Battle over Bradford Bulls may go to court

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Omar Khan Omar Khan

A legal battle to resolve the sale of the company that runs the Bradford Bulls could end up in court.

Latest documents lodged at Companies House by the club’s new directors this week show that former owner Omar Khan is the major shareholder in OK Bulls Ltd.

The company was formed by the restaurant boss when he stepped in to save the club from the brink of liquidation last year.

Mr Khan stepped down from the helm of the Super League club at the end of September, but it is understood he continues to hold 99 of 100 shares in OK Bulls Limited with the remaining share held by Leeds-based business Safeguard Security Limited.

The Telegraph & Argus revealed earlier this month that he has since issued statutory demands against the two men he sold the company to – Bedzrus owner Mark Moore and former general manager Ryan Whitcut – claiming he has not yet been paid an agreed sum for the business.

And the T&A understands that any transfer of shares in the company will not take place until that legal battle, which is against the two individuals and not the club, has been resolved, which could be in a court hearing early next year.

The Companies House records of OK Bulls Ltd’s annual return shows Mr Khan owned all 100 shares on August 30 – just under a month before he sold the club.

The overdue document, which was filed by the club’s new directors with the UK business registering body on Tuesday morning, only gives a record of shareholdings on that date. A Companies House spokesman said firms are required to lodge details of any changes of shareholders when they file their annual return, although any changes in that interim period do not have to be immediately registered.

Last night Mr Khan said he was unable to comment on the issue of shareholdings because of the legal action he is taking against Mr Moore and Mr Whitcut.

Earlier this week, Bulls chief executive Robbie Hunter-Paul confirmed the transfer of shares was “ongoing” and details of the allocation of shareholdings among the new directors, Mr Moore, Ian Watt and Andrew Calvert, was also being discussed with the Rugby Football League.

No-one at the club was available to comment further yesterday.

Comments (65)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:18am Fri 20 Dec 13

Thee Voice of Reason says...

So there is your answer to why the current directors won't part with any money, because they don't actually own the club.
What a mess.
So there is your answer to why the current directors won't part with any money, because they don't actually own the club. What a mess. Thee Voice of Reason

8:35am Fri 20 Dec 13

tyker7745 says...

a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club.

Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket.

If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over?

The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.
a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club. Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket. If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over? The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League. tyker7745

8:43am Fri 20 Dec 13

bd7 helper says...

A Big mis understanding here sum one is playing with fire
A Big mis understanding here sum one is playing with fire bd7 helper

8:53am Fri 20 Dec 13

Storck says...

It is not just a matter of the new owners starting a new company. OK Bulls own everything to do with the Bulls, players contracts, lease on Odsal etc etc. It is the club.
It is not just a matter of the new owners starting a new company. OK Bulls own everything to do with the Bulls, players contracts, lease on Odsal etc etc. It is the club. Storck

9:24am Fri 20 Dec 13

rogerthat! says...

Storck wrote:
It is not just a matter of the new owners starting a new company. OK Bulls own everything to do with the Bulls, players contracts, lease on Odsal etc etc. It is the club.
Correct. The new Directors have put NO money into the Club. What will KHAN do?? Court cases cost a lot of money. I think they will be considering doing a runner like Suitcliff the MP. What a Mess!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Storck[/bold] wrote: It is not just a matter of the new owners starting a new company. OK Bulls own everything to do with the Bulls, players contracts, lease on Odsal etc etc. It is the club.[/p][/quote]Correct. The new Directors have put NO money into the Club. What will KHAN do?? Court cases cost a lot of money. I think they will be considering doing a runner like Suitcliff the MP. What a Mess!!!!!!! rogerthat!

9:28am Fri 20 Dec 13

tyker7745 says...

bd7 helper wrote:
A Big mis understanding here sum one is playing with fire
like who?

any fire could cause the phoenix company to revert to ashes very quickly. What will emerge then is what................
....................
..............
[quote][p][bold]bd7 helper[/bold] wrote: A Big mis understanding here sum one is playing with fire[/p][/quote]like who? any fire could cause the phoenix company to revert to ashes very quickly. What will emerge then is what................ .................... .............. tyker7745

9:46am Fri 20 Dec 13

Andy2010 says...

tyker7745 wrote:
a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club.

Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket.

If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over?

The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.
Exactly

The new owners arent "owners" as such as they have no money to actually settle previous directors or even fund the club to keep it going.

Why the hell are they in charge if they cant put anything in. All they are are second rate businessmen who like the standing of pretending to own a club to wine and & dine their other business interests.
[quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club. Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket. If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over? The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.[/p][/quote]Exactly The new owners arent "owners" as such as they have no money to actually settle previous directors or even fund the club to keep it going. Why the hell are they in charge if they cant put anything in. All they are are second rate businessmen who like the standing of pretending to own a club to wine and & dine their other business interests. Andy2010

9:53am Fri 20 Dec 13

AdeyG'man says...

I'm somewhat confused? Why is he only taking ONE of the THREE owners to court? I guess you could argue that the Club isn't worth anything whilst it still owes debts (and unless i'm mistaken, Omar still owns 100% of the shares and until he hands over the shares, that means the debt lies with him? Possession is 9/10ths of the law!)
Either way, surely there's better ways to sort this than airing dirty laundry in public for possibly the 8th or 9th year in a row?!? Court with Leeds, Administration, Court with Omar, Huge Debts...can't some rich bloke who is sat on his throne of cash just buy the lot and do us all a HUGE favour?
I'm somewhat confused? Why is he only taking ONE of the THREE owners to court? I guess you could argue that the Club isn't worth anything whilst it still owes debts (and unless i'm mistaken, Omar still owns 100% of the shares and until he hands over the shares, that means the debt lies with him? Possession is 9/10ths of the law!) Either way, surely there's better ways to sort this than airing dirty laundry in public for possibly the 8th or 9th year in a row?!? Court with Leeds, Administration, Court with Omar, Huge Debts...can't some rich bloke who is sat on his throne of cash just buy the lot and do us all a HUGE favour? AdeyG'man

10:04am Fri 20 Dec 13

Bacon Bantam says...

So what would happen if the current directors just resigned as directors? Omar owns the club he would be left with the mess to sort out. The directors have gone public and slated Omar yet Omar seems powerless to do anything but take them to court, and why is it just one director he is chasing and someone else who is not allowed to be part of the club on the RFL's say so.

This is a real mess. Well done T&A for actually doing some digging and getting the fans some facts.
So what would happen if the current directors just resigned as directors? Omar owns the club he would be left with the mess to sort out. The directors have gone public and slated Omar yet Omar seems powerless to do anything but take them to court, and why is it just one director he is chasing and someone else who is not allowed to be part of the club on the RFL's say so. This is a real mess. Well done T&A for actually doing some digging and getting the fans some facts. Bacon Bantam

10:06am Fri 20 Dec 13

mines a pint says...

AdeyG'man wrote:
I'm somewhat confused? Why is he only taking ONE of the THREE owners to court? I guess you could argue that the Club isn't worth anything whilst it still owes debts (and unless i'm mistaken, Omar still owns 100% of the shares and until he hands over the shares, that means the debt lies with him? Possession is 9/10ths of the law!)
Either way, surely there's better ways to sort this than airing dirty laundry in public for possibly the 8th or 9th year in a row?!? Court with Leeds, Administration, Court with Omar, Huge Debts...can't some rich bloke who is sat on his throne of cash just buy the lot and do us all a HUGE favour?
Originally Khan agreed to step down & sell the club to Whitcutt & Moore it was these two who then brought the remaining directors on board with a proposed 25% share each

It is now clear that this was done before they had completed the purchase from Khan & therefore did not have the authority to sell any shares to new directors

Khan if he has a case only has it against Whitcut & Moore as the other two directors were not party to the original agreement to sell the club

Would appear now that the only thing that was making Khan ill was worrying about loosing all his money in a business venture in which he was completely out of his depth
[quote][p][bold]AdeyG'man[/bold] wrote: I'm somewhat confused? Why is he only taking ONE of the THREE owners to court? I guess you could argue that the Club isn't worth anything whilst it still owes debts (and unless i'm mistaken, Omar still owns 100% of the shares and until he hands over the shares, that means the debt lies with him? Possession is 9/10ths of the law!) Either way, surely there's better ways to sort this than airing dirty laundry in public for possibly the 8th or 9th year in a row?!? Court with Leeds, Administration, Court with Omar, Huge Debts...can't some rich bloke who is sat on his throne of cash just buy the lot and do us all a HUGE favour?[/p][/quote]Originally Khan agreed to step down & sell the club to Whitcutt & Moore it was these two who then brought the remaining directors on board with a proposed 25% share each It is now clear that this was done before they had completed the purchase from Khan & therefore did not have the authority to sell any shares to new directors Khan if he has a case only has it against Whitcut & Moore as the other two directors were not party to the original agreement to sell the club Would appear now that the only thing that was making Khan ill was worrying about loosing all his money in a business venture in which he was completely out of his depth mines a pint

10:17am Fri 20 Dec 13

expatbull says...

AdeyG'man wrote:
I'm somewhat confused? Why is he only taking ONE of the THREE owners to court? I guess you could argue that the Club isn't worth anything whilst it still owes debts (and unless i'm mistaken, Omar still owns 100% of the shares and until he hands over the shares, that means the debt lies with him? Possession is 9/10ths of the law!)
Either way, surely there's better ways to sort this than airing dirty laundry in public for possibly the 8th or 9th year in a row?!? Court with Leeds, Administration, Court with Omar, Huge Debts...can't some rich bloke who is sat on his throne of cash just buy the lot and do us all a HUGE favour?
OK holds 99 0f the 100 shares a security company the other one.
Hopefully good sense will prevail.
[quote][p][bold]AdeyG'man[/bold] wrote: I'm somewhat confused? Why is he only taking ONE of the THREE owners to court? I guess you could argue that the Club isn't worth anything whilst it still owes debts (and unless i'm mistaken, Omar still owns 100% of the shares and until he hands over the shares, that means the debt lies with him? Possession is 9/10ths of the law!) Either way, surely there's better ways to sort this than airing dirty laundry in public for possibly the 8th or 9th year in a row?!? Court with Leeds, Administration, Court with Omar, Huge Debts...can't some rich bloke who is sat on his throne of cash just buy the lot and do us all a HUGE favour?[/p][/quote]OK holds 99 0f the 100 shares a security company the other one. Hopefully good sense will prevail. expatbull

10:18am Fri 20 Dec 13

tyker7745 says...

mines a pint wrote:
AdeyG'man wrote:
I'm somewhat confused? Why is he only taking ONE of the THREE owners to court? I guess you could argue that the Club isn't worth anything whilst it still owes debts (and unless i'm mistaken, Omar still owns 100% of the shares and until he hands over the shares, that means the debt lies with him? Possession is 9/10ths of the law!)
Either way, surely there's better ways to sort this than airing dirty laundry in public for possibly the 8th or 9th year in a row?!? Court with Leeds, Administration, Court with Omar, Huge Debts...can't some rich bloke who is sat on his throne of cash just buy the lot and do us all a HUGE favour?
Originally Khan agreed to step down & sell the club to Whitcutt & Moore it was these two who then brought the remaining directors on board with a proposed 25% share each

It is now clear that this was done before they had completed the purchase from Khan & therefore did not have the authority to sell any shares to new directors

Khan if he has a case only has it against Whitcut & Moore as the other two directors were not party to the original agreement to sell the club

Would appear now that the only thing that was making Khan ill was worrying about loosing all his money in a business venture in which he was completely out of his depth
Whitcut has been barred so it seems it is down to Moore. Can he actually afford to buy out the shares and continue to run the club. No mention from the t and a about any charges on the company so it seems that the loan by the council was directly to Khan:if so he is stuck with that.

Additionally the sublease ? Is in the name of OK Bulls or Khan.
Either way that is another fine mess to sort out.

Is all the VAT and PAYE up to date or are there further " oversights " arising" ?

ALL IN ALL A MIGHTY MESS
[quote][p][bold]mines a pint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AdeyG'man[/bold] wrote: I'm somewhat confused? Why is he only taking ONE of the THREE owners to court? I guess you could argue that the Club isn't worth anything whilst it still owes debts (and unless i'm mistaken, Omar still owns 100% of the shares and until he hands over the shares, that means the debt lies with him? Possession is 9/10ths of the law!) Either way, surely there's better ways to sort this than airing dirty laundry in public for possibly the 8th or 9th year in a row?!? Court with Leeds, Administration, Court with Omar, Huge Debts...can't some rich bloke who is sat on his throne of cash just buy the lot and do us all a HUGE favour?[/p][/quote]Originally Khan agreed to step down & sell the club to Whitcutt & Moore it was these two who then brought the remaining directors on board with a proposed 25% share each It is now clear that this was done before they had completed the purchase from Khan & therefore did not have the authority to sell any shares to new directors Khan if he has a case only has it against Whitcut & Moore as the other two directors were not party to the original agreement to sell the club Would appear now that the only thing that was making Khan ill was worrying about loosing all his money in a business venture in which he was completely out of his depth[/p][/quote]Whitcut has been barred so it seems it is down to Moore. Can he actually afford to buy out the shares and continue to run the club. No mention from the t and a about any charges on the company so it seems that the loan by the council was directly to Khan:if so he is stuck with that. Additionally the sublease ? Is in the name of OK Bulls or Khan. Either way that is another fine mess to sort out. Is all the VAT and PAYE up to date or are there further " oversights " arising" ? ALL IN ALL A MIGHTY MESS tyker7745

10:21am Fri 20 Dec 13

AdeyG'man says...

Well he's not gonna get his money from Whitcut is he?

That fella has liquidized more Companies than Britvic have Oranges!
Well he's not gonna get his money from Whitcut is he? That fella has liquidized more Companies than Britvic have Oranges! AdeyG'man

10:27am Fri 20 Dec 13

grafter1980 says...

Andy2010 wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club.

Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket.

If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over?

The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.
Exactly

The new owners arent "owners" as such as they have no money to actually settle previous directors or even fund the club to keep it going.

Why the hell are they in charge if they cant put anything in. All they are are second rate businessmen who like the standing of pretending to own a club to wine and & dine their other business interests.
I think it was more about the previous Directors getting out as quickly as possible, the current Directors never talked about putting money in. I think the old guard just wanted to leave before any of the hard decision we are seeing now had to be made, player sales , redundancies ( not good if you trade off Union credentials?)

One smoke screen that annoys me is how much emphasis has been placed on Whitcut- he was a Director for about 6 weeks. The massive debts were run up before them. The Combined Code that sets standards of Corp Governance places the responsibility for control/transparency
/accountability with the Director's i.e OK/GS and friends. Even RW if he did things in his time as general managers the Directors are still accountable.

The legal story seams like a bit of a smoke screen, if OK is pursuing them personally not the club than must mean they offered personal guarantees- seams unlikely.

Secondly how much is a company with very few assets, significant debt and a going concern issue really worth. What payment would they have agreed to?
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club. Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket. If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over? The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.[/p][/quote]Exactly The new owners arent "owners" as such as they have no money to actually settle previous directors or even fund the club to keep it going. Why the hell are they in charge if they cant put anything in. All they are are second rate businessmen who like the standing of pretending to own a club to wine and & dine their other business interests.[/p][/quote]I think it was more about the previous Directors getting out as quickly as possible, the current Directors never talked about putting money in. I think the old guard just wanted to leave before any of the hard decision we are seeing now had to be made, player sales , redundancies ( not good if you trade off Union credentials?) One smoke screen that annoys me is how much emphasis has been placed on Whitcut- he was a Director for about 6 weeks. The massive debts were run up before them. The Combined Code that sets standards of Corp Governance places the responsibility for control/transparency /accountability with the Director's i.e OK/GS and friends. Even RW if he did things in his time as general managers the Directors are still accountable. The legal story seams like a bit of a smoke screen, if OK is pursuing them personally not the club than must mean they offered personal guarantees- seams unlikely. Secondly how much is a company with very few assets, significant debt and a going concern issue really worth. What payment would they have agreed to? grafter1980

10:55am Fri 20 Dec 13

StevieLad says...

grafter1980 wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club.

Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket.

If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over?

The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.
Exactly

The new owners arent "owners" as such as they have no money to actually settle previous directors or even fund the club to keep it going.

Why the hell are they in charge if they cant put anything in. All they are are second rate businessmen who like the standing of pretending to own a club to wine and & dine their other business interests.
I think it was more about the previous Directors getting out as quickly as possible, the current Directors never talked about putting money in. I think the old guard just wanted to leave before any of the hard decision we are seeing now had to be made, player sales , redundancies ( not good if you trade off Union credentials?)

One smoke screen that annoys me is how much emphasis has been placed on Whitcut- he was a Director for about 6 weeks. The massive debts were run up before them. The Combined Code that sets standards of Corp Governance places the responsibility for control/transparency

/accountability with the Director's i.e OK/GS and friends. Even RW if he did things in his time as general managers the Directors are still accountable.

The legal story seams like a bit of a smoke screen, if OK is pursuing them personally not the club than must mean they offered personal guarantees- seams unlikely.

Secondly how much is a company with very few assets, significant debt and a going concern issue really worth. What payment would they have agreed to?
The combined code applies to listed companies. In a private co like ok bulls, there is no responsibility for transparency other than it can sometimes help to keep fans informed.
[quote][p][bold]grafter1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club. Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket. If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over? The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.[/p][/quote]Exactly The new owners arent "owners" as such as they have no money to actually settle previous directors or even fund the club to keep it going. Why the hell are they in charge if they cant put anything in. All they are are second rate businessmen who like the standing of pretending to own a club to wine and & dine their other business interests.[/p][/quote]I think it was more about the previous Directors getting out as quickly as possible, the current Directors never talked about putting money in. I think the old guard just wanted to leave before any of the hard decision we are seeing now had to be made, player sales , redundancies ( not good if you trade off Union credentials?) One smoke screen that annoys me is how much emphasis has been placed on Whitcut- he was a Director for about 6 weeks. The massive debts were run up before them. The Combined Code that sets standards of Corp Governance places the responsibility for control/transparency /accountability with the Director's i.e OK/GS and friends. Even RW if he did things in his time as general managers the Directors are still accountable. The legal story seams like a bit of a smoke screen, if OK is pursuing them personally not the club than must mean they offered personal guarantees- seams unlikely. Secondly how much is a company with very few assets, significant debt and a going concern issue really worth. What payment would they have agreed to?[/p][/quote]The combined code applies to listed companies. In a private co like ok bulls, there is no responsibility for transparency other than it can sometimes help to keep fans informed. StevieLad

11:14am Fri 20 Dec 13

PHILISAN says...

OK must have had more acumen than just his heart strings when he invested in the Bulls.He and his advisors must also have known the serious risks involved and that moving from loss into profit would be long term.It does appear that mismanagement during and following his involvement day to day,have lead to our latest catastrophe.His team although originally approved by RH were all guilty by association.If the present incumbents cannot put up they should shut up and pull out.Despite the City of Bradford having at least 2 self made millionaires predictably survival falls on less suitable shoulders.With this situation and the hand to mouth existence,sentimenta
lity alone is never going to be enough.Of course there is no firm directive from the present Board to appease the fans concerns,but we are on a treadmill to extinction and the pockets of fans are not deep enough to bale the Club out.Think this is the end and final chapter in the Bulls as a Super League Club.
OK must have had more acumen than just his heart strings when he invested in the Bulls.He and his advisors must also have known the serious risks involved and that moving from loss into profit would be long term.It does appear that mismanagement during and following his involvement day to day,have lead to our latest catastrophe.His team although originally approved by RH were all guilty by association.If the present incumbents cannot put up they should shut up and pull out.Despite the City of Bradford having at least 2 self made millionaires predictably survival falls on less suitable shoulders.With this situation and the hand to mouth existence,sentimenta lity alone is never going to be enough.Of course there is no firm directive from the present Board to appease the fans concerns,but we are on a treadmill to extinction and the pockets of fans are not deep enough to bale the Club out.Think this is the end and final chapter in the Bulls as a Super League Club. PHILISAN

11:14am Fri 20 Dec 13

PHILISAN says...

OK must have had more acumen than just his heart strings when he invested in the Bulls.He and his advisors must also have known the serious risks involved and that moving from loss into profit would be long term.It does appear that mismanagement during and following his involvement day to day,have lead to our latest catastrophe.His team although originally approved by RH were all guilty by association.If the present incumbents cannot put up they should shut up and pull out.Despite the City of Bradford having at least 2 self made millionaires predictably survival falls on less suitable shoulders.With this situation and the hand to mouth existence,sentimenta
lity alone is never going to be enough.Of course there is no firm directive from the present Board to appease the fans concerns,but we are on a treadmill to extinction and the pockets of fans are not deep enough to bale the Club out.Think this is the end and final chapter in the Bulls as a Super League Club.
OK must have had more acumen than just his heart strings when he invested in the Bulls.He and his advisors must also have known the serious risks involved and that moving from loss into profit would be long term.It does appear that mismanagement during and following his involvement day to day,have lead to our latest catastrophe.His team although originally approved by RH were all guilty by association.If the present incumbents cannot put up they should shut up and pull out.Despite the City of Bradford having at least 2 self made millionaires predictably survival falls on less suitable shoulders.With this situation and the hand to mouth existence,sentimenta lity alone is never going to be enough.Of course there is no firm directive from the present Board to appease the fans concerns,but we are on a treadmill to extinction and the pockets of fans are not deep enough to bale the Club out.Think this is the end and final chapter in the Bulls as a Super League Club. PHILISAN

11:14am Fri 20 Dec 13

grafter1980 says...

StevieLad wrote:
grafter1980 wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club.

Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket.

If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over?

The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.
Exactly

The new owners arent "owners" as such as they have no money to actually settle previous directors or even fund the club to keep it going.

Why the hell are they in charge if they cant put anything in. All they are are second rate businessmen who like the standing of pretending to own a club to wine and & dine their other business interests.
I think it was more about the previous Directors getting out as quickly as possible, the current Directors never talked about putting money in. I think the old guard just wanted to leave before any of the hard decision we are seeing now had to be made, player sales , redundancies ( not good if you trade off Union credentials?)

One smoke screen that annoys me is how much emphasis has been placed on Whitcut- he was a Director for about 6 weeks. The massive debts were run up before them. The Combined Code that sets standards of Corp Governance places the responsibility for control/transparency


/accountability with the Director's i.e OK/GS and friends. Even RW if he did things in his time as general managers the Directors are still accountable.

The legal story seams like a bit of a smoke screen, if OK is pursuing them personally not the club than must mean they offered personal guarantees- seams unlikely.

Secondly how much is a company with very few assets, significant debt and a going concern issue really worth. What payment would they have agreed to?
The combined code applies to listed companies. In a private co like ok bulls, there is no responsibility for transparency other than it can sometimes help to keep fans informed.
absolutely, but the combined code still can be used as a benchmark of best practice, particularly with regards to the conduct of Directors. Take your point that a Ltd company has far less disclosure requirement re financial information.

Therefore if you were a Director who held pubic office of a company borrowing money from the public sector I would be very careful to make sure the company complied with the principles of the Combined Code, particularly when if what the current directors say is true, poor standards of Corp Gov have lead to redundancies
[quote][p][bold]StevieLad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grafter1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club. Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket. If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over? The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.[/p][/quote]Exactly The new owners arent "owners" as such as they have no money to actually settle previous directors or even fund the club to keep it going. Why the hell are they in charge if they cant put anything in. All they are are second rate businessmen who like the standing of pretending to own a club to wine and & dine their other business interests.[/p][/quote]I think it was more about the previous Directors getting out as quickly as possible, the current Directors never talked about putting money in. I think the old guard just wanted to leave before any of the hard decision we are seeing now had to be made, player sales , redundancies ( not good if you trade off Union credentials?) One smoke screen that annoys me is how much emphasis has been placed on Whitcut- he was a Director for about 6 weeks. The massive debts were run up before them. The Combined Code that sets standards of Corp Governance places the responsibility for control/transparency /accountability with the Director's i.e OK/GS and friends. Even RW if he did things in his time as general managers the Directors are still accountable. The legal story seams like a bit of a smoke screen, if OK is pursuing them personally not the club than must mean they offered personal guarantees- seams unlikely. Secondly how much is a company with very few assets, significant debt and a going concern issue really worth. What payment would they have agreed to?[/p][/quote]The combined code applies to listed companies. In a private co like ok bulls, there is no responsibility for transparency other than it can sometimes help to keep fans informed.[/p][/quote]absolutely, but the combined code still can be used as a benchmark of best practice, particularly with regards to the conduct of Directors. Take your point that a Ltd company has far less disclosure requirement re financial information. Therefore if you were a Director who held pubic office of a company borrowing money from the public sector I would be very careful to make sure the company complied with the principles of the Combined Code, particularly when if what the current directors say is true, poor standards of Corp Gov have lead to redundancies grafter1980

11:27am Fri 20 Dec 13

tyker7745 says...

grafter1980 wrote:
StevieLad wrote:
grafter1980 wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club.

Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket.

If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over?

The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.
Exactly

The new owners arent "owners" as such as they have no money to actually settle previous directors or even fund the club to keep it going.

Why the hell are they in charge if they cant put anything in. All they are are second rate businessmen who like the standing of pretending to own a club to wine and & dine their other business interests.
I think it was more about the previous Directors getting out as quickly as possible, the current Directors never talked about putting money in. I think the old guard just wanted to leave before any of the hard decision we are seeing now had to be made, player sales , redundancies ( not good if you trade off Union credentials?)

One smoke screen that annoys me is how much emphasis has been placed on Whitcut- he was a Director for about 6 weeks. The massive debts were run up before them. The Combined Code that sets standards of Corp Governance places the responsibility for control/transparency



/accountability with the Director's i.e OK/GS and friends. Even RW if he did things in his time as general managers the Directors are still accountable.

The legal story seams like a bit of a smoke screen, if OK is pursuing them personally not the club than must mean they offered personal guarantees- seams unlikely.

Secondly how much is a company with very few assets, significant debt and a going concern issue really worth. What payment would they have agreed to?
The combined code applies to listed companies. In a private co like ok bulls, there is no responsibility for transparency other than it can sometimes help to keep fans informed.
absolutely, but the combined code still can be used as a benchmark of best practice, particularly with regards to the conduct of Directors. Take your point that a Ltd company has far less disclosure requirement re financial information.

Therefore if you were a Director who held pubic office of a company borrowing money from the public sector I would be very careful to make sure the company complied with the principles of the Combined Code, particularly when if what the current directors say is true, poor standards of Corp Gov have lead to redundancies
BUT IT IS NOT A PUBLIC COMPANY:IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY.

THE RETURN INDICATES IT DID NOT BORROW FROM THE COUNCIL:SO KHAN GOT THE LOAN..... BUT ON WHAT BASIS AND COLLATERAL?
[quote][p][bold]grafter1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StevieLad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grafter1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club. Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket. If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over? The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.[/p][/quote]Exactly The new owners arent "owners" as such as they have no money to actually settle previous directors or even fund the club to keep it going. Why the hell are they in charge if they cant put anything in. All they are are second rate businessmen who like the standing of pretending to own a club to wine and & dine their other business interests.[/p][/quote]I think it was more about the previous Directors getting out as quickly as possible, the current Directors never talked about putting money in. I think the old guard just wanted to leave before any of the hard decision we are seeing now had to be made, player sales , redundancies ( not good if you trade off Union credentials?) One smoke screen that annoys me is how much emphasis has been placed on Whitcut- he was a Director for about 6 weeks. The massive debts were run up before them. The Combined Code that sets standards of Corp Governance places the responsibility for control/transparency /accountability with the Director's i.e OK/GS and friends. Even RW if he did things in his time as general managers the Directors are still accountable. The legal story seams like a bit of a smoke screen, if OK is pursuing them personally not the club than must mean they offered personal guarantees- seams unlikely. Secondly how much is a company with very few assets, significant debt and a going concern issue really worth. What payment would they have agreed to?[/p][/quote]The combined code applies to listed companies. In a private co like ok bulls, there is no responsibility for transparency other than it can sometimes help to keep fans informed.[/p][/quote]absolutely, but the combined code still can be used as a benchmark of best practice, particularly with regards to the conduct of Directors. Take your point that a Ltd company has far less disclosure requirement re financial information. Therefore if you were a Director who held pubic office of a company borrowing money from the public sector I would be very careful to make sure the company complied with the principles of the Combined Code, particularly when if what the current directors say is true, poor standards of Corp Gov have lead to redundancies[/p][/quote]BUT IT IS NOT A PUBLIC COMPANY:IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. THE RETURN INDICATES IT DID NOT BORROW FROM THE COUNCIL:SO KHAN GOT THE LOAN..... BUT ON WHAT BASIS AND COLLATERAL? tyker7745

11:57am Fri 20 Dec 13

BrisBull says...

http://www.bradfordb
ulls.co.uk/news__vid
eo/article/8766/boar
d-provide-ownership-
update
http://www.bradfordb ulls.co.uk/news__vid eo/article/8766/boar d-provide-ownership- update BrisBull

12:04pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Thee Voice of Reason says...

BrisBull wrote:
http://www.bradfordb ulls.co.uk/news__vid eo/article/8766/boar d-provide-ownership- update
So Khan still owns the shares, and that statement doesn't deny that.
[quote][p][bold]BrisBull[/bold] wrote: http://www.bradfordb ulls.co.uk/news__vid eo/article/8766/boar d-provide-ownership- update[/p][/quote]So Khan still owns the shares, and that statement doesn't deny that. Thee Voice of Reason

12:12pm Fri 20 Dec 13

grafter1980 says...

tyker7745 wrote:
grafter1980 wrote:
StevieLad wrote:
grafter1980 wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club.

Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket.

If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over?

The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.
Exactly

The new owners arent "owners" as such as they have no money to actually settle previous directors or even fund the club to keep it going.

Why the hell are they in charge if they cant put anything in. All they are are second rate businessmen who like the standing of pretending to own a club to wine and & dine their other business interests.
I think it was more about the previous Directors getting out as quickly as possible, the current Directors never talked about putting money in. I think the old guard just wanted to leave before any of the hard decision we are seeing now had to be made, player sales , redundancies ( not good if you trade off Union credentials?)

One smoke screen that annoys me is how much emphasis has been placed on Whitcut- he was a Director for about 6 weeks. The massive debts were run up before them. The Combined Code that sets standards of Corp Governance places the responsibility for control/transparency




/accountability with the Director's i.e OK/GS and friends. Even RW if he did things in his time as general managers the Directors are still accountable.

The legal story seams like a bit of a smoke screen, if OK is pursuing them personally not the club than must mean they offered personal guarantees- seams unlikely.

Secondly how much is a company with very few assets, significant debt and a going concern issue really worth. What payment would they have agreed to?
The combined code applies to listed companies. In a private co like ok bulls, there is no responsibility for transparency other than it can sometimes help to keep fans informed.
absolutely, but the combined code still can be used as a benchmark of best practice, particularly with regards to the conduct of Directors. Take your point that a Ltd company has far less disclosure requirement re financial information.

Therefore if you were a Director who held pubic office of a company borrowing money from the public sector I would be very careful to make sure the company complied with the principles of the Combined Code, particularly when if what the current directors say is true, poor standards of Corp Gov have lead to redundancies
BUT IT IS NOT A PUBLIC COMPANY:IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY.

THE RETURN INDICATES IT DID NOT BORROW FROM THE COUNCIL:SO KHAN GOT THE LOAN..... BUT ON WHAT BASIS AND COLLATERAL?
I understand the nature of the company

Corporate Governance is principles based. It would be valid question to ask any of the previous Directors ' in your tenure do you think the Directors acted within principles of good corporate governance'. You're suggesting they could answer that by saying 'that doesn't apply it's a Ltd'. If that were to be particularly Sutcliffe or Swales response I think party head office would have something to say. Hence the absence of these two names from any T&A reports

re money whether lent directly to OK or to club with a personal guarantee, what's the difference?
[quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grafter1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StevieLad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grafter1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club. Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket. If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over? The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.[/p][/quote]Exactly The new owners arent "owners" as such as they have no money to actually settle previous directors or even fund the club to keep it going. Why the hell are they in charge if they cant put anything in. All they are are second rate businessmen who like the standing of pretending to own a club to wine and & dine their other business interests.[/p][/quote]I think it was more about the previous Directors getting out as quickly as possible, the current Directors never talked about putting money in. I think the old guard just wanted to leave before any of the hard decision we are seeing now had to be made, player sales , redundancies ( not good if you trade off Union credentials?) One smoke screen that annoys me is how much emphasis has been placed on Whitcut- he was a Director for about 6 weeks. The massive debts were run up before them. The Combined Code that sets standards of Corp Governance places the responsibility for control/transparency /accountability with the Director's i.e OK/GS and friends. Even RW if he did things in his time as general managers the Directors are still accountable. The legal story seams like a bit of a smoke screen, if OK is pursuing them personally not the club than must mean they offered personal guarantees- seams unlikely. Secondly how much is a company with very few assets, significant debt and a going concern issue really worth. What payment would they have agreed to?[/p][/quote]The combined code applies to listed companies. In a private co like ok bulls, there is no responsibility for transparency other than it can sometimes help to keep fans informed.[/p][/quote]absolutely, but the combined code still can be used as a benchmark of best practice, particularly with regards to the conduct of Directors. Take your point that a Ltd company has far less disclosure requirement re financial information. Therefore if you were a Director who held pubic office of a company borrowing money from the public sector I would be very careful to make sure the company complied with the principles of the Combined Code, particularly when if what the current directors say is true, poor standards of Corp Gov have lead to redundancies[/p][/quote]BUT IT IS NOT A PUBLIC COMPANY:IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. THE RETURN INDICATES IT DID NOT BORROW FROM THE COUNCIL:SO KHAN GOT THE LOAN..... BUT ON WHAT BASIS AND COLLATERAL?[/p][/quote]I understand the nature of the company Corporate Governance is principles based. It would be valid question to ask any of the previous Directors ' in your tenure do you think the Directors acted within principles of good corporate governance'. You're suggesting they could answer that by saying 'that doesn't apply it's a Ltd'. If that were to be particularly Sutcliffe or Swales response I think party head office would have something to say. Hence the absence of these two names from any T&A reports re money whether lent directly to OK or to club with a personal guarantee, what's the difference? grafter1980

12:18pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Thee Voice of Reason says...

So where is my mate Raisemeup. Just a reminder of what I said the other day.


..9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13
Thee Voice of Reason says...


Well I knoe that Mr Moore has given his side of the story to the T&A but this hasn't been printed and that the club and T&A have had some fall out which is why we only now see rehashes of stories and not exclusives.


Then today on their website they post this.

"We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers."

Nah, there is no fall out there is there Raisemeup.
So where is my mate Raisemeup. Just a reminder of what I said the other day. [quote] ..9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13 Thee Voice of Reason says... Well I knoe that Mr Moore has given his side of the story to the T&A but this hasn't been printed and that the club and T&A have had some fall out which is why we only now see rehashes of stories and not exclusives. [/quote] Then today on their website they post this. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers." Nah, there is no fall out there is there Raisemeup. Thee Voice of Reason

12:41pm Fri 20 Dec 13

grafter1980 says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
So where is my mate Raisemeup. Just a reminder of what I said the other day.


..9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13
Thee Voice of Reason says...


Well I knoe that Mr Moore has given his side of the story to the T&A but this hasn't been printed and that the club and T&A have had some fall out which is why we only now see rehashes of stories and not exclusives.


Then today on their website they post this.

"We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers."

Nah, there is no fall out there is there Raisemeup.
TVOR

totally agree unfortunately Mr Moore can't dictate what is written in T& A as much as others. I'm struggling to think of a single thing that current directors are doing wrong other than dealing with problems already created.

I remember someone on here saying how OK/GS oozed transparency?? I think the acid test for transparency is if you don't like what your hearing.. it's probably the truth... that applies to the new Directors

All the best to new Directors ( I'm not a Bulls fan) but I'll catch couple of games up at odsal with a couple of mates who are to show my support. This story along with everything else is bad for all RL not just Bulls.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: So where is my mate Raisemeup. Just a reminder of what I said the other day. [quote] ..9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13 Thee Voice of Reason says... Well I knoe that Mr Moore has given his side of the story to the T&A but this hasn't been printed and that the club and T&A have had some fall out which is why we only now see rehashes of stories and not exclusives. [/quote] Then today on their website they post this. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers." Nah, there is no fall out there is there Raisemeup.[/p][/quote]TVOR totally agree unfortunately Mr Moore can't dictate what is written in T& A as much as others. I'm struggling to think of a single thing that current directors are doing wrong other than dealing with problems already created. I remember someone on here saying how OK/GS oozed transparency?? I think the acid test for transparency is if you don't like what your hearing.. it's probably the truth... that applies to the new Directors All the best to new Directors ( I'm not a Bulls fan) but I'll catch couple of games up at odsal with a couple of mates who are to show my support. This story along with everything else is bad for all RL not just Bulls. grafter1980

12:48pm Fri 20 Dec 13

bullbob says...

Trotters independant traders could do a better job.
Trotters independant traders could do a better job. bullbob

1:19pm Fri 20 Dec 13

fedupwiththeBS says...

So the big investor that is going to be revealed in the New Year sounds more like a ruse to sell season tickets for Xmas. Who is going to invest in a board that does not even own the club?

We have gone from being World Champions to being a joke side in no time at all.

I would not blame any of our players for leaving if they were offered even the slights hint of stability.

Even London are in a better state than we are.

Rugby league is not rocket science and nor is running a rugby club.
So the big investor that is going to be revealed in the New Year sounds more like a ruse to sell season tickets for Xmas. Who is going to invest in a board that does not even own the club? We have gone from being World Champions to being a joke side in no time at all. I would not blame any of our players for leaving if they were offered even the slights hint of stability. Even London are in a better state than we are. Rugby league is not rocket science and nor is running a rugby club. fedupwiththeBS

1:20pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Nick Harrison says...

There are a lot of none stories here. Not filing accounts and the resultant legal threats happen every day. How can a new board file when they are probably still undergoing due dilligence. There are companies who go months without filing and without sanction. Sensationalist journalism with limited understanding. As for Khan, he has a history of dropping companies and Whitcut buying them out of Administration. They have done it before. Dont believe all you read!

Business is a cut throat thing. 13 players running around on a piece of grass are miles away from the boardroom. Why the Bulls have decided to air dirty laundry in the press and why speculation and misinterpretation from people with only very very very limited knowledge of the actual facts has detracted form our season beats me. How many on this thread actually run a successful and profitable business rather than Wikipedia the law and how companies are run?
There are a lot of none stories here. Not filing accounts and the resultant legal threats happen every day. How can a new board file when they are probably still undergoing due dilligence. There are companies who go months without filing and without sanction. Sensationalist journalism with limited understanding. As for Khan, he has a history of dropping companies and Whitcut buying them out of Administration. They have done it before. Dont believe all you read! Business is a cut throat thing. 13 players running around on a piece of grass are miles away from the boardroom. Why the Bulls have decided to air dirty laundry in the press and why speculation and misinterpretation from people with only very very very limited knowledge of the actual facts has detracted form our season beats me. How many on this thread actually run a successful and profitable business rather than Wikipedia the law and how companies are run? Nick Harrison

1:26pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Alhaurinrhino says...

I said at the time that it looked more like Omar Khant, and it seems he couldn't.
I said at the time that it looked more like Omar Khant, and it seems he couldn't. Alhaurinrhino

1:47pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Bacon Bantam says...

Where is that fella who kept singing we're in the money?
Where is that fella who kept singing we're in the money? Bacon Bantam

2:02pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Bacon Bantam wrote:
Where is that fella who kept singing we're in the money?I think you mean this fella who has been missing since November after telling anyone who would listen the Titanic couldn't sink.


..9:12am Fri 2 Aug 13
theviking62 says...

TVOR, PCA, RHINOSHELF, COLLUS, PABLO, we done beat you boys good. Aah but what's that I hear fighting for a place under the rock boys. Would you care to make an apology, for ALL the poorly informed statements you made.

From one Bradfordian to another, thanks OK for investing in the future of our great club. Not only is this an investment in the Bulls, it is an investment in the City of Bradford.

Onwards and Upwards. COYB
[quote][p][bold]Bacon Bantam[/bold] wrote: Where is that fella who kept singing we're in the money?[/p][/quote]I think you mean this fella who has been missing since November after telling anyone who would listen the Titanic couldn't sink. [/quote] ..9:12am Fri 2 Aug 13 theviking62 says... TVOR, PCA, RHINOSHELF, COLLUS, PABLO, we done beat you boys good. Aah but what's that I hear fighting for a place under the rock boys. Would you care to make an apology, for ALL the poorly informed statements you made. From one Bradfordian to another, thanks OK for investing in the future of our great club. Not only is this an investment in the Bulls, it is an investment in the City of Bradford. Onwards and Upwards. COYB [/quote] Thee Voice of Reason

2:08pm Fri 20 Dec 13

raisemeup says...

AdeyG'man wrote:
I'm somewhat confused? Why is he only taking ONE of the THREE owners to court? I guess you could argue that the Club isn't worth anything whilst it still owes debts (and unless i'm mistaken, Omar still owns 100% of the shares and until he hands over the shares, that means the debt lies with him? Possession is 9/10ths of the law!)
Either way, surely there's better ways to sort this than airing dirty laundry in public for possibly the 8th or 9th year in a row?!? Court with Leeds, Administration, Court with Omar, Huge Debts...can't some rich bloke who is sat on his throne of cash just buy the lot and do us all a HUGE favour?
Firstly the logic of it is:
Once Ryan Whitcut was declared a non Fit and Proper person the only Director left as co-owner was Mark Moore, RW was effectively ruled out as a Director by that action. a catch 22...but as a transaction HAS NOT reportedly taken place , because seemingly money for the shareholding has not changed hands?
Then Omar still owns the club, or in fact the Coral stand in property terms.
He presumably is only taking the said two people to court over a theoretical (I wouldn't know the detail, hence theoretical ) contractual agreement, that states money should have been paid befrore shares are transferred?

However Adey if someone comes up with this money, I should imagine the shares can be sold to them, which leaves us where? I am not at all sure.
The best course of action is for all parties to sit down and discuss a deal that solves all the current wrangling. But that is maybe a non starter at this moment, but eventually it will have to happen, we need a good legal brain to sort it.?

Perhaps like Warrington we need a wealthy backer and a supporters trust that can raise finance for non profit motivation.

However this is more about Utopia than anything else that may or may not happen? I don't actually know, and neither does anyone else unless they were party to all the agreements and arrangements.
[quote][p][bold]AdeyG'man[/bold] wrote: I'm somewhat confused? Why is he only taking ONE of the THREE owners to court? I guess you could argue that the Club isn't worth anything whilst it still owes debts (and unless i'm mistaken, Omar still owns 100% of the shares and until he hands over the shares, that means the debt lies with him? Possession is 9/10ths of the law!) Either way, surely there's better ways to sort this than airing dirty laundry in public for possibly the 8th or 9th year in a row?!? Court with Leeds, Administration, Court with Omar, Huge Debts...can't some rich bloke who is sat on his throne of cash just buy the lot and do us all a HUGE favour?[/p][/quote]Firstly the logic of it is: Once Ryan Whitcut was declared a non Fit and Proper person the only Director left as co-owner was Mark Moore, RW was effectively ruled out as a Director by that action. a catch 22...but as a transaction HAS NOT reportedly taken place , because seemingly money for the shareholding has not changed hands? Then Omar still owns the club, or in fact the Coral stand in property terms. He presumably is only taking the said two people to court over a theoretical (I wouldn't know the detail, hence theoretical ) contractual agreement, that states money should have been paid befrore shares are transferred? However Adey if someone comes up with this money, I should imagine the shares can be sold to them, which leaves us where? I am not at all sure. The best course of action is for all parties to sit down and discuss a deal that solves all the current wrangling. But that is maybe a non starter at this moment, but eventually it will have to happen, we need a good legal brain to sort it.? Perhaps like Warrington we need a wealthy backer and a supporters trust that can raise finance for non profit motivation. However this is more about Utopia than anything else that may or may not happen? I don't actually know, and neither does anyone else unless they were party to all the agreements and arrangements. raisemeup

2:20pm Fri 20 Dec 13

RABTID says...

At the time, don't you feel that Vikings comments were relevant. But, you being you, as are all the others of your ilk, racking up old coals, that at this time have no relevance to today's problems.

The main problem now appears to be

1) who owns the club?
2) will it go to court?
3) will the security firm sell their one share?
4) does MM own any shares, as of now?

Imo, for what it's worth, I think this will be sorted either way, in the New Year.

To persist it throwing mud at all those involved, using old arguments shows a total lack of understanding of what is going on. Or that you like the rest on here you know nothing, of the actual ins and outs of the current situation. Supposition, in the end can make you look foolish. Marwan Koukash, has added his thoughts on the situation on Twitter, " wishing one of his friends could get involved. Now, knowing his friends, it would really put the cat amongst your pigeons.
At the time, don't you feel that Vikings comments were relevant. But, you being you, as are all the others of your ilk, racking up old coals, that at this time have no relevance to today's problems. The main problem now appears to be 1) who owns the club? 2) will it go to court? 3) will the security firm sell their one share? 4) does MM own any shares, as of now? Imo, for what it's worth, I think this will be sorted either way, in the New Year. To persist it throwing mud at all those involved, using old arguments shows a total lack of understanding of what is going on. Or that you like the rest on here you know nothing, of the actual ins and outs of the current situation. Supposition, in the end can make you look foolish. Marwan Koukash, has added his thoughts on the situation on Twitter, " wishing one of his friends could get involved. Now, knowing his friends, it would really put the cat amongst your pigeons. RABTID

2:38pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Bacon Bantam says...

RABTID wrote:
At the time, don't you feel that Vikings comments were relevant. But, you being you, as are all the others of your ilk, racking up old coals, that at this time have no relevance to today's problems. The main problem now appears to be 1) who owns the club? 2) will it go to court? 3) will the security firm sell their one share? 4) does MM own any shares, as of now? Imo, for what it's worth, I think this will be sorted either way, in the New Year. To persist it throwing mud at all those involved, using old arguments shows a total lack of understanding of what is going on. Or that you like the rest on here you know nothing, of the actual ins and outs of the current situation. Supposition, in the end can make you look foolish. Marwan Koukash, has added his thoughts on the situation on Twitter, " wishing one of his friends could get involved. Now, knowing his friends, it would really put the cat amongst your pigeons.
Reading those comments I don't think they are revelant at all. It was simply boasting and trying to get one up on the other just because he thought they were wrong, when they were indeed spot on. At the where those comments were made it seems that Khan had just put a wedge of cash into the business. Thats not exactly the sign of a secure business and if you ask me, his reaction was childish and has come back to bite himself in the backside, which I guess is why he doesn't post on here anymore. He's back under that stone he refers to in his comment.

The only people who seem to speak sense on here are those who disconnect themselves from the club and take an outside view rather than letting their loyalties blinker their judgements. Those who are City fans appear to have learn't from the past, which is something the Bulls will do in time.

Once again spot on to the T&A for highlighting this, the truth needs to come out.
[quote][p][bold]RABTID[/bold] wrote: At the time, don't you feel that Vikings comments were relevant. But, you being you, as are all the others of your ilk, racking up old coals, that at this time have no relevance to today's problems. The main problem now appears to be 1) who owns the club? 2) will it go to court? 3) will the security firm sell their one share? 4) does MM own any shares, as of now? Imo, for what it's worth, I think this will be sorted either way, in the New Year. To persist it throwing mud at all those involved, using old arguments shows a total lack of understanding of what is going on. Or that you like the rest on here you know nothing, of the actual ins and outs of the current situation. Supposition, in the end can make you look foolish. Marwan Koukash, has added his thoughts on the situation on Twitter, " wishing one of his friends could get involved. Now, knowing his friends, it would really put the cat amongst your pigeons.[/p][/quote]Reading those comments I don't think they are revelant at all. It was simply boasting and trying to get one up on the other just because he thought they were wrong, when they were indeed spot on. At the where those comments were made it seems that Khan had just put a wedge of cash into the business. Thats not exactly the sign of a secure business and if you ask me, his reaction was childish and has come back to bite himself in the backside, which I guess is why he doesn't post on here anymore. He's back under that stone he refers to in his comment. The only people who seem to speak sense on here are those who disconnect themselves from the club and take an outside view rather than letting their loyalties blinker their judgements. Those who are City fans appear to have learn't from the past, which is something the Bulls will do in time. Once again spot on to the T&A for highlighting this, the truth needs to come out. Bacon Bantam

2:43pm Fri 20 Dec 13

grafter1980 says...

Nick Harrison wrote:
There are a lot of none stories here. Not filing accounts and the resultant legal threats happen every day. How can a new board file when they are probably still undergoing due dilligence. There are companies who go months without filing and without sanction. Sensationalist journalism with limited understanding. As for Khan, he has a history of dropping companies and Whitcut buying them out of Administration. They have done it before. Dont believe all you read!

Business is a cut throat thing. 13 players running around on a piece of grass are miles away from the boardroom. Why the Bulls have decided to air dirty laundry in the press and why speculation and misinterpretation from people with only very very very limited knowledge of the actual facts has detracted form our season beats me. How many on this thread actually run a successful and profitable business rather than Wikipedia the law and how companies are run?
Totally agree. unfortunately previous bulls board consisted of 3 Politians and the head of a public sector organisation.
[quote][p][bold]Nick Harrison[/bold] wrote: There are a lot of none stories here. Not filing accounts and the resultant legal threats happen every day. How can a new board file when they are probably still undergoing due dilligence. There are companies who go months without filing and without sanction. Sensationalist journalism with limited understanding. As for Khan, he has a history of dropping companies and Whitcut buying them out of Administration. They have done it before. Dont believe all you read! Business is a cut throat thing. 13 players running around on a piece of grass are miles away from the boardroom. Why the Bulls have decided to air dirty laundry in the press and why speculation and misinterpretation from people with only very very very limited knowledge of the actual facts has detracted form our season beats me. How many on this thread actually run a successful and profitable business rather than Wikipedia the law and how companies are run?[/p][/quote]Totally agree. unfortunately previous bulls board consisted of 3 Politians and the head of a public sector organisation. grafter1980

3:17pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Scrouge says...

fedupwiththeBS wrote:
So the big investor that is going to be revealed in the New Year sounds more like a ruse to sell season tickets for Xmas. Who is going to invest in a board that does not even own the club?

We have gone from being World Champions to being a joke side in no time at all.

I would not blame any of our players for leaving if they were offered even the slights hint of stability.

Even London are in a better state than we are.

Rugby league is not rocket science and nor is running a rugby club.
Big investors is just more Robbie bull to buy for time. Only players left will be big earners who they want to shift out but nobody wants them. Maybe Khan will come back in and all those fools who came on here supporting him will rally around him again. The Great Saviour . Arises again.
[quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: So the big investor that is going to be revealed in the New Year sounds more like a ruse to sell season tickets for Xmas. Who is going to invest in a board that does not even own the club? We have gone from being World Champions to being a joke side in no time at all. I would not blame any of our players for leaving if they were offered even the slights hint of stability. Even London are in a better state than we are. Rugby league is not rocket science and nor is running a rugby club.[/p][/quote]Big investors is just more Robbie bull to buy for time. Only players left will be big earners who they want to shift out but nobody wants them. Maybe Khan will come back in and all those fools who came on here supporting him will rally around him again. The Great Saviour . Arises again. Scrouge

3:37pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ray Mac says...

Why such negatively, Omar saved the club and passed on the responsibility to Mark and Ryan, Ryan has moved on leaving Mark and a couple of hard working business men with their hearts in the club, they need some slack to help achieve their goal or we won't have a club.
If you are all so concerned with the outcome at Odsal, then buy a season ticket and help to encourage the present board to continue or they might just give up. I believe the T&A are getting one sided info that is only harming the situation.
Why such negatively, Omar saved the club and passed on the responsibility to Mark and Ryan, Ryan has moved on leaving Mark and a couple of hard working business men with their hearts in the club, they need some slack to help achieve their goal or we won't have a club. If you are all so concerned with the outcome at Odsal, then buy a season ticket and help to encourage the present board to continue or they might just give up. I believe the T&A are getting one sided info that is only harming the situation. Ray Mac

4:01pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Scrouge says...

Ray Mac wrote:
Why such negatively, Omar saved the club and passed on the responsibility to Mark and Ryan, Ryan has moved on leaving Mark and a couple of hard working business men with their hearts in the club, they need some slack to help achieve their goal or we won't have a club.
If you are all so concerned with the outcome at Odsal, then buy a season ticket and help to encourage the present board to continue or they might just give up. I believe the T&A are getting one sided info that is only harming the situation.
Khan still owns the Club Fact . New Directors own no shares or I suspect put any money in! Someone needs to buy Khan out or put the Club into liquidation and start again. A fans buyout best solution , as they seem to be the only group that care what happens to Bulls. Doubt we will start the season
Unless this mess is sorted out soon.
[quote][p][bold]Ray Mac[/bold] wrote: Why such negatively, Omar saved the club and passed on the responsibility to Mark and Ryan, Ryan has moved on leaving Mark and a couple of hard working business men with their hearts in the club, they need some slack to help achieve their goal or we won't have a club. If you are all so concerned with the outcome at Odsal, then buy a season ticket and help to encourage the present board to continue or they might just give up. I believe the T&A are getting one sided info that is only harming the situation.[/p][/quote]Khan still owns the Club Fact . New Directors own no shares or I suspect put any money in! Someone needs to buy Khan out or put the Club into liquidation and start again. A fans buyout best solution , as they seem to be the only group that care what happens to Bulls. Doubt we will start the season Unless this mess is sorted out soon. Scrouge

4:02pm Fri 20 Dec 13

bully4us says...

Now, Now Ray Mac. Don’t go saying things like that to the people who spend all day on here pretending to be experts in every aspect of running a business. You will be called a troll. I suggested the other day that the only people who will help the bulls here are the fans who buy tickets and turn up at matches – I think that makes them “supporters”, not the ones who constantly argue and insult people on here every day and wet themselves with excitement every time a story appears that gives their dreary day a lift. You will be accused of wearing tinted glasses, head in sand and not smelling the coffee. But hey, it gives them some fun pretending to know everything. The thousands of other supporters who stay away from this site know better!
Now, Now Ray Mac. Don’t go saying things like that to the people who spend all day on here pretending to be experts in every aspect of running a business. You will be called a troll. I suggested the other day that the only people who will help the bulls here are the fans who buy tickets and turn up at matches – I think that makes them “supporters”, not the ones who constantly argue and insult people on here every day and wet themselves with excitement every time a story appears that gives their dreary day a lift. You will be accused of wearing tinted glasses, head in sand and not smelling the coffee. But hey, it gives them some fun pretending to know everything. The thousands of other supporters who stay away from this site know better! bully4us

4:08pm Fri 20 Dec 13

raisemeup says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
So where is my mate Raisemeup. Just a reminder of what I said the other day.


..9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13
Thee Voice of Reason says...


Well I knoe that Mr Moore has given his side of the story to the T&A but this hasn't been printed and that the club and T&A have had some fall out which is why we only now see rehashes of stories and not exclusives.


Then today on their website they post this.

"We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers."

Nah, there is no fall out there is there Raisemeup.
What are you going on about? You have reported two stories as if they were predictions from you?
That's dammed impressive, but means very little to me anyway!
If the price of diesel had come down, I'd be more impressed.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: So where is my mate Raisemeup. Just a reminder of what I said the other day. [quote] ..9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13 Thee Voice of Reason says... Well I knoe that Mr Moore has given his side of the story to the T&A but this hasn't been printed and that the club and T&A have had some fall out which is why we only now see rehashes of stories and not exclusives. [/quote] Then today on their website they post this. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers." Nah, there is no fall out there is there Raisemeup.[/p][/quote]What are you going on about? You have reported two stories as if they were predictions from you? That's dammed impressive, but means very little to me anyway! If the price of diesel had come down, I'd be more impressed. raisemeup

4:08pm Fri 20 Dec 13

olicanabull says...

If owner A transfers shares to buyer B for an agreed sum but buyer B then finds that he has inherited undisclosed debts far in excess of the buying price (say £400,000), what should B do. Refuse to pay the agreed sum which due diligence had not revealed? Or be taken to court? Or negotiate an agreement to save all parties legal fees? Or, finally, the white knight from the RFL flies in to save the asset he owns by forcing a compromise? As they say, interesting times.
If owner A transfers shares to buyer B for an agreed sum but buyer B then finds that he has inherited undisclosed debts far in excess of the buying price (say £400,000), what should B do. Refuse to pay the agreed sum which due diligence had not revealed? Or be taken to court? Or negotiate an agreement to save all parties legal fees? Or, finally, the white knight from the RFL flies in to save the asset he owns by forcing a compromise? As they say, interesting times. olicanabull

4:25pm Fri 20 Dec 13

raisemeup says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
So where is my mate Raisemeup. Just a reminder of what I said the other day.


..9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13
Thee Voice of Reason says...


Well I knoe that Mr Moore has given his side of the story to the T&A but this hasn't been printed and that the club and T&A have had some fall out which is why we only now see rehashes of stories and not exclusives.


Then today on their website they post this.

"We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers."

Nah, there is no fall out there is there Raisemeup.
Oh I see what you meant, the very last statement in the overall piece!
That clears that up then:
Just for balance, shall we reproduce the piece?

Quote:
"As we informed everyone who attended that event, the club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing.
"Mr Khan has publicly stated that he does not wish to take legal action against Bradford Bulls. The matter, as has been recently reported, is between individuals.
"The whole situation has been repeatedly explained, both to our sponsors, our supporters and members of the media.
"We are working tirelessly to secure a solid, long-term future for this great club and everyone involved here is totally committed to the cause.
"We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers.
"Supporters will agree our time is best spent attempting to ensure we survive the 2014 campaign and build for a successful future.
"When we are in a position to update our supporters, with regards to the transfer of shares and the ownership of Bradford Bulls, a statement will be made."
As there is no further information to currently share, the club will be making no further comment on the issue at this time.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: So where is my mate Raisemeup. Just a reminder of what I said the other day. [quote] ..9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13 Thee Voice of Reason says... Well I knoe that Mr Moore has given his side of the story to the T&A but this hasn't been printed and that the club and T&A have had some fall out which is why we only now see rehashes of stories and not exclusives. [/quote] Then today on their website they post this. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers." Nah, there is no fall out there is there Raisemeup.[/p][/quote]Oh I see what you meant, the very last statement in the overall piece! That clears that up then: Just for balance, shall we reproduce the piece? Quote: "As we informed everyone who attended that event, the club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing. "Mr Khan has publicly stated that he does not wish to take legal action against Bradford Bulls. The matter, as has been recently reported, is between individuals. "The whole situation has been repeatedly explained, both to our sponsors, our supporters and members of the media. "We are working tirelessly to secure a solid, long-term future for this great club and everyone involved here is totally committed to the cause. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers. "Supporters will agree our time is best spent attempting to ensure we survive the 2014 campaign and build for a successful future. "When we are in a position to update our supporters, with regards to the transfer of shares and the ownership of Bradford Bulls, a statement will be made." As there is no further information to currently share, the club will be making no further comment on the issue at this time. raisemeup

4:37pm Fri 20 Dec 13

raisemeup says...

olicanabull wrote:
If owner A transfers shares to buyer B for an agreed sum but buyer B then finds that he has inherited undisclosed debts far in excess of the buying price (say £400,000), what should B do. Refuse to pay the agreed sum which due diligence had not revealed? Or be taken to court? Or negotiate an agreement to save all parties legal fees? Or, finally, the white knight from the RFL flies in to save the asset he owns by forcing a compromise? As they say, interesting times.
That about sums it up, simple logic. It would be nice to see it resolved sensibly.
[quote][p][bold]olicanabull[/bold] wrote: If owner A transfers shares to buyer B for an agreed sum but buyer B then finds that he has inherited undisclosed debts far in excess of the buying price (say £400,000), what should B do. Refuse to pay the agreed sum which due diligence had not revealed? Or be taken to court? Or negotiate an agreement to save all parties legal fees? Or, finally, the white knight from the RFL flies in to save the asset he owns by forcing a compromise? As they say, interesting times.[/p][/quote]That about sums it up, simple logic. It would be nice to see it resolved sensibly. raisemeup

4:42pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Bacon Bantam says...

raisemeup wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: So where is my mate Raisemeup. Just a reminder of what I said the other day.
..9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13 Thee Voice of Reason says... Well I knoe that Mr Moore has given his side of the story to the T&A but this hasn't been printed and that the club and T&A have had some fall out which is why we only now see rehashes of stories and not exclusives.
Then today on their website they post this. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers." Nah, there is no fall out there is there Raisemeup.
Oh I see what you meant, the very last statement in the overall piece! That clears that up then: Just for balance, shall we reproduce the piece? Quote: "As we informed everyone who attended that event, the club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing. "Mr Khan has publicly stated that he does not wish to take legal action against Bradford Bulls. The matter, as has been recently reported, is between individuals. "The whole situation has been repeatedly explained, both to our sponsors, our supporters and members of the media. "We are working tirelessly to secure a solid, long-term future for this great club and everyone involved here is totally committed to the cause. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers. "Supporters will agree our time is best spent attempting to ensure we survive the 2014 campaign and build for a successful future. "When we are in a position to update our supporters, with regards to the transfer of shares and the ownership of Bradford Bulls, a statement will be made." As there is no further information to currently share, the club will be making no further comment on the issue at this time.
I fail to see the relevance of what you have posted. TVOR posted this week the club and the T&A had fallen out, now we have the Bulls website having a shot at the T&A.

It's not rocket science to see what he is suggesting. Once again you pull somthing completely irrelevant to the piece out. A little like how you were put in your place regarding 21 months to file an annual return.
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: So where is my mate Raisemeup. Just a reminder of what I said the other day. [quote] ..9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13 Thee Voice of Reason says... Well I knoe that Mr Moore has given his side of the story to the T&A but this hasn't been printed and that the club and T&A have had some fall out which is why we only now see rehashes of stories and not exclusives. [/quote] Then today on their website they post this. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers." Nah, there is no fall out there is there Raisemeup.[/p][/quote]Oh I see what you meant, the very last statement in the overall piece! That clears that up then: Just for balance, shall we reproduce the piece? Quote: "As we informed everyone who attended that event, the club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing. "Mr Khan has publicly stated that he does not wish to take legal action against Bradford Bulls. The matter, as has been recently reported, is between individuals. "The whole situation has been repeatedly explained, both to our sponsors, our supporters and members of the media. "We are working tirelessly to secure a solid, long-term future for this great club and everyone involved here is totally committed to the cause. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers. "Supporters will agree our time is best spent attempting to ensure we survive the 2014 campaign and build for a successful future. "When we are in a position to update our supporters, with regards to the transfer of shares and the ownership of Bradford Bulls, a statement will be made." As there is no further information to currently share, the club will be making no further comment on the issue at this time.[/p][/quote]I fail to see the relevance of what you have posted. TVOR posted this week the club and the T&A had fallen out, now we have the Bulls website having a shot at the T&A. It's not rocket science to see what he is suggesting. Once again you pull somthing completely irrelevant to the piece out. A little like how you were put in your place regarding 21 months to file an annual return. Bacon Bantam

4:58pm Fri 20 Dec 13

tyker7745 says...

grafter1980 wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
grafter1980 wrote:
StevieLad wrote:
grafter1980 wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club.

Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket.

If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over?

The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.
Exactly

The new owners arent "owners" as such as they have no money to actually settle previous directors or even fund the club to keep it going.

Why the hell are they in charge if they cant put anything in. All they are are second rate businessmen who like the standing of pretending to own a club to wine and & dine their other business interests.
I think it was more about the previous Directors getting out as quickly as possible, the current Directors never talked about putting money in. I think the old guard just wanted to leave before any of the hard decision we are seeing now had to be made, player sales , redundancies ( not good if you trade off Union credentials?)

One smoke screen that annoys me is how much emphasis has been placed on Whitcut- he was a Director for about 6 weeks. The massive debts were run up before them. The Combined Code that sets standards of Corp Governance places the responsibility for control/transparency





/accountability with the Director's i.e OK/GS and friends. Even RW if he did things in his time as general managers the Directors are still accountable.

The legal story seams like a bit of a smoke screen, if OK is pursuing them personally not the club than must mean they offered personal guarantees- seams unlikely.

Secondly how much is a company with very few assets, significant debt and a going concern issue really worth. What payment would they have agreed to?
The combined code applies to listed companies. In a private co like ok bulls, there is no responsibility for transparency other than it can sometimes help to keep fans informed.
absolutely, but the combined code still can be used as a benchmark of best practice, particularly with regards to the conduct of Directors. Take your point that a Ltd company has far less disclosure requirement re financial information.

Therefore if you were a Director who held pubic office of a company borrowing money from the public sector I would be very careful to make sure the company complied with the principles of the Combined Code, particularly when if what the current directors say is true, poor standards of Corp Gov have lead to redundancies
BUT IT IS NOT A PUBLIC COMPANY:IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY.

THE RETURN INDICATES IT DID NOT BORROW FROM THE COUNCIL:SO KHAN GOT THE LOAN..... BUT ON WHAT BASIS AND COLLATERAL?
I understand the nature of the company

Corporate Governance is principles based. It would be valid question to ask any of the previous Directors ' in your tenure do you think the Directors acted within principles of good corporate governance'. You're suggesting they could answer that by saying 'that doesn't apply it's a Ltd'. If that were to be particularly Sutcliffe or Swales response I think party head office would have something to say. Hence the absence of these two names from any T&A reports

re money whether lent directly to OK or to club with a personal guarantee, what's the difference?
lent to to the club:if it liquidates no chance of recovery. Khan liable if lent to him. Get it
[quote][p][bold]grafter1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grafter1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StevieLad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grafter1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club. Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket. If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over? The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.[/p][/quote]Exactly The new owners arent "owners" as such as they have no money to actually settle previous directors or even fund the club to keep it going. Why the hell are they in charge if they cant put anything in. All they are are second rate businessmen who like the standing of pretending to own a club to wine and & dine their other business interests.[/p][/quote]I think it was more about the previous Directors getting out as quickly as possible, the current Directors never talked about putting money in. I think the old guard just wanted to leave before any of the hard decision we are seeing now had to be made, player sales , redundancies ( not good if you trade off Union credentials?) One smoke screen that annoys me is how much emphasis has been placed on Whitcut- he was a Director for about 6 weeks. The massive debts were run up before them. The Combined Code that sets standards of Corp Governance places the responsibility for control/transparency /accountability with the Director's i.e OK/GS and friends. Even RW if he did things in his time as general managers the Directors are still accountable. The legal story seams like a bit of a smoke screen, if OK is pursuing them personally not the club than must mean they offered personal guarantees- seams unlikely. Secondly how much is a company with very few assets, significant debt and a going concern issue really worth. What payment would they have agreed to?[/p][/quote]The combined code applies to listed companies. In a private co like ok bulls, there is no responsibility for transparency other than it can sometimes help to keep fans informed.[/p][/quote]absolutely, but the combined code still can be used as a benchmark of best practice, particularly with regards to the conduct of Directors. Take your point that a Ltd company has far less disclosure requirement re financial information. Therefore if you were a Director who held pubic office of a company borrowing money from the public sector I would be very careful to make sure the company complied with the principles of the Combined Code, particularly when if what the current directors say is true, poor standards of Corp Gov have lead to redundancies[/p][/quote]BUT IT IS NOT A PUBLIC COMPANY:IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. THE RETURN INDICATES IT DID NOT BORROW FROM THE COUNCIL:SO KHAN GOT THE LOAN..... BUT ON WHAT BASIS AND COLLATERAL?[/p][/quote]I understand the nature of the company Corporate Governance is principles based. It would be valid question to ask any of the previous Directors ' in your tenure do you think the Directors acted within principles of good corporate governance'. You're suggesting they could answer that by saying 'that doesn't apply it's a Ltd'. If that were to be particularly Sutcliffe or Swales response I think party head office would have something to say. Hence the absence of these two names from any T&A reports re money whether lent directly to OK or to club with a personal guarantee, what's the difference?[/p][/quote]lent to to the club:if it liquidates no chance of recovery. Khan liable if lent to him. Get it tyker7745

5:03pm Fri 20 Dec 13

BD16 says...

raisemeup wrote:
olicanabull wrote:
If owner A transfers shares to buyer B for an agreed sum but buyer B then finds that he has inherited undisclosed debts far in excess of the buying price (say £400,000), what should B do. Refuse to pay the agreed sum which due diligence had not revealed? Or be taken to court? Or negotiate an agreement to save all parties legal fees? Or, finally, the white knight from the RFL flies in to save the asset he owns by forcing a compromise? As they say, interesting times.
That about sums it up, simple logic. It would be nice to see it resolved sensibly.
I think that's all going to depend on how you define "sensible" I think Omar Khan on the one side and messrs Whitcut and Moore on the other may have different definitions. With such large amounts of money involved this could get very messy, especially if the 200k loan is secured on one of Omar's assets rather than the Bulls.
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]olicanabull[/bold] wrote: If owner A transfers shares to buyer B for an agreed sum but buyer B then finds that he has inherited undisclosed debts far in excess of the buying price (say £400,000), what should B do. Refuse to pay the agreed sum which due diligence had not revealed? Or be taken to court? Or negotiate an agreement to save all parties legal fees? Or, finally, the white knight from the RFL flies in to save the asset he owns by forcing a compromise? As they say, interesting times.[/p][/quote]That about sums it up, simple logic. It would be nice to see it resolved sensibly.[/p][/quote]I think that's all going to depend on how you define "sensible" I think Omar Khan on the one side and messrs Whitcut and Moore on the other may have different definitions. With such large amounts of money involved this could get very messy, especially if the 200k loan is secured on one of Omar's assets rather than the Bulls. BD16

5:59pm Fri 20 Dec 13

grafter1980 says...

tyker7745 wrote:
grafter1980 wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
grafter1980 wrote:
StevieLad wrote:
grafter1980 wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club.

Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket.

If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over?

The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.
Exactly

The new owners arent "owners" as such as they have no money to actually settle previous directors or even fund the club to keep it going.

Why the hell are they in charge if they cant put anything in. All they are are second rate businessmen who like the standing of pretending to own a club to wine and & dine their other business interests.
I think it was more about the previous Directors getting out as quickly as possible, the current Directors never talked about putting money in. I think the old guard just wanted to leave before any of the hard decision we are seeing now had to be made, player sales , redundancies ( not good if you trade off Union credentials?)

One smoke screen that annoys me is how much emphasis has been placed on Whitcut- he was a Director for about 6 weeks. The massive debts were run up before them. The Combined Code that sets standards of Corp Governance places the responsibility for control/transparency






/accountability with the Director's i.e OK/GS and friends. Even RW if he did things in his time as general managers the Directors are still accountable.

The legal story seams like a bit of a smoke screen, if OK is pursuing them personally not the club than must mean they offered personal guarantees- seams unlikely.

Secondly how much is a company with very few assets, significant debt and a going concern issue really worth. What payment would they have agreed to?
The combined code applies to listed companies. In a private co like ok bulls, there is no responsibility for transparency other than it can sometimes help to keep fans informed.
absolutely, but the combined code still can be used as a benchmark of best practice, particularly with regards to the conduct of Directors. Take your point that a Ltd company has far less disclosure requirement re financial information.

Therefore if you were a Director who held pubic office of a company borrowing money from the public sector I would be very careful to make sure the company complied with the principles of the Combined Code, particularly when if what the current directors say is true, poor standards of Corp Gov have lead to redundancies
BUT IT IS NOT A PUBLIC COMPANY:IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY.

THE RETURN INDICATES IT DID NOT BORROW FROM THE COUNCIL:SO KHAN GOT THE LOAN..... BUT ON WHAT BASIS AND COLLATERAL?
I understand the nature of the company

Corporate Governance is principles based. It would be valid question to ask any of the previous Directors ' in your tenure do you think the Directors acted within principles of good corporate governance'. You're suggesting they could answer that by saying 'that doesn't apply it's a Ltd'. If that were to be particularly Sutcliffe or Swales response I think party head office would have something to say. Hence the absence of these two names from any T&A reports

re money whether lent directly to OK or to club with a personal guarantee, what's the difference?
lent to to the club:if it liquidates no chance of recovery. Khan liable if lent to him. Get it
do you know what a personal guarantee is ?
[quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grafter1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grafter1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]StevieLad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grafter1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: a terrible mess indeed: so the "new owners" are not the owners and they can be over ruled on any action they take. It has to be approved by shareholder vote. They are ,effectively, without power. They could form their own company but it would not have approval to operate as a super league club until sanctioned by the RFL Ergo no rugby league club. Khan is between a hard rock and a very hard rock. If he liquidates the company the shares are valueless and he is left massively out of pocket. If he continues his action the shares can only be transferred when the money is paid over to him. Do the current owners actually have the cash to pat it over? The bottom line is that the club are in limbo as are the Super League.[/p][/quote]Exactly The new owners arent "owners" as such as they have no money to actually settle previous directors or even fund the club to keep it going. Why the hell are they in charge if they cant put anything in. All they are are second rate businessmen who like the standing of pretending to own a club to wine and & dine their other business interests.[/p][/quote]I think it was more about the previous Directors getting out as quickly as possible, the current Directors never talked about putting money in. I think the old guard just wanted to leave before any of the hard decision we are seeing now had to be made, player sales , redundancies ( not good if you trade off Union credentials?) One smoke screen that annoys me is how much emphasis has been placed on Whitcut- he was a Director for about 6 weeks. The massive debts were run up before them. The Combined Code that sets standards of Corp Governance places the responsibility for control/transparency /accountability with the Director's i.e OK/GS and friends. Even RW if he did things in his time as general managers the Directors are still accountable. The legal story seams like a bit of a smoke screen, if OK is pursuing them personally not the club than must mean they offered personal guarantees- seams unlikely. Secondly how much is a company with very few assets, significant debt and a going concern issue really worth. What payment would they have agreed to?[/p][/quote]The combined code applies to listed companies. In a private co like ok bulls, there is no responsibility for transparency other than it can sometimes help to keep fans informed.[/p][/quote]absolutely, but the combined code still can be used as a benchmark of best practice, particularly with regards to the conduct of Directors. Take your point that a Ltd company has far less disclosure requirement re financial information. Therefore if you were a Director who held pubic office of a company borrowing money from the public sector I would be very careful to make sure the company complied with the principles of the Combined Code, particularly when if what the current directors say is true, poor standards of Corp Gov have lead to redundancies[/p][/quote]BUT IT IS NOT A PUBLIC COMPANY:IT IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. THE RETURN INDICATES IT DID NOT BORROW FROM THE COUNCIL:SO KHAN GOT THE LOAN..... BUT ON WHAT BASIS AND COLLATERAL?[/p][/quote]I understand the nature of the company Corporate Governance is principles based. It would be valid question to ask any of the previous Directors ' in your tenure do you think the Directors acted within principles of good corporate governance'. You're suggesting they could answer that by saying 'that doesn't apply it's a Ltd'. If that were to be particularly Sutcliffe or Swales response I think party head office would have something to say. Hence the absence of these two names from any T&A reports re money whether lent directly to OK or to club with a personal guarantee, what's the difference?[/p][/quote]lent to to the club:if it liquidates no chance of recovery. Khan liable if lent to him. Get it[/p][/quote]do you know what a personal guarantee is ? grafter1980

6:34pm Fri 20 Dec 13

handoff says...

Nick Harrison wrote:
There are a lot of none stories here. Not filing accounts and the resultant legal threats happen every day. How can a new board file when they are probably still undergoing due dilligence. There are companies who go months without filing and without sanction. Sensationalist journalism with limited understanding. As for Khan, he has a history of dropping companies and Whitcut buying them out of Administration. They have done it before. Dont believe all you read!

Business is a cut throat thing. 13 players running around on a piece of grass are miles away from the boardroom. Why the Bulls have decided to air dirty laundry in the press and why speculation and misinterpretation from people with only very very very limited knowledge of the actual facts has detracted form our season beats me. How many on this thread actually run a successful and profitable business rather than Wikipedia the law and how companies are run?
Spot on! People on this thread demand the truth, say they know it or speculate wildly. I myself am aware of a good number of the events landing us in this mess and the blame is quite clear, however we have to let the current board sort it out: there is no other option (unless someone out there has a million to throw around). Personally, I would like to see the model for ownership used in German football, but that is just a Christmas wish.
[quote][p][bold]Nick Harrison[/bold] wrote: There are a lot of none stories here. Not filing accounts and the resultant legal threats happen every day. How can a new board file when they are probably still undergoing due dilligence. There are companies who go months without filing and without sanction. Sensationalist journalism with limited understanding. As for Khan, he has a history of dropping companies and Whitcut buying them out of Administration. They have done it before. Dont believe all you read! Business is a cut throat thing. 13 players running around on a piece of grass are miles away from the boardroom. Why the Bulls have decided to air dirty laundry in the press and why speculation and misinterpretation from people with only very very very limited knowledge of the actual facts has detracted form our season beats me. How many on this thread actually run a successful and profitable business rather than Wikipedia the law and how companies are run?[/p][/quote]Spot on! People on this thread demand the truth, say they know it or speculate wildly. I myself am aware of a good number of the events landing us in this mess and the blame is quite clear, however we have to let the current board sort it out: there is no other option (unless someone out there has a million to throw around). Personally, I would like to see the model for ownership used in German football, but that is just a Christmas wish. handoff

6:38pm Fri 20 Dec 13

axlef1963 says...

What a complete and utter farce this is turning into.As ive said before I think theres a lot more bad news to come out in the coming weeks,if the powers that be at the rfl okd this deal knowing that omar khan stiil had a 99%share holding in the bulls what was the deal put forward by the new board to buy his shares.Will some body please tell us the truth as at the moment all we are getting is smoke blown up ar#e.This whole episode as gone beyond a joke and I for one are sick and tired of being feed BULLSH#T.Come on somebody at the bulls tell us the real truth until then I will not buy a season which I have had for 25 years.Come on some body sort this mess out.COYB
What a complete and utter farce this is turning into.As ive said before I think theres a lot more bad news to come out in the coming weeks,if the powers that be at the rfl okd this deal knowing that omar khan stiil had a 99%share holding in the bulls what was the deal put forward by the new board to buy his shares.Will some body please tell us the truth as at the moment all we are getting is smoke blown up ar#e.This whole episode as gone beyond a joke and I for one are sick and tired of being feed BULLSH#T.Come on somebody at the bulls tell us the real truth until then I will not buy a season which I have had for 25 years.Come on some body sort this mess out.COYB axlef1963

8:01pm Fri 20 Dec 13

RABTID says...

Many are asking for the truth. But no matter what is the truth there will be those who will not believe it. All so far is what you and Uncle Tom Cobley and all THINK it is. I can say that Bradford City have financial problems, six months done the line if it happens I can say " I told you so ". Anybody can say anything believing it is. BUT we don't know and only will when those that ACTUALLY know deign to tell us. Surmise all you like, make predictions that in weeks, months to come will be/maybe correct . Stop trying to score points off one another when you don't know what is happening. As I've said before ONLY those involved know the true facts, not me, not you. Now shut the feck up and go and enjoy Xmas.

Merry Christmas to one and all. Even those who have no love for the Bulls. Axle, even you lad, you seem to have lost your way, 25 yrs, 25 season tkts. Get behind the club you love go with your heart not your head. You won't regret it. COYB

Oh and even Merry Christmas to those, whose job it us to keep us reliably informed at tomorrow's fish and chip wrappings. Your News Years resolution lads, to get to the bottom of things without too much negativity.
Many are asking for the truth. But no matter what is the truth there will be those who will not believe it. All so far is what you and Uncle Tom Cobley and all THINK it is. I can say that Bradford City have financial problems, six months done the line if it happens I can say " I told you so ". Anybody can say anything believing it is. BUT we don't know and only will when those that ACTUALLY know deign to tell us. Surmise all you like, make predictions that in weeks, months to come will be/maybe correct . Stop trying to score points off one another when you don't know what is happening. As I've said before ONLY those involved know the true facts, not me, not you. Now shut the feck up and go and enjoy Xmas. Merry Christmas to one and all. Even those who have no love for the Bulls. Axle, even you lad, you seem to have lost your way, 25 yrs, 25 season tkts. Get behind the club you love go with your heart not your head. You won't regret it. COYB Oh and even Merry Christmas to those, whose job it us to keep us reliably informed at tomorrow's fish and chip wrappings. Your News Years resolution lads, to get to the bottom of things without too much negativity. RABTID

8:27pm Fri 20 Dec 13

raisemeup says...

Bacon Bantam wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: So where is my mate Raisemeup. Just a reminder of what I said the other day.
..9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13 Thee Voice of Reason says... Well I knoe that Mr Moore has given his side of the story to the T&A but this hasn't been printed and that the club and T&A have had some fall out which is why we only now see rehashes of stories and not exclusives.
Then today on their website they post this. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers." Nah, there is no fall out there is there Raisemeup.
Oh I see what you meant, the very last statement in the overall piece! That clears that up then: Just for balance, shall we reproduce the piece? Quote: "As we informed everyone who attended that event, the club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing. "Mr Khan has publicly stated that he does not wish to take legal action against Bradford Bulls. The matter, as has been recently reported, is between individuals. "The whole situation has been repeatedly explained, both to our sponsors, our supporters and members of the media. "We are working tirelessly to secure a solid, long-term future for this great club and everyone involved here is totally committed to the cause. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers. "Supporters will agree our time is best spent attempting to ensure we survive the 2014 campaign and build for a successful future. "When we are in a position to update our supporters, with regards to the transfer of shares and the ownership of Bradford Bulls, a statement will be made." As there is no further information to currently share, the club will be making no further comment on the issue at this time.
I fail to see the relevance of what you have posted. TVOR posted this week the club and the T&A had fallen out, now we have the Bulls website having a shot at the T&A.

It's not rocket science to see what he is suggesting. Once again you pull somthing completely irrelevant to the piece out. A little like how you were put in your place regarding 21 months to file an annual return.
It would take more than that to, put me in my place, as you put it.

The total article was relevant to what was said on the website , TVOR pulls out a section, that means very little once out of context , and perhaps describes something that is considered important by the people who said it.
To do that is either designed to cause mischief and misrepresentation.
The article did not mention any Newspaper by name, and a true Bulls supporter may think the total piece was relevant to their future as a supporter, of the club.

Not everyone can read what his or your interpretation might be.
However I do not think he needs you to blow sugar up his backside, he is usually quite adept at it himself.
As for me, I don't put any store on what you say, nor do I care what you think.
[quote][p][bold]Bacon Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: So where is my mate Raisemeup. Just a reminder of what I said the other day. [quote] ..9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13 Thee Voice of Reason says... Well I knoe that Mr Moore has given his side of the story to the T&A but this hasn't been printed and that the club and T&A have had some fall out which is why we only now see rehashes of stories and not exclusives. [/quote] Then today on their website they post this. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers." Nah, there is no fall out there is there Raisemeup.[/p][/quote]Oh I see what you meant, the very last statement in the overall piece! That clears that up then: Just for balance, shall we reproduce the piece? Quote: "As we informed everyone who attended that event, the club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing. "Mr Khan has publicly stated that he does not wish to take legal action against Bradford Bulls. The matter, as has been recently reported, is between individuals. "The whole situation has been repeatedly explained, both to our sponsors, our supporters and members of the media. "We are working tirelessly to secure a solid, long-term future for this great club and everyone involved here is totally committed to the cause. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers. "Supporters will agree our time is best spent attempting to ensure we survive the 2014 campaign and build for a successful future. "When we are in a position to update our supporters, with regards to the transfer of shares and the ownership of Bradford Bulls, a statement will be made." As there is no further information to currently share, the club will be making no further comment on the issue at this time.[/p][/quote]I fail to see the relevance of what you have posted. TVOR posted this week the club and the T&A had fallen out, now we have the Bulls website having a shot at the T&A. It's not rocket science to see what he is suggesting. Once again you pull somthing completely irrelevant to the piece out. A little like how you were put in your place regarding 21 months to file an annual return.[/p][/quote]It would take more than that to, put me in my place, as you put it. The total article was relevant to what was said on the website , TVOR pulls out a section, that means very little once out of context , and perhaps describes something that is considered important by the people who said it. To do that is either designed to cause mischief and misrepresentation. The article did not mention any Newspaper by name, and a true Bulls supporter may think the total piece was relevant to their future as a supporter, of the club. Not everyone can read what his or your interpretation might be. However I do not think he needs you to blow sugar up his backside, he is usually quite adept at it himself. As for me, I don't put any store on what you say, nor do I care what you think. raisemeup

10:12pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Big_Biscuit says...

What a complete mess. Best wind it up and start again and try do a better job next time.
What a complete mess. Best wind it up and start again and try do a better job next time. Big_Biscuit

8:25am Sat 21 Dec 13

Thee Voice of Reason says...

raisemeup wrote:
Bacon Bantam wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: So where is my mate Raisemeup. Just a reminder of what I said the other day.
..9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13 Thee Voice of Reason says... Well I knoe that Mr Moore has given his side of the story to the T&A but this hasn't been printed and that the club and T&A have had some fall out which is why we only now see rehashes of stories and not exclusives.
Then today on their website they post this. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers." Nah, there is no fall out there is there Raisemeup.
Oh I see what you meant, the very last statement in the overall piece! That clears that up then: Just for balance, shall we reproduce the piece? Quote: "As we informed everyone who attended that event, the club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing. "Mr Khan has publicly stated that he does not wish to take legal action against Bradford Bulls. The matter, as has been recently reported, is between individuals. "The whole situation has been repeatedly explained, both to our sponsors, our supporters and members of the media. "We are working tirelessly to secure a solid, long-term future for this great club and everyone involved here is totally committed to the cause. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers. "Supporters will agree our time is best spent attempting to ensure we survive the 2014 campaign and build for a successful future. "When we are in a position to update our supporters, with regards to the transfer of shares and the ownership of Bradford Bulls, a statement will be made." As there is no further information to currently share, the club will be making no further comment on the issue at this time.
I fail to see the relevance of what you have posted. TVOR posted this week the club and the T&A had fallen out, now we have the Bulls website having a shot at the T&A.

It's not rocket science to see what he is suggesting. Once again you pull somthing completely irrelevant to the piece out. A little like how you were put in your place regarding 21 months to file an annual return.
It would take more than that to, put me in my place, as you put it.

The total article was relevant to what was said on the website , TVOR pulls out a section, that means very little once out of context , and perhaps describes something that is considered important by the people who said it.
To do that is either designed to cause mischief and misrepresentation.
The article did not mention any Newspaper by name, and a true Bulls supporter may think the total piece was relevant to their future as a supporter, of the club.

Not everyone can read what his or your interpretation might be.
However I do not think he needs you to blow sugar up his backside, he is usually quite adept at it himself.
As for me, I don't put any store on what you say, nor do I care what you think.
You blabbing about things that aren't relevant again.
Take a second to think, know thats a radical idea and ask yourself why this and stories like it have no author named on them.
I know you don't like me but that doesn't stop what I am saying being true.

Within the last month I have told you,
The club has been left in financial trouble - proven fact now.
The annual return was overdue - proven fact.
The club owners were unknown and unclear - This story proven the "new owners aren't the owners"
The club have fallen out with the T&A - Hint shown from the statement released yesterday and yes they won't name them directly but I don't see any stories in the Yorkshire Post and we don't have multiple local papers in Bradford so put 2+2 together.
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bacon Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: So where is my mate Raisemeup. Just a reminder of what I said the other day. [quote] ..9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13 Thee Voice of Reason says... Well I knoe that Mr Moore has given his side of the story to the T&A but this hasn't been printed and that the club and T&A have had some fall out which is why we only now see rehashes of stories and not exclusives. [/quote] Then today on their website they post this. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers." Nah, there is no fall out there is there Raisemeup.[/p][/quote]Oh I see what you meant, the very last statement in the overall piece! That clears that up then: Just for balance, shall we reproduce the piece? Quote: "As we informed everyone who attended that event, the club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing. "Mr Khan has publicly stated that he does not wish to take legal action against Bradford Bulls. The matter, as has been recently reported, is between individuals. "The whole situation has been repeatedly explained, both to our sponsors, our supporters and members of the media. "We are working tirelessly to secure a solid, long-term future for this great club and everyone involved here is totally committed to the cause. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers. "Supporters will agree our time is best spent attempting to ensure we survive the 2014 campaign and build for a successful future. "When we are in a position to update our supporters, with regards to the transfer of shares and the ownership of Bradford Bulls, a statement will be made." As there is no further information to currently share, the club will be making no further comment on the issue at this time.[/p][/quote]I fail to see the relevance of what you have posted. TVOR posted this week the club and the T&A had fallen out, now we have the Bulls website having a shot at the T&A. It's not rocket science to see what he is suggesting. Once again you pull somthing completely irrelevant to the piece out. A little like how you were put in your place regarding 21 months to file an annual return.[/p][/quote]It would take more than that to, put me in my place, as you put it. The total article was relevant to what was said on the website , TVOR pulls out a section, that means very little once out of context , and perhaps describes something that is considered important by the people who said it. To do that is either designed to cause mischief and misrepresentation. The article did not mention any Newspaper by name, and a true Bulls supporter may think the total piece was relevant to their future as a supporter, of the club. Not everyone can read what his or your interpretation might be. However I do not think he needs you to blow sugar up his backside, he is usually quite adept at it himself. As for me, I don't put any store on what you say, nor do I care what you think.[/p][/quote]You blabbing about things that aren't relevant again. Take a second to think, know thats a radical idea and ask yourself why this and stories like it have no author named on them. I know you don't like me but that doesn't stop what I am saying being true. Within the last month I have told you, The club has been left in financial trouble - proven fact now. The annual return was overdue - proven fact. The club owners were unknown and unclear - This story proven the "new owners aren't the owners" The club have fallen out with the T&A - Hint shown from the statement released yesterday and yes they won't name them directly but I don't see any stories in the Yorkshire Post and we don't have multiple local papers in Bradford so put 2+2 together. Thee Voice of Reason

11:09am Sat 21 Dec 13

Scrouge says...

Big_Biscuit wrote:
What a complete mess. Best wind it up and start again and try do a better job next time.
Agree. Hood dug the Hole, Nokhan. Garries on and was up to his waist now it appears we are up to our neck. Stop digging and fill the hole in and start again. If it goes to Court it will be over for sure.
[quote][p][bold]Big_Biscuit[/bold] wrote: What a complete mess. Best wind it up and start again and try do a better job next time.[/p][/quote]Agree. Hood dug the Hole, Nokhan. Garries on and was up to his waist now it appears we are up to our neck. Stop digging and fill the hole in and start again. If it goes to Court it will be over for sure. Scrouge

12:06pm Sat 21 Dec 13

raisemeup says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
Bacon Bantam wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote: So where is my mate Raisemeup. Just a reminder of what I said the other day.
..9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13 Thee Voice of Reason says... Well I knoe that Mr Moore has given his side of the story to the T&A but this hasn't been printed and that the club and T&A have had some fall out which is why we only now see rehashes of stories and not exclusives.
Then today on their website they post this. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers." Nah, there is no fall out there is there Raisemeup.
Oh I see what you meant, the very last statement in the overall piece! That clears that up then: Just for balance, shall we reproduce the piece? Quote: "As we informed everyone who attended that event, the club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing. "Mr Khan has publicly stated that he does not wish to take legal action against Bradford Bulls. The matter, as has been recently reported, is between individuals. "The whole situation has been repeatedly explained, both to our sponsors, our supporters and members of the media. "We are working tirelessly to secure a solid, long-term future for this great club and everyone involved here is totally committed to the cause. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers. "Supporters will agree our time is best spent attempting to ensure we survive the 2014 campaign and build for a successful future. "When we are in a position to update our supporters, with regards to the transfer of shares and the ownership of Bradford Bulls, a statement will be made." As there is no further information to currently share, the club will be making no further comment on the issue at this time.
I fail to see the relevance of what you have posted. TVOR posted this week the club and the T&A had fallen out, now we have the Bulls website having a shot at the T&A.

It's not rocket science to see what he is suggesting. Once again you pull somthing completely irrelevant to the piece out. A little like how you were put in your place regarding 21 months to file an annual return.
It would take more than that to, put me in my place, as you put it.

The total article was relevant to what was said on the website , TVOR pulls out a section, that means very little once out of context , and perhaps describes something that is considered important by the people who said it.
To do that is either designed to cause mischief and misrepresentation.
The article did not mention any Newspaper by name, and a true Bulls supporter may think the total piece was relevant to their future as a supporter, of the club.

Not everyone can read what his or your interpretation might be.
However I do not think he needs you to blow sugar up his backside, he is usually quite adept at it himself.
As for me, I don't put any store on what you say, nor do I care what you think.
You blabbing about things that aren't relevant again.
Take a second to think, know thats a radical idea and ask yourself why this and stories like it have no author named on them.
I know you don't like me but that doesn't stop what I am saying being true.

Within the last month I have told you,
The club has been left in financial trouble - proven fact now.
The annual return was overdue - proven fact.
The club owners were unknown and unclear - This story proven the "new owners aren't the owners"
The club have fallen out with the T&A - Hint shown from the statement released yesterday and yes they won't name them directly but I don't see any stories in the Yorkshire Post and we don't have multiple local papers in Bradford so put 2+2 together.
To answer your last re post, but to save space lets just add the last bit, and also forget the insult to my intelligence

You state:
Within the last month I have told you,
The club has been left in financial trouble - proven fact now.
The annual return was overdue - proven fact.
The club owners were unknown and unclear - This story proven the "new owners aren't the owners"
The club have fallen out with the T&A - Hint shown from the statement released yesterday and yes they won't name them directly but I don't see any stories in the Yorkshire Post and we don't have multiple local papers in Bradford so put 2+2 together.

No contest with all the info: except that the so called rift has not been reported anywhere>
I do not dislike you TVOR, because I don't know you. The problem is that you only begin to take an interest in anything, if the story is about the finances of the Club, and if controversy rages: In the main your posts are negative and you hope to stir up contempt for our club.
You tend to state the obvious in that everyone has probably read those articles before you claim them as your own factual knowledge of the situation , plus you like us to think it's often before it unfolds, and becomes public knowledge. Most of the information is"flim flam and snake oil" a technical term for bamboozling the public
Unfortunately the more you get from the local : "You are spot on TVOR " brigade the more you dig in with some ridiculous story that is never going to help with the present crisis.

We as supporters are more concerned with getting our team entertaining us all, and big crowds of fans in the coming season..that may be utopia, but it's our aim. We aren't in the business of sawing sawdust, or things we can do nothing about, because whatever you write or say. None of us can know the in's and out's of everything that has happened at the Bulls, mostly behind closed doors.

So I do not dislike you, but I dislike the things you often say.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bacon Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: So where is my mate Raisemeup. Just a reminder of what I said the other day. [quote] ..9:30am Mon 16 Dec 13 Thee Voice of Reason says... Well I knoe that Mr Moore has given his side of the story to the T&A but this hasn't been printed and that the club and T&A have had some fall out which is why we only now see rehashes of stories and not exclusives. [/quote] Then today on their website they post this. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers." Nah, there is no fall out there is there Raisemeup.[/p][/quote]Oh I see what you meant, the very last statement in the overall piece! That clears that up then: Just for balance, shall we reproduce the piece? Quote: "As we informed everyone who attended that event, the club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing. "Mr Khan has publicly stated that he does not wish to take legal action against Bradford Bulls. The matter, as has been recently reported, is between individuals. "The whole situation has been repeatedly explained, both to our sponsors, our supporters and members of the media. "We are working tirelessly to secure a solid, long-term future for this great club and everyone involved here is totally committed to the cause. "We refuse to be deterred by the constant negativity being generated by local press, through over sensationalism designed to help sell newspapers. "Supporters will agree our time is best spent attempting to ensure we survive the 2014 campaign and build for a successful future. "When we are in a position to update our supporters, with regards to the transfer of shares and the ownership of Bradford Bulls, a statement will be made." As there is no further information to currently share, the club will be making no further comment on the issue at this time.[/p][/quote]I fail to see the relevance of what you have posted. TVOR posted this week the club and the T&A had fallen out, now we have the Bulls website having a shot at the T&A. It's not rocket science to see what he is suggesting. Once again you pull somthing completely irrelevant to the piece out. A little like how you were put in your place regarding 21 months to file an annual return.[/p][/quote]It would take more than that to, put me in my place, as you put it. The total article was relevant to what was said on the website , TVOR pulls out a section, that means very little once out of context , and perhaps describes something that is considered important by the people who said it. To do that is either designed to cause mischief and misrepresentation. The article did not mention any Newspaper by name, and a true Bulls supporter may think the total piece was relevant to their future as a supporter, of the club. Not everyone can read what his or your interpretation might be. However I do not think he needs you to blow sugar up his backside, he is usually quite adept at it himself. As for me, I don't put any store on what you say, nor do I care what you think.[/p][/quote]You blabbing about things that aren't relevant again. Take a second to think, know thats a radical idea and ask yourself why this and stories like it have no author named on them. I know you don't like me but that doesn't stop what I am saying being true. Within the last month I have told you, The club has been left in financial trouble - proven fact now. The annual return was overdue - proven fact. The club owners were unknown and unclear - This story proven the "new owners aren't the owners" The club have fallen out with the T&A - Hint shown from the statement released yesterday and yes they won't name them directly but I don't see any stories in the Yorkshire Post and we don't have multiple local papers in Bradford so put 2+2 together.[/p][/quote]To answer your last re post, but to save space lets just add the last bit, and also forget the insult to my intelligence You state: Within the last month I have told you, The club has been left in financial trouble - proven fact now. The annual return was overdue - proven fact. The club owners were unknown and unclear - This story proven the "new owners aren't the owners" The club have fallen out with the T&A - Hint shown from the statement released yesterday and yes they won't name them directly but I don't see any stories in the Yorkshire Post and we don't have multiple local papers in Bradford so put 2+2 together. No contest with all the info: except that the so called rift has not been reported anywhere> I do not dislike you TVOR, because I don't know you. The problem is that you only begin to take an interest in anything, if the story is about the finances of the Club, and if controversy rages: In the main your posts are negative and you hope to stir up contempt for our club. You tend to state the obvious in that everyone has probably read those articles before you claim them as your own factual knowledge of the situation , plus you like us to think it's often before it unfolds, and becomes public knowledge. Most of the information is"flim flam and snake oil" a technical term for bamboozling the public Unfortunately the more you get from the local : "You are spot on TVOR " brigade the more you dig in with some ridiculous story that is never going to help with the present crisis. We as supporters are more concerned with getting our team entertaining us all, and big crowds of fans in the coming season..that may be utopia, but it's our aim. We aren't in the business of sawing sawdust, or things we can do nothing about, because whatever you write or say. None of us can know the in's and out's of everything that has happened at the Bulls, mostly behind closed doors. So I do not dislike you, but I dislike the things you often say. raisemeup

12:54pm Sat 21 Dec 13

RABTID says...

TVOR, you thing you have been proved right on more than one occasion. Reading some of the archived material on here, sorry mate, you, have been beaten to the punch on more than one point. You are unfortunately repeating what others have said. So get off your high horse, I suggest one or two more do the same, on these issues. Most of what has gone on we'll never know, unless those involved wish to make their part(s) in the affair public knowledge.

I see Hood, has through some surprising investigative journalism, by the local chip wrapper, not been made the scape goat for the whole fiasco. I would appreciate your opinions on the article at some point, TVOR, and friends. Yours to Raise. The RFL did offer a way out but it was turned down, why? I respect all opinions. Except when the bl33ding obvious is stated.

Merry Xmas to you ALL, those who follow the Bulls, even those who wish our downfall.
TVOR, you thing you have been proved right on more than one occasion. Reading some of the archived material on here, sorry mate, you, have been beaten to the punch on more than one point. You are unfortunately repeating what others have said. So get off your high horse, I suggest one or two more do the same, on these issues. Most of what has gone on we'll never know, unless those involved wish to make their part(s) in the affair public knowledge. I see Hood, has through some surprising investigative journalism, by the local chip wrapper, not been made the scape goat for the whole fiasco. I would appreciate your opinions on the article at some point, TVOR, and friends. Yours to Raise. The RFL did offer a way out but it was turned down, why? I respect all opinions. Except when the bl33ding obvious is stated. Merry Xmas to you ALL, those who follow the Bulls, even those who wish our downfall. RABTID

2:47pm Sat 21 Dec 13

raisemeup says...

RABTID wrote:
TVOR, you thing you have been proved right on more than one occasion. Reading some of the archived material on here, sorry mate, you, have been beaten to the punch on more than one point. You are unfortunately repeating what others have said. So get off your high horse, I suggest one or two more do the same, on these issues. Most of what has gone on we'll never know, unless those involved wish to make their part(s) in the affair public knowledge.

I see Hood, has through some surprising investigative journalism, by the local chip wrapper, not been made the scape goat for the whole fiasco. I would appreciate your opinions on the article at some point, TVOR, and friends. Yours to Raise. The RFL did offer a way out but it was turned down, why? I respect all opinions. Except when the bl33ding obvious is stated.

Merry Xmas to you ALL, those who follow the Bulls, even those who wish our downfall.
Thank you RABTID you are balanced enough to see that TVOR , could be a force for common sense if the horse isn't 17 or so hands (high).
Read the PH article and I would think that he would say that wouldn't he?

The rot set in as soon as we have sold the stadium was sold to the RFL as far as I can see, whether this was pressure from the RFL due to the money we reportedly owed them is only conjecture. What is fact is that the money received was never going to be enough, and we had let our home go, theoretically. As for the £325k loan being personally guaranteed by the three Directors, before the RFL would grant it> Personally I think the RFL knew full well they wouldn't grant a loan on the collateral that they owned anyway? Unless they could have said the Coral Stand was collateral. But I suppose if they had have hung about long enough after probably what they thought would have been our demise at Odsal they would have got it for near to nothing anyway. Obviously I don't really know, but no doubt we will get a lot more info as time goes on.

I will be honest and say that Peter Hood was a good friend to me over the previous years to our enforced insolvency.
Losing a club and many friends, because of it all is something that shouldn't have happened to any of us.
Still it will be interesting to hear what he has to say.

As long as we don't have to suffer the Death of a Thousand Cuts again.
It's okay now.
Enjoy your Christmas my friends, lets stick together, because we've had enough of the divide and conquer scene!
[quote][p][bold]RABTID[/bold] wrote: TVOR, you thing you have been proved right on more than one occasion. Reading some of the archived material on here, sorry mate, you, have been beaten to the punch on more than one point. You are unfortunately repeating what others have said. So get off your high horse, I suggest one or two more do the same, on these issues. Most of what has gone on we'll never know, unless those involved wish to make their part(s) in the affair public knowledge. I see Hood, has through some surprising investigative journalism, by the local chip wrapper, not been made the scape goat for the whole fiasco. I would appreciate your opinions on the article at some point, TVOR, and friends. Yours to Raise. The RFL did offer a way out but it was turned down, why? I respect all opinions. Except when the bl33ding obvious is stated. Merry Xmas to you ALL, those who follow the Bulls, even those who wish our downfall.[/p][/quote]Thank you RABTID you are balanced enough to see that TVOR , could be a force for common sense if the horse isn't 17 or so hands (high). Read the PH article and I would think that he would say that wouldn't he? The rot set in as soon as we have sold the stadium was sold to the RFL as far as I can see, whether this was pressure from the RFL due to the money we reportedly owed them is only conjecture. What is fact is that the money received was never going to be enough, and we had let our home go, theoretically. As for the £325k loan being personally guaranteed by the three Directors, before the RFL would grant it> Personally I think the RFL knew full well they wouldn't grant a loan on the collateral that they owned anyway? Unless they could have said the Coral Stand was collateral. But I suppose if they had have hung about long enough after probably what they thought would have been our demise at Odsal they would have got it for near to nothing anyway. Obviously I don't really know, but no doubt we will get a lot more info as time goes on. I will be honest and say that Peter Hood was a good friend to me over the previous years to our enforced insolvency. Losing a club and many friends, because of it all is something that shouldn't have happened to any of us. Still it will be interesting to hear what he has to say. As long as we don't have to suffer the Death of a Thousand Cuts again. It's okay now. Enjoy your Christmas my friends, lets stick together, because we've had enough of the divide and conquer scene! raisemeup

9:22pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Alhaurinrhino says...

axlef1963 wrote:
What a complete and utter farce this is turning into.As ive said before I think theres a lot more bad news to come out in the coming weeks,if the powers that be at the rfl okd this deal knowing that omar khan stiil had a 99%share holding in the bulls what was the deal put forward by the new board to buy his shares.Will some body please tell us the truth as at the moment all we are getting is smoke blown up ar#e.This whole episode as gone beyond a joke and I for one are sick and tired of being feed BULLSH#T.Come on somebody at the bulls tell us the real truth until then I will not buy a season which I have had for 25 years.Come on some body sort this mess out.COYB
Retard
[quote][p][bold]axlef1963[/bold] wrote: What a complete and utter farce this is turning into.As ive said before I think theres a lot more bad news to come out in the coming weeks,if the powers that be at the rfl okd this deal knowing that omar khan stiil had a 99%share holding in the bulls what was the deal put forward by the new board to buy his shares.Will some body please tell us the truth as at the moment all we are getting is smoke blown up ar#e.This whole episode as gone beyond a joke and I for one are sick and tired of being feed BULLSH#T.Come on somebody at the bulls tell us the real truth until then I will not buy a season which I have had for 25 years.Come on some body sort this mess out.COYB[/p][/quote]Retard Alhaurinrhino

6:56am Sun 22 Dec 13

Mike Strutter says...

Where's Gerry ?

Bet the last thing he wants 18 months before an election is this going to court
Where's Gerry ? Bet the last thing he wants 18 months before an election is this going to court Mike Strutter

12:28pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Ahrmen Aleg says...

Mike Strutter wrote:
Where's Gerry ?

Bet the last thing he wants 18 months before an election is this going to court
Not a word from him on his departure or indeed anything at all.
The Bulls legal saga will be the death of the Blls.ounds like some schennangins/

The owner (OK)runs up 1.2 million debt from a standing start of nil.

Sell all the operating rights of bars etc.Thats gone too.

I have to ask why should these 3 takeover I they do not want the debt.
Are they now directors of OK Bulls?
Ok I presume has resigned from OK Bulls


A real MESS>

Will be death of the Bulls.
Legal actions in a matter of this nature could top £100000. in cots alone.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Strutter[/bold] wrote: Where's Gerry ? Bet the last thing he wants 18 months before an election is this going to court[/p][/quote]Not a word from him on his departure or indeed anything at all. The Bulls legal saga will be the death of the Blls.ounds like some schennangins/ The owner (OK)runs up 1.2 million debt from a standing start of nil. Sell all the operating rights of bars etc.Thats gone too. I have to ask why should these 3 takeover I they do not want the debt. Are they now directors of OK Bulls? Ok I presume has resigned from OK Bulls A real MESS> Will be death of the Bulls. Legal actions in a matter of this nature could top £100000. in cots alone. Ahrmen Aleg

4:33pm Sun 22 Dec 13

RABTID says...

Arm n a leg, take a close look at this, then tell me the Bulls are being taken to court. The operative word in all this " individuals "

As things stand new owner Mark Moore and his fellow board members, Andrew Calvert and Ian Watt do not own all of the shares in 'OK Bulls'.

The club's new team at the helm are working to resolve the issues as quickly as possible and will provide another update to fans as and when applicable.

"The club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing."
Bradford Bulls
"The club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing," read a Bulls statement.

"Mr Khan has publicly stated that he does not wish to take legal action against Bradford Bulls. The matter, as has been recently reported, is between individuals.

Taken from Sky Sport. But the same is on several more rugby websites. Home for Xmas are you. Back in when?
Arm n a leg, take a close look at this, then tell me the Bulls are being taken to court. The operative word in all this " individuals " As things stand new owner Mark Moore and his fellow board members, Andrew Calvert and Ian Watt do not own all of the shares in 'OK Bulls'. The club's new team at the helm are working to resolve the issues as quickly as possible and will provide another update to fans as and when applicable. "The club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing." Bradford Bulls "The club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing," read a Bulls statement. "Mr Khan has publicly stated that he does not wish to take legal action against Bradford Bulls. The matter, as has been recently reported, is between individuals. Taken from Sky Sport. But the same is on several more rugby websites. Home for Xmas are you. Back in when? RABTID

4:38pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Mike Strutter says...

RABTID wrote:
Arm n a leg, take a close look at this, then tell me the Bulls are being taken to court. The operative word in all this " individuals "

As things stand new owner Mark Moore and his fellow board members, Andrew Calvert and Ian Watt do not own all of the shares in 'OK Bulls'.

The club's new team at the helm are working to resolve the issues as quickly as possible and will provide another update to fans as and when applicable.

"The club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing."
Bradford Bulls
"The club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing," read a Bulls statement.

"Mr Khan has publicly stated that he does not wish to take legal action against Bradford Bulls. The matter, as has been recently reported, is between individuals.

Taken from Sky Sport. But the same is on several more rugby websites. Home for Xmas are you. Back in when?
Think you will probably find the banks own OK Bulls
[quote][p][bold]RABTID[/bold] wrote: Arm n a leg, take a close look at this, then tell me the Bulls are being taken to court. The operative word in all this " individuals " As things stand new owner Mark Moore and his fellow board members, Andrew Calvert and Ian Watt do not own all of the shares in 'OK Bulls'. The club's new team at the helm are working to resolve the issues as quickly as possible and will provide another update to fans as and when applicable. "The club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing." Bradford Bulls "The club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing," read a Bulls statement. "Mr Khan has publicly stated that he does not wish to take legal action against Bradford Bulls. The matter, as has been recently reported, is between individuals. Taken from Sky Sport. But the same is on several more rugby websites. Home for Xmas are you. Back in when?[/p][/quote]Think you will probably find the banks own OK Bulls Mike Strutter

11:19am Mon 23 Dec 13

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

RABTID wrote:
Arm n a leg, take a close look at this, then tell me the Bulls are being taken to court. The operative word in all this " individuals "

As things stand new owner Mark Moore and his fellow board members, Andrew Calvert and Ian Watt do not own all of the shares in 'OK Bulls'.

The club's new team at the helm are working to resolve the issues as quickly as possible and will provide another update to fans as and when applicable.

"The club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing."
Bradford Bulls
"The club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing," read a Bulls statement.

"Mr Khan has publicly stated that he does not wish to take legal action against Bradford Bulls. The matter, as has been recently reported, is between individuals.

Taken from Sky Sport. But the same is on several more rugby websites. Home for Xmas are you. Back in when?
Mr Khan may have stated he doesn't want to take the Bulls to court. Slightly ironic you state this on the headline story 'Battle over Bradford Bulls may go to court'

The sky is blue, no it's yellow.

If there is money involved and it isn't being paid there will be an attempt to recover it.
[quote][p][bold]RABTID[/bold] wrote: Arm n a leg, take a close look at this, then tell me the Bulls are being taken to court. The operative word in all this " individuals " As things stand new owner Mark Moore and his fellow board members, Andrew Calvert and Ian Watt do not own all of the shares in 'OK Bulls'. The club's new team at the helm are working to resolve the issues as quickly as possible and will provide another update to fans as and when applicable. "The club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing." Bradford Bulls "The club is still owned by Omar Khan and discussions to resolve the issue surrounding the club's shares are ongoing," read a Bulls statement. "Mr Khan has publicly stated that he does not wish to take legal action against Bradford Bulls. The matter, as has been recently reported, is between individuals. Taken from Sky Sport. But the same is on several more rugby websites. Home for Xmas are you. Back in when?[/p][/quote]Mr Khan may have stated he doesn't want to take the Bulls to court. Slightly ironic you state this on the headline story 'Battle over Bradford Bulls may go to court' The sky is blue, no it's yellow. If there is money involved and it isn't being paid there will be an attempt to recover it. Prisoner Cell Block A

9:51pm Mon 23 Dec 13

RABTID says...

PCBA, there is nothing ironic in what I said, OK is targeting RW and MM, NOT The Club. As I said any fool even your good self can find out what was actually said by looking on inet. This headline is one of the T n As deliberate attempts to attack the club through misleading banners. It sells papers, that soon become chip wrappings or at this time of year fire lighters.

What has the colour of the Sky to do with anything or is it your attempt at satire. Bye the way have your lot at VP solved THEIR money problems yet. Will Lawn re lend them the £1 mill. So they can still compete at their present level. I do hope so as they have made a very strong statement for Bradford as a whole. But the jewel in your crown is Nakhi, one that could go, come next month. But what happened to the money earned last season? I know Lawn got his loan back plus interest. But what happened to the rest. Gone on salaries for the players, paying out good cash for indifferent players.
PCBA, there is nothing ironic in what I said, OK is targeting RW and MM, NOT The Club. As I said any fool even your good self can find out what was actually said by looking on inet. This headline is one of the T n As deliberate attempts to attack the club through misleading banners. It sells papers, that soon become chip wrappings or at this time of year fire lighters. What has the colour of the Sky to do with anything or is it your attempt at satire. Bye the way have your lot at VP solved THEIR money problems yet. Will Lawn re lend them the £1 mill. So they can still compete at their present level. I do hope so as they have made a very strong statement for Bradford as a whole. But the jewel in your crown is Nakhi, one that could go, come next month. But what happened to the money earned last season? I know Lawn got his loan back plus interest. But what happened to the rest. Gone on salaries for the players, paying out good cash for indifferent players. RABTID

9:29am Tue 24 Dec 13

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

RABTID wrote:
PCBA, there is nothing ironic in what I said, OK is targeting RW and MM, NOT The Club. As I said any fool even your good self can find out what was actually said by looking on inet. This headline is one of the T n As deliberate attempts to attack the club through misleading banners. It sells papers, that soon become chip wrappings or at this time of year fire lighters.

What has the colour of the Sky to do with anything or is it your attempt at satire. Bye the way have your lot at VP solved THEIR money problems yet. Will Lawn re lend them the £1 mill. So they can still compete at their present level. I do hope so as they have made a very strong statement for Bradford as a whole. But the jewel in your crown is Nakhi, one that could go, come next month. But what happened to the money earned last season? I know Lawn got his loan back plus interest. But what happened to the rest. Gone on salaries for the players, paying out good cash for indifferent players.
There is still more to come out in my opinion, both at the Bulls and at City, I make no pretences every thing is completely rosy down at VP.

The thing about last season's money is it cannot be used for wages this season so any monies earned have had to be used to pay down debt, Lawn's loan being one of those or make improvements, I think the changing rooms at VP have had a lick of paint and further funds given in a shared venture with Woodhouse Grove re training facilities.

As I say above, I never think of things as peaceful and settled at VP, the admins in my years of watching '72-present have taught me that what goes on in the corridors of power at football (rugby) clubs is seldom filtered down to the fans, which is why I have urged caution and to look deeper into the issues at Odsal.

What I don't understand at VP is that we are pulling higher than the crowds budgeted for, we always budget to go out in the 1st round of every cup, we can only spend 60% of the club turnover on playing staff wages and have paid down some previously held debt, why we may be/are having money issues again is beyond my knowledge at present but I am not daft enough to think what I am told is true. There is obviously the train of thought we are just being softened up for the sale of Nahki and this is our pre-warning and reason why but is that just so the chairmen don't face a backlash for selling him and cashing in?

Also, if they have taken a punt on backing the manager with 'that bit extra' as they say, why not back the punt fully and continue to back him? It isn't like we are lower mid table and miles off, two wins and we are back in the pack, especially if they come in the next two games against teams who are just within our reach, also at home.

Finally, as always with money, as I finished my last post, trust no-one, especially not those who have lots or those who have none.

Let's hope our season picks up and the Bulls starts and starts well, putting a few more bums on seats can only help in the current plight.

Merry Christmas to Bradford sports fans.
[quote][p][bold]RABTID[/bold] wrote: PCBA, there is nothing ironic in what I said, OK is targeting RW and MM, NOT The Club. As I said any fool even your good self can find out what was actually said by looking on inet. This headline is one of the T n As deliberate attempts to attack the club through misleading banners. It sells papers, that soon become chip wrappings or at this time of year fire lighters. What has the colour of the Sky to do with anything or is it your attempt at satire. Bye the way have your lot at VP solved THEIR money problems yet. Will Lawn re lend them the £1 mill. So they can still compete at their present level. I do hope so as they have made a very strong statement for Bradford as a whole. But the jewel in your crown is Nakhi, one that could go, come next month. But what happened to the money earned last season? I know Lawn got his loan back plus interest. But what happened to the rest. Gone on salaries for the players, paying out good cash for indifferent players.[/p][/quote]There is still more to come out in my opinion, both at the Bulls and at City, I make no pretences every thing is completely rosy down at VP. The thing about last season's money is it cannot be used for wages this season so any monies earned have had to be used to pay down debt, Lawn's loan being one of those or make improvements, I think the changing rooms at VP have had a lick of paint and further funds given in a shared venture with Woodhouse Grove re training facilities. As I say above, I never think of things as peaceful and settled at VP, the admins in my years of watching '72-present have taught me that what goes on in the corridors of power at football (rugby) clubs is seldom filtered down to the fans, which is why I have urged caution and to look deeper into the issues at Odsal. What I don't understand at VP is that we are pulling higher than the crowds budgeted for, we always budget to go out in the 1st round of every cup, we can only spend 60% of the club turnover on playing staff wages and have paid down some previously held debt, why we may be/are having money issues again is beyond my knowledge at present but I am not daft enough to think what I am told is true. There is obviously the train of thought we are just being softened up for the sale of Nahki and this is our pre-warning and reason why but is that just so the chairmen don't face a backlash for selling him and cashing in? Also, if they have taken a punt on backing the manager with 'that bit extra' as they say, why not back the punt fully and continue to back him? It isn't like we are lower mid table and miles off, two wins and we are back in the pack, especially if they come in the next two games against teams who are just within our reach, also at home. Finally, as always with money, as I finished my last post, trust no-one, especially not those who have lots or those who have none. Let's hope our season picks up and the Bulls starts and starts well, putting a few more bums on seats can only help in the current plight. Merry Christmas to Bradford sports fans. Prisoner Cell Block A

9:55am Tue 24 Dec 13

RABTID says...

A sound and honest answer, PCBA, I for one wouldn't like to lose Nahki, or any of the squad for that matter. Hopefully both teams can hit their targets in 2014 and go on to greater things.

Should Nahki go for a reasonable amount, City will then be " held to ransom " to replace him, unless they've discovered a nugget they are at the moment keeping under wraps.

Merry Xmas to you and yours, PCBA.
A sound and honest answer, PCBA, I for one wouldn't like to lose Nahki, or any of the squad for that matter. Hopefully both teams can hit their targets in 2014 and go on to greater things. Should Nahki go for a reasonable amount, City will then be " held to ransom " to replace him, unless they've discovered a nugget they are at the moment keeping under wraps. Merry Xmas to you and yours, PCBA. RABTID

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