Bradford Bulls’ new owners to meet RFL bosses on Monday

Robbie Hunter-Paul

Robbie Hunter-Paul

First published in Sport Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , Bradford Bulls Reporter

Bradford Bulls’ new owners-in-waiting will meet the Rugby Football League on Monday as they seek ratification of their purchase of the Super League outfit.

The club’s board of directors, operating as Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd, have had an offer for the club accepted by Leeds-based administrator David Wilson.

OK Bulls Ltd, the club’s former holding company, was placed into administration on January 31 and Bradford Bulls 2014 was given a temporary 28-day licence to run the club.

The directors will now head to the RFL’s headquarters to provide the governing body with details of how they plan to take the club forward in the coming months.

They are also seeking a transfer of the club’s Super League and RFL membership to Bradford Bulls 2014 on a permanent basis.

Bulls chief executive Robbie Hunter-Paul said: “We are extremely confident that we will receive ratification in the near future."

London-based businessman Richard Lamb admitted his disappointment that his bid had failed but said he had spoken to Bulls director Andrew Calvert yesterday and would be attending next Sunday’s home game with London Broncos.

Mr Lamb said: “I’m bitterly disappointed not to have seen my bid succeed because I believe in everything I’ve said.

“But I’ve spoken to Andrew Calvert today and he has invited me to join him at Sunday’s game for another chat. We’ll see where that takes us.”

The Bulls are facing the prospect of a points penalty early next week as a punishment for entering administration for the second time in less than two years.

The RFL board of directors are expected to hold deliberations over the weekend and are likely to impose a second points deduction on Monday or Tuesday.

The Bulls were given the maxiumum six-point deduction in 2012 for a breach of RFL insolvency regulations, whereas Wakefield and Crusaders were both docked four points for going into administration after agreeing to pay off most of the creditors.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:42am Sat 22 Feb 14

bully4us says...

There may still be a place for Lamb?
There may still be a place for Lamb? bully4us
  • Score: 4

10:39am Sat 22 Feb 14

raisemeup says...

A sensible and good business approach all round, I would say.
A sensible and good business approach all round, I would say. raisemeup
  • Score: 4

11:14am Sat 22 Feb 14

NG1972 says...

Im glad all the turmoil is about to end and hopefully we can concentrate on playing rugby. I hope mr Lamb joins the board he would be able to financially and he seems a very passionate individual. Lets take this grest club where it belongs and shut all the trolls and doubters up. Hopefully FC can sign some quality.
Im glad all the turmoil is about to end and hopefully we can concentrate on playing rugby. I hope mr Lamb joins the board he would be able to financially and he seems a very passionate individual. Lets take this grest club where it belongs and shut all the trolls and doubters up. Hopefully FC can sign some quality. NG1972
  • Score: 6

11:30am Sat 22 Feb 14

Arhmen Noleg says...

Good there talking.
Anyone and everyone with funds to invest in this financial nightmare is to be welcomed.

Andrew Calvert has worked unstintingly for 5 months to save the rapidly sinking ship.
He and "the club" now deserve massive support in what will be very trying circumstances at Odsal for a considerable time.

So FANS show you too want SURVIVAL by turning up at least 10000 every home game.

Or this will be back to where its been for 2 or 3 years

Long way to go yet to achieve stability.
But a positive start
Good there talking. Anyone and everyone with funds to invest in this financial nightmare is to be welcomed. Andrew Calvert has worked unstintingly for 5 months to save the rapidly sinking ship. He and "the club" now deserve massive support in what will be very trying circumstances at Odsal for a considerable time. So FANS show you too want SURVIVAL by turning up at least 10000 every home game. Or this will be back to where its been for 2 or 3 years Long way to go yet to achieve stability. But a positive start Arhmen Noleg
  • Score: 10

12:05pm Sat 22 Feb 14

Bfd-til-i-die says...

Agree with NG 1972, I too hope there is a place for Mr Lamb need all the support we can get COYB
Agree with NG 1972, I too hope there is a place for Mr Lamb need all the support we can get COYB Bfd-til-i-die
  • Score: 3

12:23pm Sat 22 Feb 14

Solomon Grundy says...

Fingers crossed the RFL see sense and don't dock us too many points. Well done all involved, onward & upward COYB!!!!
Fingers crossed the RFL see sense and don't dock us too many points. Well done all involved, onward & upward COYB!!!! Solomon Grundy
  • Score: 2

9:03pm Sat 22 Feb 14

Adeybull says...

"... whereas Wakefield and Crusaders were both docked four points for going into administration after agreeing to pay off most of the creditors. "

I think you are a bit astray there, Ross? As I understand it, Wakey's creditors were approx £1.2m, of which approx £0.75m was owed to HMRC and £180k to Sir Rodney Walker. I have not seen anything to suggest either of those creditors were repaid. If Glover repaid 50% of the remaning creditors, that would be not that much more than 10% of the total. I suspect it was rather less than that, but no actual figures seem to be in the public domain. But "most" is surely a bit awry, mate.

I have no idea of the figures for Crusaders, otehr than it seems pretty clear from HMRC reaction and action that nothing was repaid of the very substantial HMRC creditor.

It is worth observing that the total of the creditors in Wakefield's insolvency was little less than in Bulls'. So if anyone tries to tell you that ours was much worse than theirs, well you know what to say? Also, their HMRC creditor was half as much again as ours. Ho hum.

IF, as I deduce, Glover paid off less than 10% of Wakey's creditors, and IF our new lot undertook to pay off, over time - sake of argument - all the third party creditors, then why would the same sanction as for Wakefield be appropriate? Why would any new owner in his right mind pay off any more than he absolute;ly had to, if there was no incremental benefit? Indeed, if the benefit was only 2 points anyway, keep your cash in your pocket and use it to buy a better team.

Those who argue the same penalty as Wakefield really have not thought it through, IMO.

And that is before we get to the scandalous, ridiculous, totally inequitable financial penalty of having £2/3m p.a. Sky money confoscated and given to the other clubs. On TOP of any points deduction. Strangely enough, Wakefield - with a similar-sized insolvency to ours last time - were not penalised in this way. And don't anyone start off any mantra about this loss being "volunteered" not imposed.
"... whereas Wakefield and Crusaders were both docked four points for going into administration after agreeing to pay off most of the creditors. " I think you are a bit astray there, Ross? As I understand it, Wakey's creditors were approx £1.2m, of which approx £0.75m was owed to HMRC and £180k to Sir Rodney Walker. I have not seen anything to suggest either of those creditors were repaid. If Glover repaid 50% of the remaning creditors, that would be not that much more than 10% of the total. I suspect it was rather less than that, but no actual figures seem to be in the public domain. But "most" is surely a bit awry, mate. I have no idea of the figures for Crusaders, otehr than it seems pretty clear from HMRC reaction and action that nothing was repaid of the very substantial HMRC creditor. It is worth observing that the total of the creditors in Wakefield's insolvency was little less than in Bulls'. So if anyone tries to tell you that ours was much worse than theirs, well you know what to say? Also, their HMRC creditor was half as much again as ours. Ho hum. IF, as I deduce, Glover paid off less than 10% of Wakey's creditors, and IF our new lot undertook to pay off, over time - sake of argument - all the third party creditors, then why would the same sanction as for Wakefield be appropriate? Why would any new owner in his right mind pay off any more than he absolute;ly had to, if there was no incremental benefit? Indeed, if the benefit was only 2 points anyway, keep your cash in your pocket and use it to buy a better team. Those who argue the same penalty as Wakefield really have not thought it through, IMO. And that is before we get to the scandalous, ridiculous, totally inequitable financial penalty of having £2/3m p.a. Sky money confoscated and given to the other clubs. On TOP of any points deduction. Strangely enough, Wakefield - with a similar-sized insolvency to ours last time - were not penalised in this way. And don't anyone start off any mantra about this loss being "volunteered" not imposed. Adeybull
  • Score: 9

4:29am Sun 23 Feb 14

Arhmen Noleg says...

Adeybull wrote:
"... whereas Wakefield and Crusaders were both docked four points for going into administration after agreeing to pay off most of the creditors. "

I think you are a bit astray there, Ross? As I understand it, Wakey's creditors were approx £1.2m, of which approx £0.75m was owed to HMRC and £180k to Sir Rodney Walker. I have not seen anything to suggest either of those creditors were repaid. If Glover repaid 50% of the remaning creditors, that would be not that much more than 10% of the total. I suspect it was rather less than that, but no actual figures seem to be in the public domain. But "most" is surely a bit awry, mate.

I have no idea of the figures for Crusaders, otehr than it seems pretty clear from HMRC reaction and action that nothing was repaid of the very substantial HMRC creditor.

It is worth observing that the total of the creditors in Wakefield's insolvency was little less than in Bulls'. So if anyone tries to tell you that ours was much worse than theirs, well you know what to say? Also, their HMRC creditor was half as much again as ours. Ho hum.

IF, as I deduce, Glover paid off less than 10% of Wakey's creditors, and IF our new lot undertook to pay off, over time - sake of argument - all the third party creditors, then why would the same sanction as for Wakefield be appropriate? Why would any new owner in his right mind pay off any more than he absolute;ly had to, if there was no incremental benefit? Indeed, if the benefit was only 2 points anyway, keep your cash in your pocket and use it to buy a better team.

Those who argue the same penalty as Wakefield really have not thought it through, IMO.

And that is before we get to the scandalous, ridiculous, totally inequitable financial penalty of having £2/3m p.a. Sky money confoscated and given to the other clubs. On TOP of any points deduction. Strangely enough, Wakefield - with a similar-sized insolvency to ours last time - were not penalised in this way. And don't anyone start off any mantra about this loss being "volunteered" not imposed.
Whilst I agree with most of what you say Adey the evidence I have been given supports that position or mantra.

I have yet to see any other official explanaion and as my information came via the top bods at the RFL I just wish there was an official statement.

OK refused to take on the creditors and it was his suggestion is what I am told.
He also sad £6 million would be invested in the ground so the man was clearly mad an dreaming his way through all of it until by the end of August September,the reality of that dream was nightmare.

I thimk hes barking.
He should have perhaps followed Wakefields lead.
Crusaders were of course not to continue in SL.

We must be thankfull the RFL have (and continue) to bail the Bulls out and indeed have been doing that for nigh on 3 years with considerable advaces.

They are having to currently.
With significant and substantial dosh.
The farce of failing to live within means or finding additional investment sits firmly with OK and Sutcliffe and Whitcut.

THEY have busted the Bulls.
Collectively.
With Whitcut the worst..

I agree there Is little consistency.
But its a good job they have been there for the "Bulls" as a successive pack of systers have continually derailed the out of control runaway train.

For many many years as you admit in any of your posts.
The runaway train has to stop somewhere.
And these 3 and Mr Paul may be that chance.
More transparency and clarity I required in these situations from the RFL.
Not the **** of bid but we cant tell you what your bidding to buy.
That was just plain stupid.
And probably explained OK"s daft suggestion.

Can anyone lease find any press release or statement as to why this was done?

Incidently £666,666 annually not paid would still have left losses of £800000 if it had not bee redistributed to the others.

And the current lot face exactly same mountain to climb this year..

Consistency and transparency is required from the RFL.
Wakefield incidently appear to get 4000 crowds.
Bulls averaged 11500 in 2012.

So where has all the dosh gone if the insolvencies were about the same.
WE will never know eh
As accounts have not been filed since those relating to 2010.

Over to you ROSS.

PLease get an explanation from big Nige,Solly or Rimmer.

Why half money when everyone else just gets points.

Was OK mad?
Can anyone find him to ask him.
Or is he in coronary care.

I think I would be.
[quote][p][bold]Adeybull[/bold] wrote: "... whereas Wakefield and Crusaders were both docked four points for going into administration after agreeing to pay off most of the creditors. " I think you are a bit astray there, Ross? As I understand it, Wakey's creditors were approx £1.2m, of which approx £0.75m was owed to HMRC and £180k to Sir Rodney Walker. I have not seen anything to suggest either of those creditors were repaid. If Glover repaid 50% of the remaning creditors, that would be not that much more than 10% of the total. I suspect it was rather less than that, but no actual figures seem to be in the public domain. But "most" is surely a bit awry, mate. I have no idea of the figures for Crusaders, otehr than it seems pretty clear from HMRC reaction and action that nothing was repaid of the very substantial HMRC creditor. It is worth observing that the total of the creditors in Wakefield's insolvency was little less than in Bulls'. So if anyone tries to tell you that ours was much worse than theirs, well you know what to say? Also, their HMRC creditor was half as much again as ours. Ho hum. IF, as I deduce, Glover paid off less than 10% of Wakey's creditors, and IF our new lot undertook to pay off, over time - sake of argument - all the third party creditors, then why would the same sanction as for Wakefield be appropriate? Why would any new owner in his right mind pay off any more than he absolute;ly had to, if there was no incremental benefit? Indeed, if the benefit was only 2 points anyway, keep your cash in your pocket and use it to buy a better team. Those who argue the same penalty as Wakefield really have not thought it through, IMO. And that is before we get to the scandalous, ridiculous, totally inequitable financial penalty of having £2/3m p.a. Sky money confoscated and given to the other clubs. On TOP of any points deduction. Strangely enough, Wakefield - with a similar-sized insolvency to ours last time - were not penalised in this way. And don't anyone start off any mantra about this loss being "volunteered" not imposed.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with most of what you say Adey the evidence I have been given supports that position or mantra. I have yet to see any other official explanaion and as my information came via the top bods at the RFL I just wish there was an official statement. OK refused to take on the creditors and it was his suggestion is what I am told. He also sad £6 million would be invested in the ground so the man was clearly mad an dreaming his way through all of it until by the end of August September,the reality of that dream was nightmare. I thimk hes barking. He should have perhaps followed Wakefields lead. Crusaders were of course not to continue in SL. We must be thankfull the RFL have (and continue) to bail the Bulls out and indeed have been doing that for nigh on 3 years with considerable advaces. They are having to currently. With significant and substantial dosh. The farce of failing to live within means or finding additional investment sits firmly with OK and Sutcliffe and Whitcut. THEY have busted the Bulls. Collectively. With Whitcut the worst.. I agree there Is little consistency. But its a good job they have been there for the "Bulls" as a successive pack of systers have continually derailed the out of control runaway train. For many many years as you admit in any of your posts. The runaway train has to stop somewhere. And these 3 and Mr Paul may be that chance. More transparency and clarity I required in these situations from the RFL. Not the **** of bid but we cant tell you what your bidding to buy. That was just plain stupid. And probably explained OK"s daft suggestion. Can anyone lease find any press release or statement as to why this was done? Incidently £666,666 annually not paid would still have left losses of £800000 if it had not bee redistributed to the others. And the current lot face exactly same mountain to climb this year.. Consistency and transparency is required from the RFL. Wakefield incidently appear to get 4000 crowds. Bulls averaged 11500 in 2012. So where has all the dosh gone if the insolvencies were about the same. WE will never know eh As accounts have not been filed since those relating to 2010. Over to you ROSS. PLease get an explanation from big Nige,Solly or Rimmer. Why half money when everyone else just gets points. Was OK mad? Can anyone find him to ask him. Or is he in coronary care. I think I would be. Arhmen Noleg
  • Score: 2

9:33am Sun 23 Feb 14

oddshapedballs says...

When I stated that some bloke with a couple of curry houses was not what we needed I was lambasted. Oh how the tide has turned!
When I stated that some bloke with a couple of curry houses was not what we needed I was lambasted. Oh how the tide has turned! oddshapedballs
  • Score: -2

3:41pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Mike Strutter says...

Solomon Grundy wrote:
Fingers crossed the RFL see sense and don't dock us too many points. Well done all involved, onward & upward COYB!!!!
4 points
[quote][p][bold]Solomon Grundy[/bold] wrote: Fingers crossed the RFL see sense and don't dock us too many points. Well done all involved, onward & upward COYB!!!![/p][/quote]4 points Mike Strutter
  • Score: 1

9:39pm Sun 23 Feb 14

bradfordbronco says...

How many times do the current board need to meet with the RFL to discus their proposals. Surely the RFL must know it in their sleep by now!

I wouldn't be surprised if the RFL took 4 points off us and gave them to wakefield.
How many times do the current board need to meet with the RFL to discus their proposals. Surely the RFL must know it in their sleep by now! I wouldn't be surprised if the RFL took 4 points off us and gave them to wakefield. bradfordbronco
  • Score: 6

9:52pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Alhaurinrhino says...

Mike Strutter wrote:
Solomon Grundy wrote:
Fingers crossed the RFL see sense and don't dock us too many points. Well done all involved, onward & upward COYB!!!!
4 points
I see your four points and raise you two
[quote][p][bold]Mike Strutter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Solomon Grundy[/bold] wrote: Fingers crossed the RFL see sense and don't dock us too many points. Well done all involved, onward & upward COYB!!!![/p][/quote]4 points[/p][/quote]I see your four points and raise you two Alhaurinrhino
  • Score: -5

1:28pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Reading Bullette says...

Agree with Adey. If anyone wants to think that Wakefield 'paid' their creditors, then I suggest you ask the bloke who does the videos at their games how much they paid him back? 0%!! Just told him he could still do it for the new company. Very poor from RFL
Agree with Adey. If anyone wants to think that Wakefield 'paid' their creditors, then I suggest you ask the bloke who does the videos at their games how much they paid him back? 0%!! Just told him he could still do it for the new company. Very poor from RFL Reading Bullette
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree