I would not wish to do anything that would damage the club – Former Bradford Bulls owner Omar Khan speaks out on legal fight

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Omar Khan claims he is still owed money by Ryan Whitcut and Mark Moore Omar Khan claims he is still owed money by Ryan Whitcut and Mark Moore

Omar Khan has stressed that he is not taking legal action against the Bulls but against Mark Moore and Ryan Whitcut as the storm surrounding the club’s ownership intensifies.

Khan rescued the brink of oblivion in September 2012 when he bought the club from administrator Brendan Guilfoyle to form a new regime alongside Bradford South MP Gerry Sutcliffe and Whitcut as general manager.

But Khan announced in September of this year that he was leaving the Bulls on the grounds of ill health and that ownership of the club was being transferred to Whitcut and Moore.

However, the deal has led to a bitter fall-out which has seen Khan launch legal proceedings against Whitcut and Moore after claiming he has not received monies owed to him following the change of ownership.

Whitcut left the Bulls last month after it became clear he would not pass a fit and proper persons test required by the RFL to become a director.

But Khan insists he is still owed money by Whitcut and Moore, who owns Bradford-based firm BedzRus and is now one of three directors at the Bulls along with local businessmen Ian Watt and Andrew Calvert.

Khan said: “When I transferred ownership of the Bradford Bulls, Mark Moore and Ryan Whitcut agreed to make a payment to me which left the large majority of my money in the club.

“I have been told they do not intend to honour this agreement. “In these circumstances I have no choice than to take legal action against Mr Moore and Mr Whitcut. I am not taking action against the club.”

Khan said Moore and Whitcut had reneged on an agreed timescale for payment but added that he was willing to renegotiate with the pair.

Khan said: “There was an agreed timetable for payment.

“I am more than willing to negotiate alterations to this timetable as I would not wish to do anything that would damage the club.”

The current directors revealed last week that the Bulls must make savings of £400,000 during the next 12 months in order to stay afloat.

Meanwhile, the Bulls have announced they will play Hull FC in a pre-season friendly at the Provident Stadium on Sunday, January 19 (3pm kick-off).

Comments (40)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:03pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Pablo says...

What a mess. The club is in "intensive care and Moore has now got this sideshow to contend with. As usual, the solicitors will be rubbing their hands together .Moore, Calvert and Watt must be close to saying "sod it". The club is unlikely to survive another Administration and, if it goes into liquidation, OK can say "goodbye" to any investment left in the club.

Unless common sense prevails, we'll not make it to the start of the season at this rate.
What a mess. The club is in "intensive care and Moore has now got this sideshow to contend with. As usual, the solicitors will be rubbing their hands together .Moore, Calvert and Watt must be close to saying "sod it". The club is unlikely to survive another Administration and, if it goes into liquidation, OK can say "goodbye" to any investment left in the club. Unless common sense prevails, we'll not make it to the start of the season at this rate. Pablo

8:49pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Little confused here.
Whitcut owes Khan for the purchase, but the RFL refused to sanction Whitcuts takeover.
So I'm guessing Whitcut is nothing to do with the bulls anymore so why would he owe for a purchase that the RFL have refused.
Lots of things don't add up here and the fact the annual return hasn't been filed means you can't accurately check who the current shareholders are.
Little confused here. Whitcut owes Khan for the purchase, but the RFL refused to sanction Whitcuts takeover. So I'm guessing Whitcut is nothing to do with the bulls anymore so why would he owe for a purchase that the RFL have refused. Lots of things don't add up here and the fact the annual return hasn't been filed means you can't accurately check who the current shareholders are. Thee Voice of Reason

9:08pm Sun 8 Dec 13

bbibby says...

Why are the previous posts removed.???
It seems Khan cannot take the Truth. He tries to be Mr Big jog on you have lost your money now leave those in charge to clean up the mess you . Whitcut and Suitcliffe have left. Khan had plenty to say about players but cannot take Criticism Go away you had your time.
Why are the previous posts removed.??? It seems Khan cannot take the Truth. He tries to be Mr Big jog on you have lost your money now leave those in charge to clean up the mess you . Whitcut and Suitcliffe have left. Khan had plenty to say about players but cannot take Criticism Go away you had your time. bbibby

9:39pm Sun 8 Dec 13

bradfordbronco says...

When the new owners talk about Loans that were taken out against the club. It looks like these were just the monies that Omar put in and now he wants back. I can't see any banks lending the club any money so it must be that Omar wants £400,000 back of the £1m he put in. Think if Whitcut had stayed Omar thought he would get it back eventually but once Whitcut left he doubted the new owners would ever pay him back and this seems to have led to the new problems of last week. Not quite sure how these new guys manage to "buy" the club when they dont seem to have put any money in. If only we had a Koukash or Davy or Caddick or Pearson or Lenegan or even Hughes. We could then just concentrate on playing matters
When the new owners talk about Loans that were taken out against the club. It looks like these were just the monies that Omar put in and now he wants back. I can't see any banks lending the club any money so it must be that Omar wants £400,000 back of the £1m he put in. Think if Whitcut had stayed Omar thought he would get it back eventually but once Whitcut left he doubted the new owners would ever pay him back and this seems to have led to the new problems of last week. Not quite sure how these new guys manage to "buy" the club when they dont seem to have put any money in. If only we had a Koukash or Davy or Caddick or Pearson or Lenegan or even Hughes. We could then just concentrate on playing matters bradfordbronco

10:35pm Sun 8 Dec 13

tinytoonster says...

bbibby wrote:
As neither Whitcut or Moore have the sum of money Khan is after it would be from Club funds. Omar you made the investment and lost it so Jog on and let RHP, your appointment, try and sort out the mess you left.
Why does he not try and tap the Council up for another £200,000. Will this ever be repaid????.
Will your mate Suitcliffe not help him?? Ok he did a runner too.
Bulls fans should boycott his Curry shop and hit back after all his Bulls##t and promises he made. Little man out of his Debth.
did not say that when he came!
all the bulls fans called him a saviour etc!
this is why you are fickle and get no sympathy.
you all do it when players leave too.
some of the comments about ex players are shocking, they have families to feed so at the end of the day they need paying and on time!
if he loaned them money he is entitled to ask for it back if they agreed to it.
they are the ones out of their depth!
[quote][p][bold]bbibby[/bold] wrote: As neither Whitcut or Moore have the sum of money Khan is after it would be from Club funds. Omar you made the investment and lost it so Jog on and let RHP, your appointment, try and sort out the mess you left. Why does he not try and tap the Council up for another £200,000. Will this ever be repaid????. Will your mate Suitcliffe not help him?? Ok he did a runner too. Bulls fans should boycott his Curry shop and hit back after all his Bulls##t and promises he made. Little man out of his Debth.[/p][/quote]did not say that when he came! all the bulls fans called him a saviour etc! this is why you are fickle and get no sympathy. you all do it when players leave too. some of the comments about ex players are shocking, they have families to feed so at the end of the day they need paying and on time! if he loaned them money he is entitled to ask for it back if they agreed to it. they are the ones out of their depth! tinytoonster

7:22am Mon 9 Dec 13

Sheffieldbull says...

tinytoonster wrote:
bbibby wrote:
As neither Whitcut or Moore have the sum of money Khan is after it would be from Club funds. Omar you made the investment and lost it so Jog on and let RHP, your appointment, try and sort out the mess you left.
Why does he not try and tap the Council up for another £200,000. Will this ever be repaid????.
Will your mate Suitcliffe not help him?? Ok he did a runner too.
Bulls fans should boycott his Curry shop and hit back after all his Bulls##t and promises he made. Little man out of his Debth.
did not say that when he came!
all the bulls fans called him a saviour etc!
this is why you are fickle and get no sympathy.
you all do it when players leave too.
some of the comments about ex players are shocking, they have families to feed so at the end of the day they need paying and on time!
if he loaned them money he is entitled to ask for it back if they agreed to it.
they are the ones out of their depth!
Talking about those being out of their depth, let me remind people of this 'posters' recent offering ..
.
tinytoonster says...

sheffieldbull says goes to away matches.
hardly helping bulls financially?
.
Bless! some would be out of their depth in a puddle! Check your facts before reaching for your keyboard. It may just save you from looking even more stupid!
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bbibby[/bold] wrote: As neither Whitcut or Moore have the sum of money Khan is after it would be from Club funds. Omar you made the investment and lost it so Jog on and let RHP, your appointment, try and sort out the mess you left. Why does he not try and tap the Council up for another £200,000. Will this ever be repaid????. Will your mate Suitcliffe not help him?? Ok he did a runner too. Bulls fans should boycott his Curry shop and hit back after all his Bulls##t and promises he made. Little man out of his Debth.[/p][/quote]did not say that when he came! all the bulls fans called him a saviour etc! this is why you are fickle and get no sympathy. you all do it when players leave too. some of the comments about ex players are shocking, they have families to feed so at the end of the day they need paying and on time! if he loaned them money he is entitled to ask for it back if they agreed to it. they are the ones out of their depth![/p][/quote]Talking about those being out of their depth, let me remind people of this 'posters' recent offering .. . tinytoonster says... sheffieldbull says goes to away matches. hardly helping bulls financially? . Bless! some would be out of their depth in a puddle! Check your facts before reaching for your keyboard. It may just save you from looking even more stupid! Sheffieldbull

7:31am Mon 9 Dec 13

fedupwiththeBS says...

What a complete car crash!

If he has not been paid the fee that was agreed for the sale of the Club then as well as being the majority shareholder he also must still own it would he not?

Still the issue of the council loan has not been addressed either.

It would be nice as a fan just to read about the players and how well the team are doing.
What a complete car crash! If he has not been paid the fee that was agreed for the sale of the Club then as well as being the majority shareholder he also must still own it would he not? Still the issue of the council loan has not been addressed either. It would be nice as a fan just to read about the players and how well the team are doing. fedupwiththeBS

7:31am Mon 9 Dec 13

raisemeup says...

Most of the posters so far are NOT Bulls supporters, and are in the case of Pablo,Tiny Toonster,Crusader20 the usual anonymous trolls who have this vindictive and spiteful approach to everything and everybody. The fact that they are allowed to spout the spiteful reposts with anonymity is an abuse of the systems that seem to infect social media sites.

No one can know what transpired, so they blacken and libel people who they can't know in the knowledge that they cannot be named, due to data protection, which is totally abused by their inanity. Puke rending is not the word!

PS Don't discuss the £650k we had to forego, clearly you know nothing about the effect this has had on the supporters of the club, this was taken from them by an organisation that should have attempted to protect our game as a whole, not penalise individuals.
Most of the posters so far are NOT Bulls supporters, and are in the case of Pablo,Tiny Toonster,Crusader20 the usual anonymous trolls who have this vindictive and spiteful approach to everything and everybody. The fact that they are allowed to spout the spiteful reposts with anonymity is an abuse of the systems that seem to infect social media sites. No one can know what transpired, so they blacken and libel people who they can't know in the knowledge that they cannot be named, due to data protection, which is totally abused by their inanity. Puke rending is not the word! PS Don't discuss the £650k we had to forego, clearly you know nothing about the effect this has had on the supporters of the club, this was taken from them by an organisation that should have attempted to protect our game as a whole, not penalise individuals. raisemeup

8:10am Mon 9 Dec 13

raisemeup says...

Apologies missed out BBibby, but should have generalised more in that post, about un-administrated social media sites!
We know who the trolls are, so can make up our own mind, individuals shouldn't be mentioned even if they are merely a pen named writer.
I don't know whether they are watchers of the Bulls or not...their posts usually don't show elements of support, so can't really call them supporters.
Apologies missed out BBibby, but should have generalised more in that post, about un-administrated social media sites! We know who the trolls are, so can make up our own mind, individuals shouldn't be mentioned even if they are merely a pen named writer. I don't know whether they are watchers of the Bulls or not...their posts usually don't show elements of support, so can't really call them supporters. raisemeup

8:28am Mon 9 Dec 13

Nick Harrison says...

I wish people could tell the truth. How can the Bulls have undisclosed secured loans? They have no assets to secure them against. It is impossible! If there was a loan against book debt and buisness and goodwill it would be a debenture. Any debenture etc would show on any company search and is a public record. It does not need to be ina an annual return either. OK may be, in trerms of business, a complete $hit, but he did what NO ONE else would do and he saved the Bulls. People with short memories should re-look at the previous situation. Only a couple of rescue packages were received over a very long period of time and only one of them actually complied with the stipulations of the RL. Without him there would be no Bulls, that bit is simple. Lets cut the cr*p and support our team. At peresent there is no income, it is the closed season after all. Bums on seats, buying a pie and a pint... bring in the revenue through the turnstiles. Once the world sees the support that our Bulls have, full terraces and a strong fan base there could well be more investment. If I had the money and I read these blogs I wouldnt go near the place. As it stands we need to support our team and get behind them rather thatn speculate, second guess and pretend that we know how to run a business - how many on here have actualy done it?!
I wish people could tell the truth. How can the Bulls have undisclosed secured loans? They have no assets to secure them against. It is impossible! If there was a loan against book debt and buisness and goodwill it would be a debenture. Any debenture etc would show on any company search and is a public record. It does not need to be ina an annual return either. OK may be, in trerms of business, a complete $hit, but he did what NO ONE else would do and he saved the Bulls. People with short memories should re-look at the previous situation. Only a couple of rescue packages were received over a very long period of time and only one of them actually complied with the stipulations of the RL. Without him there would be no Bulls, that bit is simple. Lets cut the cr*p and support our team. At peresent there is no income, it is the closed season after all. Bums on seats, buying a pie and a pint... bring in the revenue through the turnstiles. Once the world sees the support that our Bulls have, full terraces and a strong fan base there could well be more investment. If I had the money and I read these blogs I wouldnt go near the place. As it stands we need to support our team and get behind them rather thatn speculate, second guess and pretend that we know how to run a business - how many on here have actualy done it?! Nick Harrison

8:31am Mon 9 Dec 13

bbibby says...

raisemeup wrote:
Apologies missed out BBibby, but should have generalised more in that post, about un-administrated social media sites!
We know who the trolls are, so can make up our own mind, individuals shouldn't be mentioned even if they are merely a pen named writer.
I don't know whether they are watchers of the Bulls or not...their posts usually don't show elements of support, so can't really call them supporters.
Thank you, you hypocrite. You have sprouted rubbish like Viking and only your opinion matters. As an insider you always put forward the Party line,
Fact. Taxi for Duffy !!
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: Apologies missed out BBibby, but should have generalised more in that post, about un-administrated social media sites! We know who the trolls are, so can make up our own mind, individuals shouldn't be mentioned even if they are merely a pen named writer. I don't know whether they are watchers of the Bulls or not...their posts usually don't show elements of support, so can't really call them supporters.[/p][/quote]Thank you, you hypocrite. You have sprouted rubbish like Viking and only your opinion matters. As an insider you always put forward the Party line, Fact. Taxi for Duffy !! bbibby

8:46am Mon 9 Dec 13

tinytoonster says...

raisemeup wrote:
Most of the posters so far are NOT Bulls supporters, and are in the case of Pablo,Tiny Toonster,Crusader20 the usual anonymous trolls who have this vindictive and spiteful approach to everything and everybody. The fact that they are allowed to spout the spiteful reposts with anonymity is an abuse of the systems that seem to infect social media sites.

No one can know what transpired, so they blacken and libel people who they can't know in the knowledge that they cannot be named, due to data protection, which is totally abused by their inanity. Puke rending is not the word!

PS Don't discuss the £650k we had to forego, clearly you know nothing about the effect this has had on the supporters of the club, this was taken from them by an organisation that should have attempted to protect our game as a whole, not penalise individuals.
because my opinion differs to you i am a troll?
i don't have to prove i go to HOME games.
my conscience is clear thanks.
sheffieldbull, going to home games, putting money through bar, food etc.
thats how you help.
away game food etc goes to away club.
surprised you surfaced.
usually quiet till someone comes out to help who's a saviour then a pariah!
poor mr khan.
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: Most of the posters so far are NOT Bulls supporters, and are in the case of Pablo,Tiny Toonster,Crusader20 the usual anonymous trolls who have this vindictive and spiteful approach to everything and everybody. The fact that they are allowed to spout the spiteful reposts with anonymity is an abuse of the systems that seem to infect social media sites. No one can know what transpired, so they blacken and libel people who they can't know in the knowledge that they cannot be named, due to data protection, which is totally abused by their inanity. Puke rending is not the word! PS Don't discuss the £650k we had to forego, clearly you know nothing about the effect this has had on the supporters of the club, this was taken from them by an organisation that should have attempted to protect our game as a whole, not penalise individuals.[/p][/quote]because my opinion differs to you i am a troll? i don't have to prove i go to HOME games. my conscience is clear thanks. sheffieldbull, going to home games, putting money through bar, food etc. thats how you help. away game food etc goes to away club. surprised you surfaced. usually quiet till someone comes out to help who's a saviour then a pariah! poor mr khan. tinytoonster

8:56am Mon 9 Dec 13

raisemeup says...

bbibby wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
Apologies missed out BBibby, but should have generalised more in that post, about un-administrated social media sites!
We know who the trolls are, so can make up our own mind, individuals shouldn't be mentioned even if they are merely a pen named writer.
I don't know whether they are watchers of the Bulls or not...their posts usually don't show elements of support, so can't really call them supporters.
Thank you, you hypocrite. You have sprouted rubbish like Viking and only your opinion matters. As an insider you always put forward the Party line,
Fact. Taxi for Duffy !!
Not true, only to me does it matter or make a difference?
Hypocrisy is not a strong point of mine..but I'm willing to learn it from someone who knows it well.
What's wrong have I rattled your cage?

PS Do you mean spouted, not sprouted that's something that Brussels do???
Take your point about me also hiding behind a pen name, it's a bit kettle calling the pan black, isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]bbibby[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: Apologies missed out BBibby, but should have generalised more in that post, about un-administrated social media sites! We know who the trolls are, so can make up our own mind, individuals shouldn't be mentioned even if they are merely a pen named writer. I don't know whether they are watchers of the Bulls or not...their posts usually don't show elements of support, so can't really call them supporters.[/p][/quote]Thank you, you hypocrite. You have sprouted rubbish like Viking and only your opinion matters. As an insider you always put forward the Party line, Fact. Taxi for Duffy !![/p][/quote]Not true, only to me does it matter or make a difference? Hypocrisy is not a strong point of mine..but I'm willing to learn it from someone who knows it well. What's wrong have I rattled your cage? PS Do you mean spouted, not sprouted that's something that Brussels do??? Take your point about me also hiding behind a pen name, it's a bit kettle calling the pan black, isn't it? raisemeup

9:17am Mon 9 Dec 13

Papa Smurfs Wig says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Little confused here.
Whitcut owes Khan for the purchase, but the RFL refused to sanction Whitcuts takeover.
So I'm guessing Whitcut is nothing to do with the bulls anymore so why would he owe for a purchase that the RFL have refused.
Lots of things don't add up here and the fact the annual return hasn't been filed means you can't accurately check who the current shareholders are.
I was thinking the same Voice, Whitcut hasn't bought anything so he's out and the rest haven't paid up so OK still owns as they have defaulted on him. but the club are like a hot potato and nobody wants it.

As mentioned about the council loan, who owns it and did the council get a guarantee?

It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Little confused here. Whitcut owes Khan for the purchase, but the RFL refused to sanction Whitcuts takeover. So I'm guessing Whitcut is nothing to do with the bulls anymore so why would he owe for a purchase that the RFL have refused. Lots of things don't add up here and the fact the annual return hasn't been filed means you can't accurately check who the current shareholders are.[/p][/quote]I was thinking the same Voice, Whitcut hasn't bought anything so he's out and the rest haven't paid up so OK still owns as they have defaulted on him. but the club are like a hot potato and nobody wants it. As mentioned about the council loan, who owns it and did the council get a guarantee? It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment. Papa Smurfs Wig

9:43am Mon 9 Dec 13

fedupwiththeBS says...

Nick Harrison wrote:
I wish people could tell the truth. How can the Bulls have undisclosed secured loans? They have no assets to secure them against. It is impossible! If there was a loan against book debt and buisness and goodwill it would be a debenture. Any debenture etc would show on any company search and is a public record. It does not need to be ina an annual return either. OK may be, in trerms of business, a complete $hit, but he did what NO ONE else would do and he saved the Bulls. People with short memories should re-look at the previous situation. Only a couple of rescue packages were received over a very long period of time and only one of them actually complied with the stipulations of the RL. Without him there would be no Bulls, that bit is simple. Lets cut the cr*p and support our team. At peresent there is no income, it is the closed season after all. Bums on seats, buying a pie and a pint... bring in the revenue through the turnstiles. Once the world sees the support that our Bulls have, full terraces and a strong fan base there could well be more investment. If I had the money and I read these blogs I wouldnt go near the place. As it stands we need to support our team and get behind them rather thatn speculate, second guess and pretend that we know how to run a business - how many on here have actualy done it?!
OK was not the only one ready to :save' the club as you put it although your definition of save may need reviewing.

Bradford City, Park Avenue and ABC Group all had bids in for the club along with OK. He was awarded the club because he waived the sky money and the RFL mistakenly believed that having the ex minister for Sport involved in RL would be a good idea.

Until the debt and other issues are resolved, including who actually owns the club it would seem; no one is going to invest in our once great club.

We do not have a strong fan base anymore as last season's gate figures show.
We have been lied to, mainly through articles published in the T&A so there is a lot of anger amongst the fans who have paid good money for season tickets on the back of BS about what a healthy state the club was in.

The blame also must be laid at the feet of the RFL who have helped create this mess and have let it stumble along until we have reached this crisis.
[quote][p][bold]Nick Harrison[/bold] wrote: I wish people could tell the truth. How can the Bulls have undisclosed secured loans? They have no assets to secure them against. It is impossible! If there was a loan against book debt and buisness and goodwill it would be a debenture. Any debenture etc would show on any company search and is a public record. It does not need to be ina an annual return either. OK may be, in trerms of business, a complete $hit, but he did what NO ONE else would do and he saved the Bulls. People with short memories should re-look at the previous situation. Only a couple of rescue packages were received over a very long period of time and only one of them actually complied with the stipulations of the RL. Without him there would be no Bulls, that bit is simple. Lets cut the cr*p and support our team. At peresent there is no income, it is the closed season after all. Bums on seats, buying a pie and a pint... bring in the revenue through the turnstiles. Once the world sees the support that our Bulls have, full terraces and a strong fan base there could well be more investment. If I had the money and I read these blogs I wouldnt go near the place. As it stands we need to support our team and get behind them rather thatn speculate, second guess and pretend that we know how to run a business - how many on here have actualy done it?![/p][/quote]OK was not the only one ready to :save' the club as you put it although your definition of save may need reviewing. Bradford City, Park Avenue and ABC Group all had bids in for the club along with OK. He was awarded the club because he waived the sky money and the RFL mistakenly believed that having the ex minister for Sport involved in RL would be a good idea. Until the debt and other issues are resolved, including who actually owns the club it would seem; no one is going to invest in our once great club. We do not have a strong fan base anymore as last season's gate figures show. We have been lied to, mainly through articles published in the T&A so there is a lot of anger amongst the fans who have paid good money for season tickets on the back of BS about what a healthy state the club was in. The blame also must be laid at the feet of the RFL who have helped create this mess and have let it stumble along until we have reached this crisis. fedupwiththeBS

10:13am Mon 9 Dec 13

Sheffieldbull says...

tinytoonster wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
Most of the posters so far are NOT Bulls supporters, and are in the case of Pablo,Tiny Toonster,Crusader20 the usual anonymous trolls who have this vindictive and spiteful approach to everything and everybody. The fact that they are allowed to spout the spiteful reposts with anonymity is an abuse of the systems that seem to infect social media sites.

No one can know what transpired, so they blacken and libel people who they can't know in the knowledge that they cannot be named, due to data protection, which is totally abused by their inanity. Puke rending is not the word!

PS Don't discuss the £650k we had to forego, clearly you know nothing about the effect this has had on the supporters of the club, this was taken from them by an organisation that should have attempted to protect our game as a whole, not penalise individuals.
because my opinion differs to you i am a troll?
i don't have to prove i go to HOME games.
my conscience is clear thanks.
sheffieldbull, going to home games, putting money through bar, food etc.
thats how you help.
away game food etc goes to away club.
surprised you surfaced.
usually quiet till someone comes out to help who's a saviour then a pariah!
poor mr khan.
Tinytoonster, you really are a Grade ‘A’ turkey aren’t you?
It appears that every time you open your ‘proverbial’ mouth, it’s only to change feet!
Do you have reading difficulties? As a season ticket holder for approximately five decades, I do believe I understand the concept of how attending home games is to the fiscal benefit of supporting the club. Attending away games and purchasing those tickets from the Bulls also contributes to their coffers (are you keeping up?)
Not living in Bradford means all my games are ‘away games’ – does that need further explanation?
Season’s greetings –why not try Sage and Onion this year!
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: Most of the posters so far are NOT Bulls supporters, and are in the case of Pablo,Tiny Toonster,Crusader20 the usual anonymous trolls who have this vindictive and spiteful approach to everything and everybody. The fact that they are allowed to spout the spiteful reposts with anonymity is an abuse of the systems that seem to infect social media sites. No one can know what transpired, so they blacken and libel people who they can't know in the knowledge that they cannot be named, due to data protection, which is totally abused by their inanity. Puke rending is not the word! PS Don't discuss the £650k we had to forego, clearly you know nothing about the effect this has had on the supporters of the club, this was taken from them by an organisation that should have attempted to protect our game as a whole, not penalise individuals.[/p][/quote]because my opinion differs to you i am a troll? i don't have to prove i go to HOME games. my conscience is clear thanks. sheffieldbull, going to home games, putting money through bar, food etc. thats how you help. away game food etc goes to away club. surprised you surfaced. usually quiet till someone comes out to help who's a saviour then a pariah! poor mr khan.[/p][/quote]Tinytoonster, you really are a Grade ‘A’ turkey aren’t you? It appears that every time you open your ‘proverbial’ mouth, it’s only to change feet! Do you have reading difficulties? As a season ticket holder for approximately five decades, I do believe I understand the concept of how attending home games is to the fiscal benefit of supporting the club. Attending away games and purchasing those tickets from the Bulls also contributes to their coffers (are you keeping up?) Not living in Bradford means all my games are ‘away games’ – does that need further explanation? Season’s greetings –why not try Sage and Onion this year! Sheffieldbull

11:20am Mon 9 Dec 13

Nick Harrison says...

fedupwiththeBS wrote:
Nick Harrison wrote: I wish people could tell the truth. How can the Bulls have undisclosed secured loans? They have no assets to secure them against. It is impossible! If there was a loan against book debt and buisness and goodwill it would be a debenture. Any debenture etc would show on any company search and is a public record. It does not need to be ina an annual return either. OK may be, in trerms of business, a complete $hit, but he did what NO ONE else would do and he saved the Bulls. People with short memories should re-look at the previous situation. Only a couple of rescue packages were received over a very long period of time and only one of them actually complied with the stipulations of the RL. Without him there would be no Bulls, that bit is simple. Lets cut the cr*p and support our team. At peresent there is no income, it is the closed season after all. Bums on seats, buying a pie and a pint... bring in the revenue through the turnstiles. Once the world sees the support that our Bulls have, full terraces and a strong fan base there could well be more investment. If I had the money and I read these blogs I wouldnt go near the place. As it stands we need to support our team and get behind them rather thatn speculate, second guess and pretend that we know how to run a business - how many on here have actualy done it?!
OK was not the only one ready to :save' the club as you put it although your definition of save may need reviewing. Bradford City, Park Avenue and ABC Group all had bids in for the club along with OK. He was awarded the club because he waived the sky money and the RFL mistakenly believed that having the ex minister for Sport involved in RL would be a good idea. Until the debt and other issues are resolved, including who actually owns the club it would seem; no one is going to invest in our once great club. We do not have a strong fan base anymore as last season's gate figures show. We have been lied to, mainly through articles published in the T&A so there is a lot of anger amongst the fans who have paid good money for season tickets on the back of BS about what a healthy state the club was in. The blame also must be laid at the feet of the RFL who have helped create this mess and have let it stumble along until we have reached this crisis.
All other offers were conditional. The RL repeated many many times that any bid must be unconditional. ABC Group was so sound that they could not afford the gift of money that they promised would still come even after they withdrew. They refused point blank to remove stipulations and conditions despite being told at every juncture that their bid would fail. Park Avenue?? don't be daft, as for City, there was a possibility, do you want to move to Valley Parade?

As for the fan base, it is still stronger thatn the likes of Huddersfield and many others. It is not as it was but that is indicative of RL generally not just the Bulls, though admittedly the current mess does not help.
[quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Harrison[/bold] wrote: I wish people could tell the truth. How can the Bulls have undisclosed secured loans? They have no assets to secure them against. It is impossible! If there was a loan against book debt and buisness and goodwill it would be a debenture. Any debenture etc would show on any company search and is a public record. It does not need to be ina an annual return either. OK may be, in trerms of business, a complete $hit, but he did what NO ONE else would do and he saved the Bulls. People with short memories should re-look at the previous situation. Only a couple of rescue packages were received over a very long period of time and only one of them actually complied with the stipulations of the RL. Without him there would be no Bulls, that bit is simple. Lets cut the cr*p and support our team. At peresent there is no income, it is the closed season after all. Bums on seats, buying a pie and a pint... bring in the revenue through the turnstiles. Once the world sees the support that our Bulls have, full terraces and a strong fan base there could well be more investment. If I had the money and I read these blogs I wouldnt go near the place. As it stands we need to support our team and get behind them rather thatn speculate, second guess and pretend that we know how to run a business - how many on here have actualy done it?![/p][/quote]OK was not the only one ready to :save' the club as you put it although your definition of save may need reviewing. Bradford City, Park Avenue and ABC Group all had bids in for the club along with OK. He was awarded the club because he waived the sky money and the RFL mistakenly believed that having the ex minister for Sport involved in RL would be a good idea. Until the debt and other issues are resolved, including who actually owns the club it would seem; no one is going to invest in our once great club. We do not have a strong fan base anymore as last season's gate figures show. We have been lied to, mainly through articles published in the T&A so there is a lot of anger amongst the fans who have paid good money for season tickets on the back of BS about what a healthy state the club was in. The blame also must be laid at the feet of the RFL who have helped create this mess and have let it stumble along until we have reached this crisis.[/p][/quote]All other offers were conditional. The RL repeated many many times that any bid must be unconditional. ABC Group was so sound that they could not afford the gift of money that they promised would still come even after they withdrew. They refused point blank to remove stipulations and conditions despite being told at every juncture that their bid would fail. Park Avenue?? don't be daft, as for City, there was a possibility, do you want to move to Valley Parade? As for the fan base, it is still stronger thatn the likes of Huddersfield and many others. It is not as it was but that is indicative of RL generally not just the Bulls, though admittedly the current mess does not help. Nick Harrison

11:27am Mon 9 Dec 13

Bacon Bantam says...

Time to open up the books and show once and for all who is telling the truth and who is lying.

Get the auditors in so people can make up their own minds.
Time to open up the books and show once and for all who is telling the truth and who is lying. Get the auditors in so people can make up their own minds. Bacon Bantam

11:40am Mon 9 Dec 13

vikksy says...

Why are the RFL not taking some of the blame
Why are the RFL not taking some of the blame vikksy

11:46am Mon 9 Dec 13

Sheffieldbull says...

vikksy wrote:
Why are the RFL not taking some of the blame
Very fair question!
[quote][p][bold]vikksy[/bold] wrote: Why are the RFL not taking some of the blame[/p][/quote]Very fair question! Sheffieldbull

12:06pm Mon 9 Dec 13

raisemeup says...

vikksy wrote:
Why are the RFL not taking some of the blame
In a way you are right, the fact that they ratified the two directors after a due diligence process (supposedly) then once we began the movement forward to getting further investors or directors on board, they come up with the not a "Fit and Proper Person" situation...which has ultimately caused this particular debacle to surface.
Obviously it's difficult to say what's right or wrong, but the result of either scenario is plain to see.
[quote][p][bold]vikksy[/bold] wrote: Why are the RFL not taking some of the blame[/p][/quote]In a way you are right, the fact that they ratified the two directors after a due diligence process (supposedly) then once we began the movement forward to getting further investors or directors on board, they come up with the not a "Fit and Proper Person" situation...which has ultimately caused this particular debacle to surface. Obviously it's difficult to say what's right or wrong, but the result of either scenario is plain to see. raisemeup

12:09pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Thee Voice of Reason says...

vikksy wrote:
Why are the RFL not taking some of the blame
Why?

They were given budgets that were not kept to and none of the directors of the time failed the fit and proper test. Not sure what more could have been done. Other option was to not grant them a licence.

Re the central monies these shortfalls were known well in advance and should have been budgetted to. If debt of 1.2m was ran up then the central funding would not have been enough to cover the deficit anyhow. The spending was well over and above that.
[quote][p][bold]vikksy[/bold] wrote: Why are the RFL not taking some of the blame[/p][/quote]Why? They were given budgets that were not kept to and none of the directors of the time failed the fit and proper test. Not sure what more could have been done. Other option was to not grant them a licence. Re the central monies these shortfalls were known well in advance and should have been budgetted to. If debt of 1.2m was ran up then the central funding would not have been enough to cover the deficit anyhow. The spending was well over and above that. Thee Voice of Reason

12:11pm Mon 9 Dec 13

rogerthat! says...

raisemeup wrote:
vikksy wrote:
Why are the RFL not taking some of the blame
In a way you are right, the fact that they ratified the two directors after a due diligence process (supposedly) then once we began the movement forward to getting further investors or directors on board, they come up with the not a "Fit and Proper Person" situation...which has ultimately caused this particular debacle to surface.
Obviously it's difficult to say what's right or wrong, but the result of either scenario is plain to see.
It has become very boring a different crisis every day.
Who is running the Show, is Omar still the owner?
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vikksy[/bold] wrote: Why are the RFL not taking some of the blame[/p][/quote]In a way you are right, the fact that they ratified the two directors after a due diligence process (supposedly) then once we began the movement forward to getting further investors or directors on board, they come up with the not a "Fit and Proper Person" situation...which has ultimately caused this particular debacle to surface. Obviously it's difficult to say what's right or wrong, but the result of either scenario is plain to see.[/p][/quote]It has become very boring a different crisis every day. Who is running the Show, is Omar still the owner? rogerthat!

12:15pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

rogerthat! wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
vikksy wrote:
Why are the RFL not taking some of the blame
In a way you are right, the fact that they ratified the two directors after a due diligence process (supposedly) then once we began the movement forward to getting further investors or directors on board, they come up with the not a "Fit and Proper Person" situation...which has ultimately caused this particular debacle to surface.
Obviously it's difficult to say what's right or wrong, but the result of either scenario is plain to see.
It has become very boring a different crisis every day.
Who is running the Show, is Omar still the owner?
At present it would appear so.
[quote][p][bold]rogerthat![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vikksy[/bold] wrote: Why are the RFL not taking some of the blame[/p][/quote]In a way you are right, the fact that they ratified the two directors after a due diligence process (supposedly) then once we began the movement forward to getting further investors or directors on board, they come up with the not a "Fit and Proper Person" situation...which has ultimately caused this particular debacle to surface. Obviously it's difficult to say what's right or wrong, but the result of either scenario is plain to see.[/p][/quote]It has become very boring a different crisis every day. Who is running the Show, is Omar still the owner?[/p][/quote]At present it would appear so. Prisoner Cell Block A

12:18pm Mon 9 Dec 13

raisemeup says...

Papa Smurfs Wig wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Little confused here.
Whitcut owes Khan for the purchase, but the RFL refused to sanction Whitcuts takeover.
So I'm guessing Whitcut is nothing to do with the bulls anymore so why would he owe for a purchase that the RFL have refused.
Lots of things don't add up here and the fact the annual return hasn't been filed means you can't accurately check who the current shareholders are.
I was thinking the same Voice, Whitcut hasn't bought anything so he's out and the rest haven't paid up so OK still owns as they have defaulted on him. but the club are like a hot potato and nobody wants it.

As mentioned about the council loan, who owns it and did the council get a guarantee?

It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment.
Reference what you say PSW about my strangeness:

Quote:
It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment.
Unquote:

I agree entirely, but what I disagree with is all the speculation as to who said what and when and to whom, without any of us (including the strange one, I have difficulty living with me some of the time.) knowing the actual truth.
Whilst it's a good thing to blow of steam, don't you think we have a responsibility to not judge individual people as being in the wrong, and worse still slander and castigate them.
Obviously many of the questions raised are a great concern to all Bradford supporters, we want our club to survive and prosper!
That is my strange viewpoint anyway....
[quote][p][bold]Papa Smurfs Wig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Little confused here. Whitcut owes Khan for the purchase, but the RFL refused to sanction Whitcuts takeover. So I'm guessing Whitcut is nothing to do with the bulls anymore so why would he owe for a purchase that the RFL have refused. Lots of things don't add up here and the fact the annual return hasn't been filed means you can't accurately check who the current shareholders are.[/p][/quote]I was thinking the same Voice, Whitcut hasn't bought anything so he's out and the rest haven't paid up so OK still owns as they have defaulted on him. but the club are like a hot potato and nobody wants it. As mentioned about the council loan, who owns it and did the council get a guarantee? It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment.[/p][/quote]Reference what you say PSW about my strangeness: Quote: It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment. Unquote: I agree entirely, but what I disagree with is all the speculation as to who said what and when and to whom, without any of us (including the strange one, I have difficulty living with me some of the time.) knowing the actual truth. Whilst it's a good thing to blow of steam, don't you think we have a responsibility to not judge individual people as being in the wrong, and worse still slander and castigate them. Obviously many of the questions raised are a great concern to all Bradford supporters, we want our club to survive and prosper! That is my strange viewpoint anyway.... raisemeup

12:32pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Loyalbull1981 says...

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
rogerthat! wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
vikksy wrote:
Why are the RFL not taking some of the blame
In a way you are right, the fact that they ratified the two directors after a due diligence process (supposedly) then once we began the movement forward to getting further investors or directors on board, they come up with the not a "Fit and Proper Person" situation...which has ultimately caused this particular debacle to surface.
Obviously it's difficult to say what's right or wrong, but the result of either scenario is plain to see.
It has become very boring a different crisis every day.
Who is running the Show, is Omar still the owner?
At present it would appear so.
its all a bit of 'they said' 'he said' mud slinging and everyone professing to be being honest so its down to whoe people want to believe really. just take everythig any of them say as only half true and you wont go far wrong haa
[quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rogerthat![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vikksy[/bold] wrote: Why are the RFL not taking some of the blame[/p][/quote]In a way you are right, the fact that they ratified the two directors after a due diligence process (supposedly) then once we began the movement forward to getting further investors or directors on board, they come up with the not a "Fit and Proper Person" situation...which has ultimately caused this particular debacle to surface. Obviously it's difficult to say what's right or wrong, but the result of either scenario is plain to see.[/p][/quote]It has become very boring a different crisis every day. Who is running the Show, is Omar still the owner?[/p][/quote]At present it would appear so.[/p][/quote]its all a bit of 'they said' 'he said' mud slinging and everyone professing to be being honest so its down to whoe people want to believe really. just take everythig any of them say as only half true and you wont go far wrong haa Loyalbull1981

12:59pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Papa Smurfs Wig says...

raisemeup wrote:
Papa Smurfs Wig wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Little confused here.
Whitcut owes Khan for the purchase, but the RFL refused to sanction Whitcuts takeover.
So I'm guessing Whitcut is nothing to do with the bulls anymore so why would he owe for a purchase that the RFL have refused.
Lots of things don't add up here and the fact the annual return hasn't been filed means you can't accurately check who the current shareholders are.
I was thinking the same Voice, Whitcut hasn't bought anything so he's out and the rest haven't paid up so OK still owns as they have defaulted on him. but the club are like a hot potato and nobody wants it.

As mentioned about the council loan, who owns it and did the council get a guarantee?

It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment.
Reference what you say PSW about my strangeness:

Quote:
It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment.
Unquote:

I agree entirely, but what I disagree with is all the speculation as to who said what and when and to whom, without any of us (including the strange one, I have difficulty living with me some of the time.) knowing the actual truth.
Whilst it's a good thing to blow of steam, don't you think we have a responsibility to not judge individual people as being in the wrong, and worse still slander and castigate them.
Obviously many of the questions raised are a great concern to all Bradford supporters, we want our club to survive and prosper!
That is my strange viewpoint anyway....
Well Raiser, you have to take the rough with the smooth and this iss the time that the council can't bailout the Bulls for once.

And would the Bulls fans sooner them go under than move to Valley Parade?They slated City and the ground off to the hilt and now it might be a time of don't chaseaway those with a helping hand.
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Papa Smurfs Wig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Little confused here. Whitcut owes Khan for the purchase, but the RFL refused to sanction Whitcuts takeover. So I'm guessing Whitcut is nothing to do with the bulls anymore so why would he owe for a purchase that the RFL have refused. Lots of things don't add up here and the fact the annual return hasn't been filed means you can't accurately check who the current shareholders are.[/p][/quote]I was thinking the same Voice, Whitcut hasn't bought anything so he's out and the rest haven't paid up so OK still owns as they have defaulted on him. but the club are like a hot potato and nobody wants it. As mentioned about the council loan, who owns it and did the council get a guarantee? It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment.[/p][/quote]Reference what you say PSW about my strangeness: Quote: It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment. Unquote: I agree entirely, but what I disagree with is all the speculation as to who said what and when and to whom, without any of us (including the strange one, I have difficulty living with me some of the time.) knowing the actual truth. Whilst it's a good thing to blow of steam, don't you think we have a responsibility to not judge individual people as being in the wrong, and worse still slander and castigate them. Obviously many of the questions raised are a great concern to all Bradford supporters, we want our club to survive and prosper! That is my strange viewpoint anyway....[/p][/quote]Well Raiser, you have to take the rough with the smooth and this iss the time that the council can't bailout the Bulls for once. And would the Bulls fans sooner them go under than move to Valley Parade?They slated City and the ground off to the hilt and now it might be a time of don't chaseaway those with a helping hand. Papa Smurfs Wig

1:29pm Mon 9 Dec 13

raisemeup says...

Papa Smurfs Wig wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
Papa Smurfs Wig wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Little confused here.
Whitcut owes Khan for the purchase, but the RFL refused to sanction Whitcuts takeover.
So I'm guessing Whitcut is nothing to do with the bulls anymore so why would he owe for a purchase that the RFL have refused.
Lots of things don't add up here and the fact the annual return hasn't been filed means you can't accurately check who the current shareholders are.
I was thinking the same Voice, Whitcut hasn't bought anything so he's out and the rest haven't paid up so OK still owns as they have defaulted on him. but the club are like a hot potato and nobody wants it.

As mentioned about the council loan, who owns it and did the council get a guarantee?

It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment.
Reference what you say PSW about my strangeness:

Quote:
It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment.
Unquote:

I agree entirely, but what I disagree with is all the speculation as to who said what and when and to whom, without any of us (including the strange one, I have difficulty living with me some of the time.) knowing the actual truth.
Whilst it's a good thing to blow of steam, don't you think we have a responsibility to not judge individual people as being in the wrong, and worse still slander and castigate them.
Obviously many of the questions raised are a great concern to all Bradford supporters, we want our club to survive and prosper!
That is my strange viewpoint anyway....
Well Raiser, you have to take the rough with the smooth and this iss the time that the council can't bailout the Bulls for once.

And would the Bulls fans sooner them go under than move to Valley Parade?They slated City and the ground off to the hilt and now it might be a time of don't chaseaway those with a helping hand.
Don't remember slating off VP.
Obviously some did..
But the Stadium (when finished) was excellent with good facilities..getting there and the area, parking etc. was a different problem, plus the Bulls lost some 3000 supporters from the average., and it wasn't our home was it?

As a City fan you would not wish to play your games at Odsal (for whatever reason) would you?
Plus what you have forgotten is that the rent that City reportedly have to pay is £360k per year...whereas our rent to the RFL is, reportedly, £72K.

Frying pan to Fire comes to mind?

The helping hand may well be another tenant to help pay the rent, but that may be a wrong assessment and a bit cynical?
[quote][p][bold]Papa Smurfs Wig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Papa Smurfs Wig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Little confused here. Whitcut owes Khan for the purchase, but the RFL refused to sanction Whitcuts takeover. So I'm guessing Whitcut is nothing to do with the bulls anymore so why would he owe for a purchase that the RFL have refused. Lots of things don't add up here and the fact the annual return hasn't been filed means you can't accurately check who the current shareholders are.[/p][/quote]I was thinking the same Voice, Whitcut hasn't bought anything so he's out and the rest haven't paid up so OK still owns as they have defaulted on him. but the club are like a hot potato and nobody wants it. As mentioned about the council loan, who owns it and did the council get a guarantee? It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment.[/p][/quote]Reference what you say PSW about my strangeness: Quote: It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment. Unquote: I agree entirely, but what I disagree with is all the speculation as to who said what and when and to whom, without any of us (including the strange one, I have difficulty living with me some of the time.) knowing the actual truth. Whilst it's a good thing to blow of steam, don't you think we have a responsibility to not judge individual people as being in the wrong, and worse still slander and castigate them. Obviously many of the questions raised are a great concern to all Bradford supporters, we want our club to survive and prosper! That is my strange viewpoint anyway....[/p][/quote]Well Raiser, you have to take the rough with the smooth and this iss the time that the council can't bailout the Bulls for once. And would the Bulls fans sooner them go under than move to Valley Parade?They slated City and the ground off to the hilt and now it might be a time of don't chaseaway those with a helping hand.[/p][/quote]Don't remember slating off VP. Obviously some did.. But the Stadium (when finished) was excellent with good facilities..getting there and the area, parking etc. was a different problem, plus the Bulls lost some 3000 supporters from the average., and it wasn't our home was it? As a City fan you would not wish to play your games at Odsal (for whatever reason) would you? Plus what you have forgotten is that the rent that City reportedly have to pay is £360k per year...whereas our rent to the RFL is, reportedly, £72K. Frying pan to Fire comes to mind? The helping hand may well be another tenant to help pay the rent, but that may be a wrong assessment and a bit cynical? raisemeup

2:54pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Bacon Bantam says...

raisemeup wrote:
Papa Smurfs Wig wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
Papa Smurfs Wig wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Little confused here. Whitcut owes Khan for the purchase, but the RFL refused to sanction Whitcuts takeover. So I'm guessing Whitcut is nothing to do with the bulls anymore so why would he owe for a purchase that the RFL have refused. Lots of things don't add up here and the fact the annual return hasn't been filed means you can't accurately check who the current shareholders are.
I was thinking the same Voice, Whitcut hasn't bought anything so he's out and the rest haven't paid up so OK still owns as they have defaulted on him. but the club are like a hot potato and nobody wants it. As mentioned about the council loan, who owns it and did the council get a guarantee? It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment.
Reference what you say PSW about my strangeness: Quote: It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment. Unquote: I agree entirely, but what I disagree with is all the speculation as to who said what and when and to whom, without any of us (including the strange one, I have difficulty living with me some of the time.) knowing the actual truth. Whilst it's a good thing to blow of steam, don't you think we have a responsibility to not judge individual people as being in the wrong, and worse still slander and castigate them. Obviously many of the questions raised are a great concern to all Bradford supporters, we want our club to survive and prosper! That is my strange viewpoint anyway....
Well Raiser, you have to take the rough with the smooth and this iss the time that the council can't bailout the Bulls for once. And would the Bulls fans sooner them go under than move to Valley Parade?They slated City and the ground off to the hilt and now it might be a time of don't chaseaway those with a helping hand.
Don't remember slating off VP. Obviously some did.. But the Stadium (when finished) was excellent with good facilities..getting there and the area, parking etc. was a different problem, plus the Bulls lost some 3000 supporters from the average., and it wasn't our home was it? As a City fan you would not wish to play your games at Odsal (for whatever reason) would you? Plus what you have forgotten is that the rent that City reportedly have to pay is £360k per year...whereas our rent to the RFL is, reportedly, £72K. Frying pan to Fire comes to mind? The helping hand may well be another tenant to help pay the rent, but that may be a wrong assessment and a bit cynical?
Odsal is ok for the Bulls as Rugby League is a summer sport. I very much doubt City moving to Osdal would happen based on a number of factors. One being we need an all seater stadia based on Football League rules and can you imagine being stood up on Odsal top on a Tuesday night in January/February on an open terrace and still have 14k turning up.

Both stadia cater for their own sport. We had the chance a while back to cater for both but instead of a ground like Wigan or Huddersfield which are more than adequate, the council took over and wanted a 70k wembley of the north and due to the idiocy of the project nothing ever got done. Ideas above their station.
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Papa Smurfs Wig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Papa Smurfs Wig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Little confused here. Whitcut owes Khan for the purchase, but the RFL refused to sanction Whitcuts takeover. So I'm guessing Whitcut is nothing to do with the bulls anymore so why would he owe for a purchase that the RFL have refused. Lots of things don't add up here and the fact the annual return hasn't been filed means you can't accurately check who the current shareholders are.[/p][/quote]I was thinking the same Voice, Whitcut hasn't bought anything so he's out and the rest haven't paid up so OK still owns as they have defaulted on him. but the club are like a hot potato and nobody wants it. As mentioned about the council loan, who owns it and did the council get a guarantee? It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment.[/p][/quote]Reference what you say PSW about my strangeness: Quote: It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment. Unquote: I agree entirely, but what I disagree with is all the speculation as to who said what and when and to whom, without any of us (including the strange one, I have difficulty living with me some of the time.) knowing the actual truth. Whilst it's a good thing to blow of steam, don't you think we have a responsibility to not judge individual people as being in the wrong, and worse still slander and castigate them. Obviously many of the questions raised are a great concern to all Bradford supporters, we want our club to survive and prosper! That is my strange viewpoint anyway....[/p][/quote]Well Raiser, you have to take the rough with the smooth and this iss the time that the council can't bailout the Bulls for once. And would the Bulls fans sooner them go under than move to Valley Parade?They slated City and the ground off to the hilt and now it might be a time of don't chaseaway those with a helping hand.[/p][/quote]Don't remember slating off VP. Obviously some did.. But the Stadium (when finished) was excellent with good facilities..getting there and the area, parking etc. was a different problem, plus the Bulls lost some 3000 supporters from the average., and it wasn't our home was it? As a City fan you would not wish to play your games at Odsal (for whatever reason) would you? Plus what you have forgotten is that the rent that City reportedly have to pay is £360k per year...whereas our rent to the RFL is, reportedly, £72K. Frying pan to Fire comes to mind? The helping hand may well be another tenant to help pay the rent, but that may be a wrong assessment and a bit cynical?[/p][/quote]Odsal is ok for the Bulls as Rugby League is a summer sport. I very much doubt City moving to Osdal would happen based on a number of factors. One being we need an all seater stadia based on Football League rules and can you imagine being stood up on Odsal top on a Tuesday night in January/February on an open terrace and still have 14k turning up. Both stadia cater for their own sport. We had the chance a while back to cater for both but instead of a ground like Wigan or Huddersfield which are more than adequate, the council took over and wanted a 70k wembley of the north and due to the idiocy of the project nothing ever got done. Ideas above their station. Bacon Bantam

3:15pm Mon 9 Dec 13

raisemeup says...

Bacon Bantam wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
Papa Smurfs Wig wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
Papa Smurfs Wig wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: Little confused here. Whitcut owes Khan for the purchase, but the RFL refused to sanction Whitcuts takeover. So I'm guessing Whitcut is nothing to do with the bulls anymore so why would he owe for a purchase that the RFL have refused. Lots of things don't add up here and the fact the annual return hasn't been filed means you can't accurately check who the current shareholders are.
I was thinking the same Voice, Whitcut hasn't bought anything so he's out and the rest haven't paid up so OK still owns as they have defaulted on him. but the club are like a hot potato and nobody wants it. As mentioned about the council loan, who owns it and did the council get a guarantee? It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment.
Reference what you say PSW about my strangeness: Quote: It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment. Unquote: I agree entirely, but what I disagree with is all the speculation as to who said what and when and to whom, without any of us (including the strange one, I have difficulty living with me some of the time.) knowing the actual truth. Whilst it's a good thing to blow of steam, don't you think we have a responsibility to not judge individual people as being in the wrong, and worse still slander and castigate them. Obviously many of the questions raised are a great concern to all Bradford supporters, we want our club to survive and prosper! That is my strange viewpoint anyway....
Well Raiser, you have to take the rough with the smooth and this iss the time that the council can't bailout the Bulls for once. And would the Bulls fans sooner them go under than move to Valley Parade?They slated City and the ground off to the hilt and now it might be a time of don't chaseaway those with a helping hand.
Don't remember slating off VP. Obviously some did.. But the Stadium (when finished) was excellent with good facilities..getting there and the area, parking etc. was a different problem, plus the Bulls lost some 3000 supporters from the average., and it wasn't our home was it? As a City fan you would not wish to play your games at Odsal (for whatever reason) would you? Plus what you have forgotten is that the rent that City reportedly have to pay is £360k per year...whereas our rent to the RFL is, reportedly, £72K. Frying pan to Fire comes to mind? The helping hand may well be another tenant to help pay the rent, but that may be a wrong assessment and a bit cynical?
Odsal is ok for the Bulls as Rugby League is a summer sport. I very much doubt City moving to Osdal would happen based on a number of factors. One being we need an all seater stadia based on Football League rules and can you imagine being stood up on Odsal top on a Tuesday night in January/February on an open terrace and still have 14k turning up.

Both stadia cater for their own sport. We had the chance a while back to cater for both but instead of a ground like Wigan or Huddersfield which are more than adequate, the council took over and wanted a 70k wembley of the north and due to the idiocy of the project nothing ever got done. Ideas above their station.
Agreed, short sightedness and over ambition seems to have been the order of the day over many years. As always it's the people who have to try make sense of it all!
[quote][p][bold]Bacon Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Papa Smurfs Wig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Papa Smurfs Wig[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Little confused here. Whitcut owes Khan for the purchase, but the RFL refused to sanction Whitcuts takeover. So I'm guessing Whitcut is nothing to do with the bulls anymore so why would he owe for a purchase that the RFL have refused. Lots of things don't add up here and the fact the annual return hasn't been filed means you can't accurately check who the current shareholders are.[/p][/quote]I was thinking the same Voice, Whitcut hasn't bought anything so he's out and the rest haven't paid up so OK still owns as they have defaulted on him. but the club are like a hot potato and nobody wants it. As mentioned about the council loan, who owns it and did the council get a guarantee? It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment.[/p][/quote]Reference what you say PSW about my strangeness: Quote: It is strange with you Raisemeup, this is a public forum and as a local ratepayer I want to know what is happening. The money was said to be 'safe' and it seems far from that at the moment. Unquote: I agree entirely, but what I disagree with is all the speculation as to who said what and when and to whom, without any of us (including the strange one, I have difficulty living with me some of the time.) knowing the actual truth. Whilst it's a good thing to blow of steam, don't you think we have a responsibility to not judge individual people as being in the wrong, and worse still slander and castigate them. Obviously many of the questions raised are a great concern to all Bradford supporters, we want our club to survive and prosper! That is my strange viewpoint anyway....[/p][/quote]Well Raiser, you have to take the rough with the smooth and this iss the time that the council can't bailout the Bulls for once. And would the Bulls fans sooner them go under than move to Valley Parade?They slated City and the ground off to the hilt and now it might be a time of don't chaseaway those with a helping hand.[/p][/quote]Don't remember slating off VP. Obviously some did.. But the Stadium (when finished) was excellent with good facilities..getting there and the area, parking etc. was a different problem, plus the Bulls lost some 3000 supporters from the average., and it wasn't our home was it? As a City fan you would not wish to play your games at Odsal (for whatever reason) would you? Plus what you have forgotten is that the rent that City reportedly have to pay is £360k per year...whereas our rent to the RFL is, reportedly, £72K. Frying pan to Fire comes to mind? The helping hand may well be another tenant to help pay the rent, but that may be a wrong assessment and a bit cynical?[/p][/quote]Odsal is ok for the Bulls as Rugby League is a summer sport. I very much doubt City moving to Osdal would happen based on a number of factors. One being we need an all seater stadia based on Football League rules and can you imagine being stood up on Odsal top on a Tuesday night in January/February on an open terrace and still have 14k turning up. Both stadia cater for their own sport. We had the chance a while back to cater for both but instead of a ground like Wigan or Huddersfield which are more than adequate, the council took over and wanted a 70k wembley of the north and due to the idiocy of the project nothing ever got done. Ideas above their station.[/p][/quote]Agreed, short sightedness and over ambition seems to have been the order of the day over many years. As always it's the people who have to try make sense of it all! raisemeup

4:23pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Loyalbull1981 wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
rogerthat! wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
vikksy wrote:
Why are the RFL not taking some of the blame
In a way you are right, the fact that they ratified the two directors after a due diligence process (supposedly) then once we began the movement forward to getting further investors or directors on board, they come up with the not a "Fit and Proper Person" situation...which has ultimately caused this particular debacle to surface.
Obviously it's difficult to say what's right or wrong, but the result of either scenario is plain to see.
It has become very boring a different crisis every day.
Who is running the Show, is Omar still the owner?
At present it would appear so.
its all a bit of 'they said' 'he said' mud slinging and everyone professing to be being honest so its down to whoe people want to believe really. just take everythig any of them say as only half true and you wont go far wrong haa
I'd go further and say believe none of it until it is fully disclosed.

Not just with The Bulls but if you read the Bantams pages over the last week the same smoke and mirrors tactic is being applied.

Businessmen and politicians rarely tell the truth unless there is no alternative.

Sports fans are amongst the loyal and fervent type of person you could get yet we are treated like idiots. Instead of being revered as the lifeblood of our respective clubs.
[quote][p][bold]Loyalbull1981[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rogerthat![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vikksy[/bold] wrote: Why are the RFL not taking some of the blame[/p][/quote]In a way you are right, the fact that they ratified the two directors after a due diligence process (supposedly) then once we began the movement forward to getting further investors or directors on board, they come up with the not a "Fit and Proper Person" situation...which has ultimately caused this particular debacle to surface. Obviously it's difficult to say what's right or wrong, but the result of either scenario is plain to see.[/p][/quote]It has become very boring a different crisis every day. Who is running the Show, is Omar still the owner?[/p][/quote]At present it would appear so.[/p][/quote]its all a bit of 'they said' 'he said' mud slinging and everyone professing to be being honest so its down to whoe people want to believe really. just take everythig any of them say as only half true and you wont go far wrong haa[/p][/quote]I'd go further and say believe none of it until it is fully disclosed. Not just with The Bulls but if you read the Bantams pages over the last week the same smoke and mirrors tactic is being applied. Businessmen and politicians rarely tell the truth unless there is no alternative. Sports fans are amongst the loyal and fervent type of person you could get yet we are treated like idiots. Instead of being revered as the lifeblood of our respective clubs. Prisoner Cell Block A

5:04pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Pablo says...

raisemeup wrote:
Most of the posters so far are NOT Bulls supporters, and are in the case of Pablo,Tiny Toonster,Crusader20 the usual anonymous trolls who have this vindictive and spiteful approach to everything and everybody. The fact that they are allowed to spout the spiteful reposts with anonymity is an abuse of the systems that seem to infect social media sites.

No one can know what transpired, so they blacken and libel people who they can't know in the knowledge that they cannot be named, due to data protection, which is totally abused by their inanity. Puke rending is not the word!

PS Don't discuss the £650k we had to forego, clearly you know nothing about the effect this has had on the supporters of the club, this was taken from them by an organisation that should have attempted to protect our game as a whole, not penalise individuals.
We're expressing an opinion, rosehip, which is the purpose of this forum.

You sound like you've had a bad day. Try and get a good night's sleep and, hopefully, you'll be in a better mood tomorrow.

It's hard being a Bulls fan, but try not to let it affect your personal life.
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: Most of the posters so far are NOT Bulls supporters, and are in the case of Pablo,Tiny Toonster,Crusader20 the usual anonymous trolls who have this vindictive and spiteful approach to everything and everybody. The fact that they are allowed to spout the spiteful reposts with anonymity is an abuse of the systems that seem to infect social media sites. No one can know what transpired, so they blacken and libel people who they can't know in the knowledge that they cannot be named, due to data protection, which is totally abused by their inanity. Puke rending is not the word! PS Don't discuss the £650k we had to forego, clearly you know nothing about the effect this has had on the supporters of the club, this was taken from them by an organisation that should have attempted to protect our game as a whole, not penalise individuals.[/p][/quote]We're expressing an opinion, rosehip, which is the purpose of this forum. You sound like you've had a bad day. Try and get a good night's sleep and, hopefully, you'll be in a better mood tomorrow. It's hard being a Bulls fan, but try not to let it affect your personal life. Pablo

7:32pm Mon 9 Dec 13

raisemeup says...

Pablo wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
Most of the posters so far are NOT Bulls supporters, and are in the case of Pablo,Tiny Toonster,Crusader20 the usual anonymous trolls who have this vindictive and spiteful approach to everything and everybody. The fact that they are allowed to spout the spiteful reposts with anonymity is an abuse of the systems that seem to infect social media sites.

No one can know what transpired, so they blacken and libel people who they can't know in the knowledge that they cannot be named, due to data protection, which is totally abused by their inanity. Puke rending is not the word!

PS Don't discuss the £650k we had to forego, clearly you know nothing about the effect this has had on the supporters of the club, this was taken from them by an organisation that should have attempted to protect our game as a whole, not penalise individuals.
We're expressing an opinion, rosehip, which is the purpose of this forum.

You sound like you've had a bad day. Try and get a good night's sleep and, hopefully, you'll be in a better mood tomorrow.

It's hard being a Bulls fan, but try not to let it affect your personal life.
You were right on the button there, mate it was worse than bad.
Had to take it out of someone, the Dog left home years ago!
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: Most of the posters so far are NOT Bulls supporters, and are in the case of Pablo,Tiny Toonster,Crusader20 the usual anonymous trolls who have this vindictive and spiteful approach to everything and everybody. The fact that they are allowed to spout the spiteful reposts with anonymity is an abuse of the systems that seem to infect social media sites. No one can know what transpired, so they blacken and libel people who they can't know in the knowledge that they cannot be named, due to data protection, which is totally abused by their inanity. Puke rending is not the word! PS Don't discuss the £650k we had to forego, clearly you know nothing about the effect this has had on the supporters of the club, this was taken from them by an organisation that should have attempted to protect our game as a whole, not penalise individuals.[/p][/quote]We're expressing an opinion, rosehip, which is the purpose of this forum. You sound like you've had a bad day. Try and get a good night's sleep and, hopefully, you'll be in a better mood tomorrow. It's hard being a Bulls fan, but try not to let it affect your personal life.[/p][/quote]You were right on the button there, mate it was worse than bad. Had to take it out of someone, the Dog left home years ago! raisemeup

7:32pm Mon 9 Dec 13

raisemeup says...

Pablo wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
Most of the posters so far are NOT Bulls supporters, and are in the case of Pablo,Tiny Toonster,Crusader20 the usual anonymous trolls who have this vindictive and spiteful approach to everything and everybody. The fact that they are allowed to spout the spiteful reposts with anonymity is an abuse of the systems that seem to infect social media sites.

No one can know what transpired, so they blacken and libel people who they can't know in the knowledge that they cannot be named, due to data protection, which is totally abused by their inanity. Puke rending is not the word!

PS Don't discuss the £650k we had to forego, clearly you know nothing about the effect this has had on the supporters of the club, this was taken from them by an organisation that should have attempted to protect our game as a whole, not penalise individuals.
We're expressing an opinion, rosehip, which is the purpose of this forum.

You sound like you've had a bad day. Try and get a good night's sleep and, hopefully, you'll be in a better mood tomorrow.

It's hard being a Bulls fan, but try not to let it affect your personal life.
You were right on the button there, mate it was worse than bad.
Had to take it out of someone, the Dog left home years ago!
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: Most of the posters so far are NOT Bulls supporters, and are in the case of Pablo,Tiny Toonster,Crusader20 the usual anonymous trolls who have this vindictive and spiteful approach to everything and everybody. The fact that they are allowed to spout the spiteful reposts with anonymity is an abuse of the systems that seem to infect social media sites. No one can know what transpired, so they blacken and libel people who they can't know in the knowledge that they cannot be named, due to data protection, which is totally abused by their inanity. Puke rending is not the word! PS Don't discuss the £650k we had to forego, clearly you know nothing about the effect this has had on the supporters of the club, this was taken from them by an organisation that should have attempted to protect our game as a whole, not penalise individuals.[/p][/quote]We're expressing an opinion, rosehip, which is the purpose of this forum. You sound like you've had a bad day. Try and get a good night's sleep and, hopefully, you'll be in a better mood tomorrow. It's hard being a Bulls fan, but try not to let it affect your personal life.[/p][/quote]You were right on the button there, mate it was worse than bad. Had to take it out of someone, the Dog left home years ago! raisemeup

7:53pm Mon 9 Dec 13

handoff says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Little confused here.
Whitcut owes Khan for the purchase, but the RFL refused to sanction Whitcuts takeover.
So I'm guessing Whitcut is nothing to do with the bulls anymore so why would he owe for a purchase that the RFL have refused.
Lots of things don't add up here and the fact the annual return hasn't been filed means you can't accurately check who the current shareholders are.
You are right, there is more behind this than is evident to the casual observer. The hub of the problem here is Whitcut, as you might surmise from his status as not fit and proper to be a director.
You may think that the amount of money paid into the club by Omar was less than reported, and not surprised that some of the items paid for by the club did not have any bearing on running a sporting club, but I couldn't possibly comment.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Little confused here. Whitcut owes Khan for the purchase, but the RFL refused to sanction Whitcuts takeover. So I'm guessing Whitcut is nothing to do with the bulls anymore so why would he owe for a purchase that the RFL have refused. Lots of things don't add up here and the fact the annual return hasn't been filed means you can't accurately check who the current shareholders are.[/p][/quote]You are right, there is more behind this than is evident to the casual observer. The hub of the problem here is Whitcut, as you might surmise from his status as not fit and proper to be a director. You may think that the amount of money paid into the club by Omar was less than reported, and not surprised that some of the items paid for by the club did not have any bearing on running a sporting club, but I couldn't possibly comment. handoff

7:55pm Mon 9 Dec 13

handoff says...

bradfordbronco wrote:
When the new owners talk about Loans that were taken out against the club. It looks like these were just the monies that Omar put in and now he wants back. I can't see any banks lending the club any money so it must be that Omar wants £400,000 back of the £1m he put in. Think if Whitcut had stayed Omar thought he would get it back eventually but once Whitcut left he doubted the new owners would ever pay him back and this seems to have led to the new problems of last week. Not quite sure how these new guys manage to "buy" the club when they dont seem to have put any money in. If only we had a Koukash or Davy or Caddick or Pearson or Lenegan or even Hughes. We could then just concentrate on playing matters
Wrong on almost every count.
[quote][p][bold]bradfordbronco[/bold] wrote: When the new owners talk about Loans that were taken out against the club. It looks like these were just the monies that Omar put in and now he wants back. I can't see any banks lending the club any money so it must be that Omar wants £400,000 back of the £1m he put in. Think if Whitcut had stayed Omar thought he would get it back eventually but once Whitcut left he doubted the new owners would ever pay him back and this seems to have led to the new problems of last week. Not quite sure how these new guys manage to "buy" the club when they dont seem to have put any money in. If only we had a Koukash or Davy or Caddick or Pearson or Lenegan or even Hughes. We could then just concentrate on playing matters[/p][/quote]Wrong on almost every count. handoff

9:01pm Mon 9 Dec 13

Alhaurinrhino says...

raisemeup wrote:
Most of the posters so far are NOT Bulls supporters, and are in the case of Pablo,Tiny Toonster,Crusader20 the usual anonymous trolls who have this vindictive and spiteful approach to everything and everybody. The fact that they are allowed to spout the spiteful reposts with anonymity is an abuse of the systems that seem to infect social media sites.

No one can know what transpired, so they blacken and libel people who they can't know in the knowledge that they cannot be named, due to data protection, which is totally abused by their inanity. Puke rending is not the word!

PS Don't discuss the £650k we had to forego, clearly you know nothing about the effect this has had on the supporters of the club, this was taken from them by an organisation that should have attempted to protect our game as a whole, not penalise individuals.
Shut it Brian, you massive fanny.

Just because you are willing to swallow the club official bull***t doesn't mean anyone who differs in opinion is a troll.

You and your cowardly posse are a standing joke, mumbly, sheffdull, viking and steampig are ridiculous in your backing of the shysters who are running your small club nowadays.

When is this rag going to do some proper investigative journalism and look into the close relationship of certain Labour people and the finances of the club.
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: Most of the posters so far are NOT Bulls supporters, and are in the case of Pablo,Tiny Toonster,Crusader20 the usual anonymous trolls who have this vindictive and spiteful approach to everything and everybody. The fact that they are allowed to spout the spiteful reposts with anonymity is an abuse of the systems that seem to infect social media sites. No one can know what transpired, so they blacken and libel people who they can't know in the knowledge that they cannot be named, due to data protection, which is totally abused by their inanity. Puke rending is not the word! PS Don't discuss the £650k we had to forego, clearly you know nothing about the effect this has had on the supporters of the club, this was taken from them by an organisation that should have attempted to protect our game as a whole, not penalise individuals.[/p][/quote]Shut it Brian, you massive fanny. Just because you are willing to swallow the club official bull***t doesn't mean anyone who differs in opinion is a troll. You and your cowardly posse are a standing joke, mumbly, sheffdull, viking and steampig are ridiculous in your backing of the shysters who are running your small club nowadays. When is this rag going to do some proper investigative journalism and look into the close relationship of certain Labour people and the finances of the club. Alhaurinrhino

10:38pm Mon 9 Dec 13

bradfordbronco says...

handoff wrote:
bradfordbronco wrote:
When the new owners talk about Loans that were taken out against the club. It looks like these were just the monies that Omar put in and now he wants back. I can't see any banks lending the club any money so it must be that Omar wants £400,000 back of the £1m he put in. Think if Whitcut had stayed Omar thought he would get it back eventually but once Whitcut left he doubted the new owners would ever pay him back and this seems to have led to the new problems of last week. Not quite sure how these new guys manage to "buy" the club when they dont seem to have put any money in. If only we had a Koukash or Davy or Caddick or Pearson or Lenegan or even Hughes. We could then just concentrate on playing matters
Wrong on almost every count.
Handoff. Do you care to expand on your reasons for stating "I'm wrong on almost every count" or is that the full extent to your argument? Nobody really knows what going on{some may claim to] but I'm willing to hear any arguments you may put forward,
[quote][p][bold]handoff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bradfordbronco[/bold] wrote: When the new owners talk about Loans that were taken out against the club. It looks like these were just the monies that Omar put in and now he wants back. I can't see any banks lending the club any money so it must be that Omar wants £400,000 back of the £1m he put in. Think if Whitcut had stayed Omar thought he would get it back eventually but once Whitcut left he doubted the new owners would ever pay him back and this seems to have led to the new problems of last week. Not quite sure how these new guys manage to "buy" the club when they dont seem to have put any money in. If only we had a Koukash or Davy or Caddick or Pearson or Lenegan or even Hughes. We could then just concentrate on playing matters[/p][/quote]Wrong on almost every count.[/p][/quote]Handoff. Do you care to expand on your reasons for stating "I'm wrong on almost every count" or is that the full extent to your argument? Nobody really knows what going on{some may claim to] but I'm willing to hear any arguments you may put forward, bradfordbronco

6:47pm Tue 10 Dec 13

BierleyBoy says...

Omar Khan paid £225k to buy the entire asset stock at Odsal, valued at £3.3m by P7A Partnership who handled the liquidation of Bradford Bulls Holdings.

He paid £150 up front & a charge was placed on OK Bulls Ltd in Sept 2012 for the remaining £75k. This charge was satisfied before Khan left.

Following the purchase Bradford Council loaned OK Bulls Ltd £200k. This loan was guaranteed by an unnamed individual. Given that Omar Khan was the sole shareholder & director at the time, it's safe to assume he is the guarantor.

Further to this, a charge was taken out on all assets at Odsal by Barclays Bank, the clubs bankers, for a large loan. This was satisfied before Omar Khan left.

Despite the fact Omar Khan is no longer a director or shareholder in OK Bulls ltd, the loan has not been called in by Bradford Council. Even in the face of serious financial difficulties that have again arisen, the council is not calling the loan in.

Quite how OK Bulls Ltd is in such a mess after starting with a blank canvas, taking revenue from £6,5k full price season tickets, record shirt sponsorship, Sky money, merchandise sales and all other revenue streams beggars belief.

It is reported Omar Khan put in £1m of his own money to plug a financial hole. I think this is a fabrication by those making the claim.

OK Bulls has not filed any accounts or annual returns.

Just 4 days after Omar Khan left OK Bulls Ltd, a charge was taken out against OK Bulls Ltd by a Leeds company called Safeguard Security Group. This was handled by Platinum Partnership solicitors in Bradford.

Omar Khan is well known to the solicitors concerned, and to Nasreen Karim who handled the deal.

Omar Khan says he is taking action against Ryan Whitcut. This is a man who has been by his side for around 20 years in many business dealings.

To me, this is a suspicious situation, given that Omar Khan appointed Whitcut to his role & oversaw all that he did.

Needless to say the involvement of so many Labour politicians in this sorry affair, from granting the loan to a Labour MP funder, to Sutcliffe, Swales & Greenwood joining & leaving as directors in the space of five months suggest some very dubious practices have taken place.

David green needs to pro to council & political involvement. So does Sutcliffe and the Director of Finance at Bradford Council.

Get our money back now!!
.
Omar Khan paid £225k to buy the entire asset stock at Odsal, valued at £3.3m by P7A Partnership who handled the liquidation of Bradford Bulls Holdings. He paid £150 up front & a charge was placed on OK Bulls Ltd in Sept 2012 for the remaining £75k. This charge was satisfied before Khan left. Following the purchase Bradford Council loaned OK Bulls Ltd £200k. This loan was guaranteed by an unnamed individual. Given that Omar Khan was the sole shareholder & director at the time, it's safe to assume he is the guarantor. Further to this, a charge was taken out on all assets at Odsal by Barclays Bank, the clubs bankers, for a large loan. This was satisfied before Omar Khan left. Despite the fact Omar Khan is no longer a director or shareholder in OK Bulls ltd, the loan has not been called in by Bradford Council. Even in the face of serious financial difficulties that have again arisen, the council is not calling the loan in. Quite how OK Bulls Ltd is in such a mess after starting with a blank canvas, taking revenue from £6,5k full price season tickets, record shirt sponsorship, Sky money, merchandise sales and all other revenue streams beggars belief. It is reported Omar Khan put in £1m of his own money to plug a financial hole. I think this is a fabrication by those making the claim. OK Bulls has not filed any accounts or annual returns. Just 4 days after Omar Khan left OK Bulls Ltd, a charge was taken out against OK Bulls Ltd by a Leeds company called Safeguard Security Group. This was handled by Platinum Partnership solicitors in Bradford. Omar Khan is well known to the solicitors concerned, and to Nasreen Karim who handled the deal. Omar Khan says he is taking action against Ryan Whitcut. This is a man who has been by his side for around 20 years in many business dealings. To me, this is a suspicious situation, given that Omar Khan appointed Whitcut to his role & oversaw all that he did. Needless to say the involvement of so many Labour politicians in this sorry affair, from granting the loan to a Labour MP funder, to Sutcliffe, Swales & Greenwood joining & leaving as directors in the space of five months suggest some very dubious practices have taken place. David green needs to pro to council & political involvement. So does Sutcliffe and the Director of Finance at Bradford Council. Get our money back now!! . BierleyBoy

12:00pm Fri 27 Dec 13

Lapdancer says...

Bit late for this Khan.
You are the people's enemy now!

* You made our club a laughing stock by criticising the other SL clubs by criticising them sharing our sky money (you accepted less sky money on the basis we stayed in SL)

*You showed yourself & our club up with your twitter antics & you were suitably disciplined by the RFL,

*you left the club in 1.2 million pound of debt!

* Also taking legal action against Moore while he is involved in Bulls means legal action will have an effect on Bulls.

Now go away and boil your head in a curry pot!
Bit late for this Khan. You are the people's enemy now! * You made our club a laughing stock by criticising the other SL clubs by criticising them sharing our sky money (you accepted less sky money on the basis we stayed in SL) *You showed yourself & our club up with your twitter antics & you were suitably disciplined by the RFL, *you left the club in 1.2 million pound of debt! * Also taking legal action against Moore while he is involved in Bulls means legal action will have an effect on Bulls. Now go away and boil your head in a curry pot! Lapdancer

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
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