Search on for new offers for Bradford Bulls (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

Wally Lewis wrote:
You cannot submit a detailed business plan when you do not know what league you are to be playing in. THE RFL need to come out and say they will either be relegated or stay in super league. The penatly for Administration is 6 points. and only 6 points as was stated onm Boots N All last night. there is no mention of being relegated if you go into admin.

Holmesy wrote:
Well that's it for me. The RFL can go stuff themselves. Said it before and will say it again I really think the RFL are not wanting the Bulls to survive.
When you think of the problems Widnes, Wakefield, London and lots more have/are in well all I will say is well done RFL. A potentiol huge wealth creator, via supporters. will be lost to the game.
And again even after he eventually slinked off, Hood did a great job of getting into bed with the RFL and selling the lease. Then proclaiming how it will secure the BUlls future. Fast forward a month or two...incredible.
I have sent myemail to the RFL telling them my disgust and also to SKY saying my £62 per month subscription can go the same way as the Bulls appear to be.
We at best will have a championship team playing at a broken down stadium. Why oh why cant the RFL tell us what they plan for Odsal if there is no Bulls. Mr Nigel Wood...head has a short memory. He was at the Shay when things were wobbling and also the RFL/Superleague have the Bulls to thank for holding the idealogy of summer rugby up for the first few years.
You know guys and gals I think we are done for

oddshapedballs wrote:
Good on you rfl. that lot have no interest in the bulls or rugby league. the time is right mr tordoff!!

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Wally Lewis wrote:
You cannot submit a detailed business plan when you do not know what league you are to be playing in. THE RFL need to come out and say they will either be relegated or stay in super league. The penatly for Administration is 6 points. and only 6 points as was stated onm Boots N All last night. there is no mention of being relegated if you go into admin.

Its simple you prepare two business plans, one as a SL club and one not as a SL club.
Also can you tell me why they can't disclose their identities to the RFL?

Zingy bfd wrote:
The RFL refuse to engage with the ABC consortium .They have the oppertunity to negotiate with ABC and find a way through but they flatly refuse.The RFL want to see plans to improve the ground but who in their right mind will improve and repair someone elses property.I am of the view that the RFL want the Bulls to go in liquidation to hide the mistakes they have made such as paying over the odds for odsal ( yes i accept it helped the bulls but it means the RFL are looking at inflated prices for the ground) and because the players contract ,as drafted by the RFL ,does not provide for the scenerio of the buls going into the championship.The Bulls will be relgated ,someone with little cash will buy and will negotiate a reduced rent with the RFL to stay at Odsal .

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Holmesy wrote:
Well that's it for me. The RFL can go stuff themselves. Said it before and will say it again I really think the RFL are not wanting the Bulls to survive.
When you think of the problems Widnes, Wakefield, London and lots more have/are in well all I will say is well done RFL. A potentiol huge wealth creator, via supporters. will be lost to the game.
And again even after he eventually slinked off, Hood did a great job of getting into bed with the RFL and selling the lease. Then proclaiming how it will secure the BUlls future. Fast forward a month or two...incredible.
I have sent myemail to the RFL telling them my disgust and also to SKY saying my £62 per month subscription can go the same way as the Bulls appear to be.
We at best will have a championship team playing at a broken down stadium. Why oh why cant the RFL tell us what they plan for Odsal if there is no Bulls. Mr Nigel Wood...head has a short memory. He was at the Shay when things were wobbling and also the RFL/Superleague have the Bulls to thank for holding the idealogy of summer rugby up for the first few years.
You know guys and gals I think we are done for

Why are the RFL at fault, all this has not been caused by them and what they are asking for is not in anyway unreasonable.

Like I have mentioned above if no one knows who ABC are and they won't disclose who they are how can anyone be sure they aren't the same people who caused this mess.

Prycey wrote:
I tend to agree with above that this ABC group are being too secretive. The RFL need to know who they are, who will be the directors and what they want the stadium for. I now believe it is nearing the time for the Bulls to die and the Northern to emerge run by a supporters trust in the lower division. I could then go to games proud of being a “Northern” fan knowing that everything is above board. It would be tough at first but it would be better than being beholden to a group of secretive business men and having other supporters making ridicule of the Bulls.
Potter said he couldn’t carry on into the next month. Well, that is now here. An indication of what is happening in private is what the coaches now do. If they walk then there will be no more games and the club ceases to exist as soon as the next game is due to be played and nobody turns up to organise it. If they all carry on through August then I am guessing they have been assured of something we aren’t getting told. They walk now and it’s all over. They stay and something has been said to them or paid to them in private. If they stay for another month unpaid and we survive they must get their jobs back. If they stayed and then Nobby got the job how many fans would be furious that Potter had worked for two month for nothing only to be told goodbye. Let’s see what they all do as that will indicate what is being said to Potter in private.
If we are getting kicked out of SL please lets go now Mr Coulby and cause the RFL a massive publicity problem sorting out the table. Now that would be a sweet way to leave!

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Wally Lewis wrote:
You cannot submit a detailed business plan when you do not know what league you are to be playing in. THE RFL need to come out and say they will either be relegated or stay in super league. The penatly for Administration is 6 points. and only 6 points as was stated onm Boots N All last night. there is no mention of being relegated if you go into admin.

Its simple you prepare two business plans, one as a SL club and one not as a SL club.
Also can you tell me why they can't disclose their identities to the RFL?

That would be a possible scenario - two Business plans, except for one small detail. Why would anyone submit a Business plan for a Business they do not want or will not buy.From the very limited information I can discover about the two groups of potential buyers, neither contain RL fanatical 'Sugar Daddies' with immensely deep pockets and an overwhelming love of the Bulls - I can only see Businessmen who want to make a success of their investment. If they feel that their investment cannot be serviced by a sustained enforced period of time in the Championship or Championship 1, who could criticise them. We are in this mess because the 'Bulls' have not been run as a business properly in the past - do we want more of the same? Revenue from RL alone cannot sustain a successful team, other avenue's have to be opened and without at least, the protection of a 'Lease' how can financial investment be made at Odsal. BG needn't waste his time and our money looking for a new buyer - he just needs to visit RLsugardaddiesRus.co

m - trouble is, the site is empty. Thanks RFL!

jkirby85 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Holmesy wrote:
Well that's it for me. The RFL can go stuff themselves. Said it before and will say it again I really think the RFL are not wanting the Bulls to survive.
When you think of the problems Widnes, Wakefield, London and lots more have/are in well all I will say is well done RFL. A potentiol huge wealth creator, via supporters. will be lost to the game.
And again even after he eventually slinked off, Hood did a great job of getting into bed with the RFL and selling the lease. Then proclaiming how it will secure the BUlls future. Fast forward a month or two...incredible.
I have sent myemail to the RFL telling them my disgust and also to SKY saying my £62 per month subscription can go the same way as the Bulls appear to be.
We at best will have a championship team playing at a broken down stadium. Why oh why cant the RFL tell us what they plan for Odsal if there is no Bulls. Mr Nigel Wood...head has a short memory. He was at the Shay when things were wobbling and also the RFL/Superleague have the Bulls to thank for holding the idealogy of summer rugby up for the first few years.
You know guys and gals I think we are done for

Why are the RFL at fault, all this has not been caused by them and what they are asking for is not in anyway unreasonable.

Like I have mentioned above if no one knows who ABC are and they won't disclose who they are how can anyone be sure they aren't the same people who caused this mess.

sorry but the rfl say no conditions on any offer......there just as bad if not worse than abc......why should abc divulge into details when rfl wont say anything as to if we stay up or not or anything about the lease......they have to both meet halfway.....its them whos always F@?% bradford bulls up.....they dont want us to survive....there making it very clear!!

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

jkirby85 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Holmesy wrote:
Well that's it for me. The RFL can go stuff themselves. Said it before and will say it again I really think the RFL are not wanting the Bulls to survive.
When you think of the problems Widnes, Wakefield, London and lots more have/are in well all I will say is well done RFL. A potentiol huge wealth creator, via supporters. will be lost to the game.
And again even after he eventually slinked off, Hood did a great job of getting into bed with the RFL and selling the lease. Then proclaiming how it will secure the BUlls future. Fast forward a month or two...incredible.
I have sent myemail to the RFL telling them my disgust and also to SKY saying my £62 per month subscription can go the same way as the Bulls appear to be.
We at best will have a championship team playing at a broken down stadium. Why oh why cant the RFL tell us what they plan for Odsal if there is no Bulls. Mr Nigel Wood...head has a short memory. He was at the Shay when things were wobbling and also the RFL/Superleague have the Bulls to thank for holding the idealogy of summer rugby up for the first few years.
You know guys and gals I think we are done for

Why are the RFL at fault, all this has not been caused by them and what they are asking for is not in anyway unreasonable.

Like I have mentioned above if no one knows who ABC are and they won't disclose who they are how can anyone be sure they aren't the same people who caused this mess.

sorry but the rfl say no conditions on any offer......there just as bad if not worse than abc......why should abc divulge into details when rfl wont say anything as to if we stay up or not or anything about the lease......they have to both meet halfway.....its them whos always F@?% bradford bulls up.....they dont want us to survive....there making it very clear!!

The RFL have to take into consideration the other 13 clubs they are in no position to bend over backwards. ABC simply have to provide their own names which they appear to be refusing to do.

AdeyG'man wrote:
Game over. No one is gonna table an unconditional offer in their right mind . Well done Hood, Caisley and the RFL. You just killed rugby league in bradford !

Holmesy wrote:
Well that's it for me. The RFL can go stuff themselves. Said it before and will say it again I really think the RFL are not wanting the Bulls to survive.
When you think of the problems Widnes, Wakefield, London and lots more have/are in well all I will say is well done RFL. A potentiol huge wealth creator, via supporters. will be lost to the game.
And again even after he eventually slinked off, Hood did a great job of getting into bed with the RFL and selling the lease. Then proclaiming how it will secure the BUlls future. Fast forward a month or two...incredible.
I have sent myemail to the RFL telling them my disgust and also to SKY saying my £62 per month subscription can go the same way as the Bulls appear to be.
We at best will have a championship team playing at a broken down stadium. Why oh why cant the RFL tell us what they plan for Odsal if there is no Bulls. Mr Nigel Wood...head has a short memory. He was at the Shay when things were wobbling and also the RFL/Superleague have the Bulls to thank for holding the idealogy of summer rugby up for the first few years.
You know guys and gals I think we are done for

Cardiff wrote:
I work in Corporate Finance and help companies buy and sell businesses all the time. I would never advise a client to consider an offer when the client has not seen any credible business plan setting out the purchasers strategy, with no proof of funding presented and no disclosure of the purchasers shareholders/directo

rs identity. In my opinion the RFL are absolutely correct in the stance they have taken. The Administrator should also explain why he has allowed a bid to go forward on this basis.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

AdeyG'man wrote:
Game over. No one is gonna table an unconditional offer in their right mind . Well done Hood, Caisley and the RFL. You just killed rugby league in bradford !

Not exactly the Cougars are still going strong.

jkirby85 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

AdeyG'man wrote: Game over. No one is gonna table an unconditional offer in their right mind . Well done Hood, Caisley and the RFL. You just killed rugby league in bradford !

Not exactly the Cougars are still going strong.

who do you support?

Reading Bullette wrote:
Brian Carney subscribed to the theory that there is an element of trust between the RFL and the two consortia and that if it was a 'blue chip' company offering to take over they would jump at it. I just hope that it has nothing to do with the fact Asians are involved. That's would be disgraceful on the part of the RFL.

Reading Bullette wrote:
Brian Carney subscribed to the theory that there is an element of trust between the RFL and the two consortia and that if it was a 'blue chip' company offering to take over they would jump at it. I just hope that it has nothing to do with the fact Asians are involved. That's would be disgraceful on the part of the RFL.

Mumby was the best wrote:

Reading Bullette wrote:
Brian Carney subscribed to the theory that there is an element of trust between the RFL and the two consortia and that if it was a 'blue chip' company offering to take over they would jump at it. I just hope that it has nothing to do with the fact Asians are involved. That's would be disgraceful on the part of the RFL.

Can`t believe thats the case, the ethnicity or skin colour does not come into it but Fit for purpose does. It appears they don`t wish to divulge who exactly they are for some reason, so like the RFL I think stay away from them.

Cardiff wrote:
I work in Corporate Finance and help companies buy and sell businesses all the time. I would never advise a client to consider an offer when the client has not seen any credible business plan setting out the purchasers strategy, with no proof of funding presented and no disclosure of the purchasers shareholders/directo

rs identity. In my opinion the RFL are absolutely correct in the stance they have taken. The Administrator should also explain why he has allowed a bid to go forward on this basis.

Cardiff wrote:
I work in Corporate Finance and help companies buy and sell businesses all the time. I would never advise a client to consider an offer when the client has not seen any credible business plan setting out the purchasers strategy, with no proof of funding presented and no disclosure of the purchasers shareholders/directo

rs identity. In my opinion the RFL are absolutely correct in the stance they have taken. The Administrator should also explain why he has allowed a bid to go forward on this basis.

Reading Bullette wrote:
Brian Carney subscribed to the theory that there is an element of trust between the RFL and the two consortia and that if it was a 'blue chip' company offering to take over they would jump at it. I just hope that it has nothing to do with the fact Asians are involved. That's would be disgraceful on the part of the RFL.

Wally Lewis wrote:
You cannot submit a detailed business plan when you do not know what league you are to be playing in. THE RFL need to come out and say they will either be relegated or stay in super league. The penatly for Administration is 6 points. and only 6 points as was stated onm Boots N All last night. there is no mention of being relegated if you go into admin.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Wally Lewis wrote:
You cannot submit a detailed business plan when you do not know what league you are to be playing in. THE RFL need to come out and say they will either be relegated or stay in super league. The penatly for Administration is 6 points. and only 6 points as was stated onm Boots N All last night. there is no mention of being relegated if you go into admin.

Its simple you prepare two business plans, one as a SL club and one not as a SL club.
Also can you tell me why they can't disclose their identities to the RFL?

t'old man wrote:
Seeing as how Blake Solly is so keen lately to issue statements to the press ( some before any official release by the board of directors ) and as he is the director of standards and licensing, could he explain how the Bulls were awarded a license for the current period ? surely if business plans forecasts etc are quiet rightly required for any potential owners weren't any of the current clubs required to forward similar plans before receiving a license ? or was it simply a case of the RFLwanting a league of 14 teams and seeing as how Crusaders folded and Featherstone and Halifax not supposedly meeting the required criteria was it a case of turning a blind eye and hoping everthing would be o.k ....or is it simply that if they did we would probably have ended up with a league of only 10 or 11 clubs !!!

Holmesy wrote:
Well that's it for me. The RFL can go stuff themselves. Said it before and will say it again I really think the RFL are not wanting the Bulls to survive.
When you think of the problems Widnes, Wakefield, London and lots more have/are in well all I will say is well done RFL. A potentiol huge wealth creator, via supporters. will be lost to the game.
And again even after he eventually slinked off, Hood did a great job of getting into bed with the RFL and selling the lease. Then proclaiming how it will secure the BUlls future. Fast forward a month or two...incredible.
I have sent myemail to the RFL telling them my disgust and also to SKY saying my £62 per month subscription can go the same way as the Bulls appear to be.
We at best will have a championship team playing at a broken down stadium. Why oh why cant the RFL tell us what they plan for Odsal if there is no Bulls. Mr Nigel Wood...head has a short memory. He was at the Shay when things were wobbling and also the RFL/Superleague have the Bulls to thank for holding the idealogy of summer rugby up for the first few years.
You know guys and gals I think we are done for

Mumby was the best wrote:
It appears those who are against the RFL are against it because they think they don`t want us in SL.
You may be happy with any Tom, Dick or Harry buying us as long as we stay in SL, I for one am not I would prefer to start again and be run right and not have anyone who was a previous director in the past 20 years involved. A complete fresh start not anything as lond as we are in SL (which could be doomed anyway)

Wally Lewis wrote:
You cannot submit a detailed business plan when you do not know what league you are to be playing in. THE RFL need to come out and say they will either be relegated or stay in super league. The penatly for Administration is 6 points. and only 6 points as was stated onm Boots N All last night. there is no mention of being relegated if you go into admin.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Zingy bfd wrote:
The RFL refuse to engage with the ABC consortium .They have the oppertunity to negotiate with ABC and find a way through but they flatly refuse.The RFL want to see plans to improve the ground but who in their right mind will improve and repair someone elses property.I am of the view that the RFL want the Bulls to go in liquidation to hide the mistakes they have made such as paying over the odds for odsal ( yes i accept it helped the bulls but it means the RFL are looking at inflated prices for the ground) and because the players contract ,as drafted by the RFL ,does not provide for the scenerio of the buls going into the championship.The Bulls will be relgated ,someone with little cash will buy and will negotiate a reduced rent with the RFL to stay at Odsal .

The RFL refuse to negotiate with ABC, ABC won't even give the RFL the courtesy of letting them know who they are.

DennisTM wrote:
I've resisted responding to any of this as yet but what I see is a very confusing and misundertood situation.
The key issue for both the club and the RFL is the way the Bulls exit administration. In the simplest case, if the Bulls agree a CVA with its creditors and the club (better to say 'company') is sold by the Administrator effectively as a going concern albeit with new owners but importantly with its licence intact and still held by the company, then it remains a member of the SL until the next round of licences are granted. Whether the new company wishes to re-purchase Odsal is merely a red herring. However, if the old company is liquidated and a new company formed then its a matter for the RFL and the other SL clubs whether the newco is handed a licence. You might be aware of Rangers in the SPL. This is the situation with Rangers and the SPL clubs and the SFA stipulated that a company buying the assets of a liquidated will not have its existing licence transferred. I suspect that this is at the heart of the disagreement and it being dressed up as the RFL. ABC want to establish a Newco who they want to take over the rights (for which read SL Licence) of OldCo but not have to meet the responsibilities of the OldCo (for which read debts and existing contracts). On that basis, ABC want to have their keema and eat it.

Mumby was the best wrote:

Prycey wrote:
I tend to agree with above that this ABC group are being too secretive. The RFL need to know who they are, who will be the directors and what they want the stadium for. I now believe it is nearing the time for the Bulls to die and the Northern to emerge run by a supporters trust in the lower division. I could then go to games proud of being a “Northern” fan knowing that everything is above board. It would be tough at first but it would be better than being beholden to a group of secretive business men and having other supporters making ridicule of the Bulls.
Potter said he couldn’t carry on into the next month. Well, that is now here. An indication of what is happening in private is what the coaches now do. If they walk then there will be no more games and the club ceases to exist as soon as the next game is due to be played and nobody turns up to organise it. If they all carry on through August then I am guessing they have been assured of something we aren’t getting told. They walk now and it’s all over. They stay and something has been said to them or paid to them in private. If they stay for another month unpaid and we survive they must get their jobs back. If they stayed and then Nobby got the job how many fans would be furious that Potter had worked for two month for nothing only to be told goodbye. Let’s see what they all do as that will indicate what is being said to Potter in private.
If we are getting kicked out of SL please lets go now Mr Coulby and cause the RFL a massive publicity problem sorting out the table. Now that would be a sweet way to leave!

Thanks for that you saved me a lot of typing.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

jkirby85 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

AdeyG'man wrote: Game over. No one is gonna table an unconditional offer in their right mind . Well done Hood, Caisley and the RFL. You just killed rugby league in bradford !

Not exactly the Cougars are still going strong.

who do you support?

A wife and kids.

raisemeup wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Zingy bfd wrote: The RFL refuse to engage with the ABC consortium .They have the oppertunity to negotiate with ABC and find a way through but they flatly refuse.The RFL want to see plans to improve the ground but who in their right mind will improve and repair someone elses property.I am of the view that the RFL want the Bulls to go in liquidation to hide the mistakes they have made such as paying over the odds for odsal ( yes i accept it helped the bulls but it means the RFL are looking at inflated prices for the ground) and because the players contract ,as drafted by the RFL ,does not provide for the scenerio of the buls going into the championship.The Bulls will be relgated ,someone with little cash will buy and will negotiate a reduced rent with the RFL to stay at Odsal .

The RFL refuse to negotiate with ABC, ABC won't even give the RFL the courtesy of letting them know who they are.

Who say's this??? The rfl would not turn down two bids from two unknown sources. Either they are absolute ineptitudes, or it's you for spreading such rubbish. Of course they know who they are, and of course they know the financial clout of the Consortium. If they don't then there is no hope for our sport at all, certainly not under the present administration.

jkirby85 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

jkirby85 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

AdeyG'man wrote: Game over. No one is gonna table an unconditional offer in their right mind . Well done Hood, Caisley and the RFL. You just killed rugby league in bradford !

Not exactly the Cougars are still going strong.

who do you support?

A wife and kids.

yeah thought you say summat like that....probs whinos or on them lines if so f%@k off back

DennisTM wrote:
I've resisted responding to any of this as yet but what I see is a very confusing and misundertood situation.
The key issue for both the club and the RFL is the way the Bulls exit administration. In the simplest case, if the Bulls agree a CVA with its creditors and the club (better to say 'company') is sold by the Administrator effectively as a going concern albeit with new owners but importantly with its licence intact and still held by the company, then it remains a member of the SL until the next round of licences are granted. Whether the new company wishes to re-purchase Odsal is merely a red herring. However, if the old company is liquidated and a new company formed then its a matter for the RFL and the other SL clubs whether the newco is handed a licence. You might be aware of Rangers in the SPL. This is the situation with Rangers and the SPL clubs and the SFA stipulated that a company buying the assets of a liquidated will not have its existing licence transferred. I suspect that this is at the heart of the disagreement and it being dressed up as the RFL. ABC want to establish a Newco who they want to take over the rights (for which read SL Licence) of OldCo but not have to meet the responsibilities of the OldCo (for which read debts and existing contracts). On that basis, ABC want to have their keema and eat it.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

jkirby85 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

jkirby85 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

AdeyG'man wrote: Game over. No one is gonna table an unconditional offer in their right mind . Well done Hood, Caisley and the RFL. You just killed rugby league in bradford !

Not exactly the Cougars are still going strong.

who do you support?

A wife and kids.

yeah thought you say summat like that....probs whinos or on them lines if so f%@k off back

What a polite little chap you are.

Wally Lewis wrote:
As i am told and understand it the bloke who owns Ladyroyd Garage is a major part of the consortium. He also owns the Tube nightclub in Halifax. amongst a host of other ventures around west yorkshire

Tricky Dicky wrote:

Mumby was the best wrote:

Prycey wrote:
I tend to agree with above that this ABC group are being too secretive. The RFL need to know who they are, who will be the directors and what they want the stadium for. I now believe it is nearing the time for the Bulls to die and the Northern to emerge run by a supporters trust in the lower division. I could then go to games proud of being a “Northern” fan knowing that everything is above board. It would be tough at first but it would be better than being beholden to a group of secretive business men and having other supporters making ridicule of the Bulls.
Potter said he couldn’t carry on into the next month. Well, that is now here. An indication of what is happening in private is what the coaches now do. If they walk then there will be no more games and the club ceases to exist as soon as the next game is due to be played and nobody turns up to organise it. If they all carry on through August then I am guessing they have been assured of something we aren’t getting told. They walk now and it’s all over. They stay and something has been said to them or paid to them in private. If they stay for another month unpaid and we survive they must get their jobs back. If they stayed and then Nobby got the job how many fans would be furious that Potter had worked for two month for nothing only to be told goodbye. Let’s see what they all do as that will indicate what is being said to Potter in private.
If we are getting kicked out of SL please lets go now Mr Coulby and cause the RFL a massive publicity problem sorting out the table. Now that would be a sweet way to leave!

Thanks for that you saved me a lot of typing.

I believe that the prospective sponsor of Super League, to replace the Stobart no-money fiasco, is a nationally recognised Bradford-based business (and we do not have many of those!). I also believe that their sponsorship would also assume that Bradford had a Super League club. Now that may be called a condition so put that in your pipe and smoke it Mr Solly and the RFL. The majority of fans are quite prepared for Bradford RL to start again and at some other venue. So Mr Solly, you will have Odsal empty and redundant and Super League minus the Bulls. Beware of what you wish for Mr Solly. I agree with Prycey. If you cannot entertain conditions (and look at Wakefield - uninterrupted Super League status!) then let's lance the wound of Hood's tenure and liquidate. It appears the RFL are prolonging the agony just to complete the season without hitches. So if the RFL are not going to scratch our back then to heck with scratching theirs. Liquidate and stop playing now.

Cardiff wrote:
I work in Corporate Finance and help companies buy and sell businesses all the time. I would never advise a client to consider an offer when the client has not seen any credible business plan setting out the purchasers strategy, with no proof of funding presented and no disclosure of the purchasers shareholders/directo

rs identity. In my opinion the RFL are absolutely correct in the stance they have taken. The Administrator should also explain why he has allowed a bid to go forward on this basis.

jkirby85 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

jkirby85 wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

AdeyG'man wrote: Game over. No one is gonna table an unconditional offer in their right mind . Well done Hood, Caisley and the RFL. You just killed rugby league in bradford !

Not exactly the Cougars are still going strong.

who do you support?

A wife and kids.

yeah thought you say summat like that....probs whinos or on them lines if so f%@k off back

Its hardly Rocket science wrote:
Who in their right mind would pay a substantial amount of money for something when they do not know what they getting? Why would a group of business men put in 3, 2.5, 2 million or what ever the figure happens to be when they might have a ground they might not they might have a super league team they might not? The RFL are not to blame for the Bulls decline but they are in my opinion to blame for this ongoing saga. They have the power to say for certain that they will not sell Odsal and whether the Bulls if taken over will play in Super League or in the lower divisions they surely can do this NOW not later. If the situation were to be clarified then any interested parties can then make a decision based on known facts and not uncertainty. If the RFL had the balls to make a decision regarding the sale of the stadium and the league in which the team would be playing instead of sitting around scratching them then everything could move on. Then again they are getting paid and it is not their club so doesn’t affect them. If a decision was made now then the staff made redundant could walk away and try find new employment instead of hanging on without pay in the hope someone turns up saves the club and re-employs them. The players could talk to other clubs the supporters could plan for next season in Super League or outside or try to reform a club if the Bulls went out of existence and the WUMS and gloaters on this forum would have to find a new forum on which to amuse themselves. Most of all though this whole sorry episode could be put to bed.

Bierley wrote:

DennisTM wrote:
I've resisted responding to any of this as yet but what I see is a very confusing and misundertood situation.
The key issue for both the club and the RFL is the way the Bulls exit administration. In the simplest case, if the Bulls agree a CVA with its creditors and the club (better to say 'company') is sold by the Administrator effectively as a going concern albeit with new owners but importantly with its licence intact and still held by the company, then it remains a member of the SL until the next round of licences are granted. Whether the new company wishes to re-purchase Odsal is merely a red herring. However, if the old company is liquidated and a new company formed then its a matter for the RFL and the other SL clubs whether the newco is handed a licence. You might be aware of Rangers in the SPL. This is the situation with Rangers and the SPL clubs and the SFA stipulated that a company buying the assets of a liquidated will not have its existing licence transferred. I suspect that this is at the heart of the disagreement and it being dressed up as the RFL. ABC want to establish a Newco who they want to take over the rights (for which read SL Licence) of OldCo but not have to meet the responsibilities of the OldCo (for which read debts and existing contracts). On that basis, ABC want to have their keema and eat it.

if the Bulls debt to HMRC makes up over 25% of the overall debt, the Bulls will not get a CVA agreed as HMRC currently automatically reject CVA's.

therefore, there are only 2 exit options that I can see:
1) the bulls clear all their debts.
2) they go into liquidation and write off their debts.

heather1608 wrote:
How can anyone be expected to put in an offer for a loss making business without the ground lease and the licence. The Bulls without the licence are not worth anything - without the groudn how can anyone be expected to turn around the business and make a profit to keep the Bulls going. The RFL are living in cloud cuckoo land. Do they hope to get rid of the Bulls and sell the ground to make a profit. They have been offered more than they paid . This stinks of the RFL wanting the BULLS out!

matacaster wrote:
Dcarb said
"Does anyone understand what the RFL will do with a lease on a ground with no tenants? This has puzzled me all along."

They won't have no tenants. If the Bulls die, then sure as eggs is eggs, a new Northern will be formed and will want to lease Odsal as its very cheap to rent (eg cheaper than valley parade).

Ralphie wrote:

DennisTM wrote:
I've resisted responding to any of this as yet but what I see is a very confusing and misundertood situation.
The key issue for both the club and the RFL is the way the Bulls exit administration. In the simplest case, if the Bulls agree a CVA with its creditors and the club (better to say 'company') is sold by the Administrator effectively as a going concern albeit with new owners but importantly with its licence intact and still held by the company, then it remains a member of the SL until the next round of licences are granted. Whether the new company wishes to re-purchase Odsal is merely a red herring. However, if the old company is liquidated and a new company formed then its a matter for the RFL and the other SL clubs whether the newco is handed a licence. You might be aware of Rangers in the SPL. This is the situation with Rangers and the SPL clubs and the SFA stipulated that a company buying the assets of a liquidated will not have its existing licence transferred. I suspect that this is at the heart of the disagreement and it being dressed up as the RFL. ABC want to establish a Newco who they want to take over the rights (for which read SL Licence) of OldCo but not have to meet the responsibilities of the OldCo (for which read debts and existing contracts). On that basis, ABC want to have their keema and eat it.

If this is the case why do n't RFL come out and state this? All they are saying is that they cannot give a guarantee that the Bulls would be allowed to remain in Super League.
I thought that the Administrators role was to sell the club as a going concern, with liquidation being the last option. If this is the intention of the two bidders surely he would have rejected the offers at an early stage since they were not adding anything to what he could achieve.
I think that Hull FC were recently bought but the purchase did not appear to require the approval of the RFL or any vote on their Super League status.
If the ABC consortium had simply bought the shares in the Bulls before administration they would presumably be the owners of a club with a minimum of two seasons left in Super League.

tasha2404 wrote:
No-one is going to invest a substantial amount of money into a club they don't know is going to be in Super League next season. Why can't the RFL just tell us where we stand then business men/women can decide what they want to do with their money. We wouldn't buy a car for a large amount of money if we thought there was a 50:50 chance of it conking in a year! They just don't want Bulls to survive is what it is, I mean look at Wakefield...they have 2 points deducted and are still in Super League. The whole table turns when it's the Bulls that are in administration!!

tasha2404 wrote:
No-one is going to invest a substantial amount of money into a club they don't know is going to be in Super League next season. Why can't the RFL just tell us where we stand then business men/women can decide what they want to do with their money. We wouldn't buy a car for a large amount of money if we thought there was a 50:50 chance of it conking in a year! They just don't want Bulls to survive is what it is, I mean look at Wakefield...they have 2 points deducted and are still in Super League. The whole table turns when it's the Bulls that are in administration!!

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

tasha2404 wrote: No-one is going to invest a substantial amount of money into a club they don't know is going to be in Super League next season. Why can't the RFL just tell us where we stand then business men/women can decide what they want to do with their money. We wouldn't buy a car for a large amount of money if we thought there was a 50:50 chance of it conking in a year! They just don't want Bulls to survive is what it is, I mean look at Wakefield...they have 2 points deducted and are still in Super League. The whole table turns when it's the Bulls that are in administration!!

How can the RFL guarantee the Bulls a place in SL next season if they haven't been given details of the bidders plans for the club? Maybe if the bidders were clearing in their intentions and provided proof they could make it to the end of the next licence period then the RFL might be clearer about the position. They can't simply announce the Bulls will be guaranteed SL status next year only to find themselve in the same situation we see now.

I'm NOT Kirklees! wrote:
The RFL are staring down the barrel of a Howitzer here.

And before you all start with mis-management etc the startk facts are that SL is run on RL millionaires who will one day get bored.

Bradford is the latest symptom pointing to the fact that you can't run an SL club without a millionaire.

If they all got up and left tomorrow who do you think would be in SL?

Our losses we're tiny compared to St's, Hudds, Hull FC etc but luckily they have their Sugar Daddy to bail them out with cash flow.

We didn't have that luxury and mismanagement meant a blind eye was turned to know bill that would need paying. Without the OD to bridge the gap the house of cards comes down.

Who's next?

Cardiff wrote:
I work in Corporate Finance and help companies buy and sell businesses all the time. I would never advise a client to consider an offer when the client has not seen any credible business plan setting out the purchasers strategy, with no proof of funding presented and no disclosure of the purchasers shareholders/directo

rs identity. In my opinion the RFL are absolutely correct in the stance they have taken. The Administrator should also explain why he has allowed a bid to go forward on this basis.

t'old man wrote:
Maybe they cant guarantee anyone a super league place after next year if the RFL suddenly decide to re-introduce promotion / relegation !!

Adeybull wrote:
Read the announcement from Superleague (Europe). Then see how much of what has been said on these forums has been a load of uninformed ****.

Adeybull wrote:
Read the announcement from Superleague (Europe). Then see how much of what has been said on these forums has been a load of uninformed ****.

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Adeybull wrote:
Read the announcement from Superleague (Europe). Then see how much of what has been said on these forums has been a load of uninformed ****.

Egg on the face time for those slating the RFL.

Adeybull wrote:

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Adeybull wrote: Read the announcement from Superleague (Europe). Then see how much of what has been said on these forums has been a load of uninformed ****.

Egg on the face time for those slating the RFL.

Indeed.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
I'm glad I'm not one of those idiots who has been slating the RFL for weeks on end. There seems to be a few in this thread alone.
Hopefully this is the start of a happier time for sport in Bradford.

odsalsaint wrote:
The RFL are playing dangerous games, but the again perhaps Mr Wood is plugging away for his beloved Halifax RL to come back into SL.
Beware Mr W there are more problems to follow........Hudder

sfield are likely to be next.....big funder Ken Davy (1m per year) to pull out at end of season. Watch this space.

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote: I'm glad I'm not one of those idiots who has been slating the RFL for weeks on end. There seems to be a few in this thread alone. Hopefully this is the start of a happier time for sport in Bradford.

Do you know the difference between RFL and SLE? just wondering...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote: I'm glad I'm not one of those idiots who has been slating the RFL for weeks on end. There seems to be a few in this thread alone. Hopefully this is the start of a happier time for sport in Bradford.

Do you know the difference between RFL and SLE? just wondering...

Yes, I'm in a way paying respect to the RFL for not just accepting the first bid that came along and possibly saddling the Bulls in the same position next year.

They were right to not wave through the first chances that came along who only appeared to be interested in the lease on Odsal.

Don't you think this is a better senario than than?

MeccaBingo1 wrote:
AT LAST, NO MORE MESSING AROUND! 4 WEEKS TOO LATE BUT BETTER LATE THEN NEVER.

scandanavian's love child52 wrote:
Told you all decision was coming today. Stick with me girls and boys not the know nowt feckwitts like viking, mumby sheff, raisemeup etc

scandanavian's love child52 wrote:
Todays the day boys and girls remember where you heard it 1st.

scandanavian's love child52 wrote:

scandanavian's love child52 wrote:
Todays the day boys and girls remember where you heard it 1st.

See i told you so :-p

Steam Pigs wrote:

scandanavian's love child52 wrote:

scandanavian's love child52 wrote:
Todays the day boys and girls remember where you heard it 1st.

See i told you so :-p

speaking to yourself now Sweetie?

You didn't tell anything you went on RL fans or another website and read it on there - jog on troll back to your night shift with your mate Nosher ;-)

bye sweetie xx

Zingy bfd wrote:
The RFL refuse to engage with the ABC consortium .They have the oppertunity to negotiate with ABC and find a way through but they flatly refuse.The RFL want to see plans to improve the ground but who in their right mind will improve and repair someone elses property.I am of the view that the RFL want the Bulls to go in liquidation to hide the mistakes they have made such as paying over the odds for odsal ( yes i accept it helped the bulls but it means the RFL are looking at inflated prices for the ground) and because the players contract ,as drafted by the RFL ,does not provide for the scenerio of the buls going into the championship.The Bulls will be relgated ,someone with little cash will buy and will negotiate a reduced rent with the RFL to stay at Odsal .

Ralphie wrote:
I'm not really sure I understand the role of RFL in all this. If you ignore the complication of the Odsal lease, which I am assuming the Sutcliffe bid does, why does the RFL need to sanction the takeover. In football someone buys a club that is in administration. The club gets deducted points and continues in its division. The Football League does a "fit and proper person check" but the financial details are settled between the purchaser, administrator and the creditors. Portsmouth for example have been in and out of administration. Why does the RFL have the say over commercial transaction it is not involved in? If you buy a club that has a franchise irrespective of whether that club is in administration surely the franchise remains with that club. If this is not the case how could anyone buy a super league if change of ownership required a vote by the remaining super league clubs?

DennisTM wrote:
I've resisted responding to any of this as yet but what I see is a very confusing and misundertood situation. The key issue for both the club and the RFL is the way the Bulls exit administration. In the simplest case, if the Bulls agree a CVA with its creditors and the club (better to say 'company') is sold by the Administrator effectively as a going concern albeit with new owners but importantly with its licence intact and still held by the company, then it remains a member of the SL until the next round of licences are granted. Whether the new company wishes to re-purchase Odsal is merely a red herring. However, if the old company is liquidated and a new company formed then its a matter for the RFL and the other SL clubs whether the newco is handed a licence. You might be aware of Rangers in the SPL. This is the situation with Rangers and the SPL clubs and the SFA stipulated that a company buying the assets of a liquidated will not have its existing licence transferred. I suspect that this is at the heart of the disagreement and it being dressed up as the RFL. ABC want to establish a Newco who they want to take over the rights (for which read SL Licence) of OldCo but not have to meet the responsibilities of the OldCo (for which read debts and existing contracts). On that basis, ABC want to have their keema and eat it.

Ralphie wrote:

DennisTM wrote: I've resisted responding to any of this as yet but what I see is a very confusing and misundertood situation. The key issue for both the club and the RFL is the way the Bulls exit administration. In the simplest case, if the Bulls agree a CVA with its creditors and the club (better to say 'company') is sold by the Administrator effectively as a going concern albeit with new owners but importantly with its licence intact and still held by the company, then it remains a member of the SL until the next round of licences are granted. Whether the new company wishes to re-purchase Odsal is merely a red herring. However, if the old company is liquidated and a new company formed then its a matter for the RFL and the other SL clubs whether the newco is handed a licence. You might be aware of Rangers in the SPL. This is the situation with Rangers and the SPL clubs and the SFA stipulated that a company buying the assets of a liquidated will not have its existing licence transferred. I suspect that this is at the heart of the disagreement and it being dressed up as the RFL. ABC want to establish a Newco who they want to take over the rights (for which read SL Licence) of OldCo but not have to meet the responsibilities of the OldCo (for which read debts and existing contracts). On that basis, ABC want to have their keema and eat it.

If this is the case why do n't RFL come out and state this? All they are saying is that they cannot give a guarantee that the Bulls would be allowed to remain in Super League. I thought that the Administrators role was to sell the club as a going concern, with liquidation being the last option. If this is the intention of the two bidders surely he would have rejected the offers at an early stage since they were not adding anything to what he could achieve. I think that Hull FC were recently bought but the purchase did not appear to require the approval of the RFL or any vote on their Super League status. If the ABC consortium had simply bought the shares in the Bulls before administration they would presumably be the owners of a club with a minimum of two seasons left in Super League.

matacaster wrote:
Dcarb said "Does anyone understand what the RFL will do with a lease on a ground with no tenants? This has puzzled me all along." They won't have no tenants. If the Bulls die, then sure as eggs is eggs, a new Northern will be formed and will want to lease Odsal as its very cheap to rent (eg cheaper than valley parade).