9:40am Thu 4 Sep 14

Out of site says...

Alhaurinrhino wrote:
So long dulls.

Your small time club with a terrible credit rating won't be bothering SL for a good few years :)
Exactly.
[quote][p][bold]Alhaurinrhino[/bold] wrote: So long dulls. Your small time club with a terrible credit rating won't be bothering SL for a good few years :)[/p][/quote]Exactly. Out of site
  • Score: -3

11:01am Thu 4 Sep 14

raisemeup says...

Out of site wrote:
Alhaurinrhino wrote:
So long dulls.

Your small time club with a terrible credit rating won't be bothering SL for a good few years :)
Exactly.
And how exactly do you ever so clever " Richard heads" know anything about any sport.
As I have said before though it's nice to see at least two brain cells rubbing together..even if one of em is nearly dead?
All we need is Axelf and we have a hat trick, actually should hat be spelt with a tw.....?
[quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alhaurinrhino[/bold] wrote: So long dulls. Your small time club with a terrible credit rating won't be bothering SL for a good few years :)[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]And how exactly do you ever so clever " Richard heads" know anything about any sport. As I have said before though it's nice to see at least two brain cells rubbing together..even if one of em is nearly dead? All we need is Axelf and we have a hat trick, actually should hat be spelt with a tw.....? raisemeup
  • Score: -1

8:40pm Thu 4 Sep 14

Alhaurinrhino says...

raisemeup wrote:
Out of site wrote:
Alhaurinrhino wrote:
So long dulls.

Your small time club with a terrible credit rating won't be bothering SL for a good few years :)
Exactly.
And how exactly do you ever so clever " Richard heads" know anything about any sport.
As I have said before though it's nice to see at least two brain cells rubbing together..even if one of em is nearly dead?
All we need is Axelf and we have a hat trick, actually should hat be spelt with a tw.....?
Ow do Brian.
Nice to see the wife has let you on the computer while she's at bingo.
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alhaurinrhino[/bold] wrote: So long dulls. Your small time club with a terrible credit rating won't be bothering SL for a good few years :)[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]And how exactly do you ever so clever " Richard heads" know anything about any sport. As I have said before though it's nice to see at least two brain cells rubbing together..even if one of em is nearly dead? All we need is Axelf and we have a hat trick, actually should hat be spelt with a tw.....?[/p][/quote]Ow do Brian. Nice to see the wife has let you on the computer while she's at bingo. Alhaurinrhino
  • Score: 2

12:56am Fri 5 Sep 14

corinthian44 says...

How can Bradford be in debt with so many financial experts around ?
How can Bradford be in debt with so many financial experts around ? corinthian44
  • Score: -1

10:35am Fri 5 Sep 14

StevieLad says...

raisemeup wrote:
Out of site wrote:
Alhaurinrhino wrote:
So long dulls.

Your small time club with a terrible credit rating won't be bothering SL for a good few years :)
Exactly.
And how exactly do you ever so clever " Richard heads" know anything about any sport.
As I have said before though it's nice to see at least two brain cells rubbing together..even if one of em is nearly dead?
All we need is Axelf and we have a hat trick, actually should hat be spelt with a tw.....?
Hat twick?
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Out of site[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alhaurinrhino[/bold] wrote: So long dulls. Your small time club with a terrible credit rating won't be bothering SL for a good few years :)[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]And how exactly do you ever so clever " Richard heads" know anything about any sport. As I have said before though it's nice to see at least two brain cells rubbing together..even if one of em is nearly dead? All we need is Axelf and we have a hat trick, actually should hat be spelt with a tw.....?[/p][/quote]Hat twick? StevieLad
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree