Bradford Bulls 'would have ceased to exist as a Super League club'

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Bradford Bulls 'would have ceased to exist as a Super League club' Bradford Bulls 'would have ceased to exist as a Super League club'

Bradford Bulls would have ceased to exist had the Super League club not been placed into administration earlier this year, it was claimed yesterday.

Leeds-based firm Safeguard Security Group Limited made a loan of £150,000 to the club’s former holding company, OK Bulls Ltd, on September 30, shortly after former owner Omar Khan had left the Bulls.

The loan was secured against the club by means of a debenture as the Bulls’ latest financial crisis began to unravel.

OK Bulls Ltd was placed into administration on January 31 after Marc Green, the debenture holder and managing director of SSG, appointed Leeds-based administrator David Wilson.

Mr Green claimed in a statement that he appointed Mr Wilson to prevent the club being liquidated after a winding-up order from HMRC.

The statement said: “The Bulls faced a winding-up order issued by HMRC and had SSG not exercised their powers as debenture holders to appoint an administrator the club would have been compulsorily wound up and would have ceased to exist.

“The appointment of the administrator therefore was a positive step and taken in the best interests of the club, its employees, supporters and players.

“SSG’s involvement in the Bulls arose as a result of a plea by the then purported owner of the club and SSG indicated that they were prepared to provide a level of support which again at the time ensured the continuation of the Bulls.”

As the debenture holder, Mr Green is the secured creditor from OK Bulls Ltd and is waiting to recoup the money he is owed when the club is sold by the administrator.

A sale had been agreed in principle with a London-based consortium on Thursday but the Rugby Football League were last night seeking further proof of funds relating to their bid and it is not clear when any deal might be completed.

The statement added that Mr Green had worked tirelessly to help broker a deal “which now appears to have resulted in securing new ownership and a bright future for the Bulls.

“It is a matter of fact and record that throughout such discussions Mr Green has been at pains to attempt to broker a solution to the problems faced by the Bulls in recognition of the significance of the club to the population of Bradford, the supporters, employees and players.

“This position has been supported by the RFL, who at all times have confirmed that SSG and Mr Green have acted appropriately and in the best interests of the club.

“Any suggestion that SSG and Marc have sought to damage the club in any way or have been obstructive in any way are completely untrue.”

 

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:46am Sat 22 Mar 14

Mike Strutter says...

Khan and Whitcut have a lot to answer for
Khan and Whitcut have a lot to answer for Mike Strutter
  • Score: 16

7:22am Sat 22 Mar 14

collos25 says...

Mike Strutter wrote:
Khan and Whitcut have a lot to answer for
I don´t think its just them.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Strutter[/bold] wrote: Khan and Whitcut have a lot to answer for[/p][/quote]I don´t think its just them. collos25
  • Score: 12

7:24am Sat 22 Mar 14

flashdonut says...

Am I been daft, but doesn't it say loaned after OK had gone? So was this loaned to Moore?
Am I been daft, but doesn't it say loaned after OK had gone? So was this loaned to Moore? flashdonut
  • Score: 0

7:34am Sat 22 Mar 14

Videoref says...

flashdonut wrote:
Am I been daft, but doesn't it say loaned after OK had gone? So was this loaned to Moore?
Sounds like it to me. More worrying though is the line that the RFL need more proof of funding from the new consortium. Oh what tangled webs.....
Mandy might get it yet-watch this space.
[quote][p][bold]flashdonut[/bold] wrote: Am I been daft, but doesn't it say loaned after OK had gone? So was this loaned to Moore?[/p][/quote]Sounds like it to me. More worrying though is the line that the RFL need more proof of funding from the new consortium. Oh what tangled webs..... Mandy might get it yet-watch this space. Videoref
  • Score: 13

7:49am Sat 22 Mar 14

collos25 says...

Videoref wrote:
flashdonut wrote:
Am I been daft, but doesn't it say loaned after OK had gone? So was this loaned to Moore?
Sounds like it to me. More worrying though is the line that the RFL need more proof of funding from the new consortium. Oh what tangled webs.....
Mandy might get it yet-watch this space.
Its quite normal in all buyouts or takeovers for the seller or administrator to confirm the buyer has enough funds so do not read anything into that statement.
[quote][p][bold]Videoref[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]flashdonut[/bold] wrote: Am I been daft, but doesn't it say loaned after OK had gone? So was this loaned to Moore?[/p][/quote]Sounds like it to me. More worrying though is the line that the RFL need more proof of funding from the new consortium. Oh what tangled webs..... Mandy might get it yet-watch this space.[/p][/quote]Its quite normal in all buyouts or takeovers for the seller or administrator to confirm the buyer has enough funds so do not read anything into that statement. collos25
  • Score: 7

7:53am Sat 22 Mar 14

Mike Strutter says...

flashdonut wrote:
Am I been daft, but doesn't it say loaned after OK had gone? So was this loaned to Moore?
Nope, try again ;-)
[quote][p][bold]flashdonut[/bold] wrote: Am I been daft, but doesn't it say loaned after OK had gone? So was this loaned to Moore?[/p][/quote]Nope, try again ;-) Mike Strutter
  • Score: 2

8:31am Sat 22 Mar 14

Ray Mac says...

flashdonut wrote:
Am I been daft, but doesn't it say loaned after OK had gone? So was this loaned to Moore?
Whitcut!
[quote][p][bold]flashdonut[/bold] wrote: Am I been daft, but doesn't it say loaned after OK had gone? So was this loaned to Moore?[/p][/quote]Whitcut! Ray Mac
  • Score: 2

8:32am Sat 22 Mar 14

vbfg says...

flashdonut wrote:
Am I been daft, but doesn't it say loaned after OK had gone? So was this loaned to Moore?
Whitcut.
[quote][p][bold]flashdonut[/bold] wrote: Am I been daft, but doesn't it say loaned after OK had gone? So was this loaned to Moore?[/p][/quote]Whitcut. vbfg
  • Score: 2

8:34am Sat 22 Mar 14

Videoref says...

collos25 wrote:
Videoref wrote:
flashdonut wrote:
Am I been daft, but doesn't it say loaned after OK had gone? So was this loaned to Moore?
Sounds like it to me. More worrying though is the line that the RFL need more proof of funding from the new consortium. Oh what tangled webs.....
Mandy might get it yet-watch this space.
Its quite normal in all buyouts or takeovers for the seller or administrator to confirm the buyer has enough funds so do not read anything into that statement.
Yes but it says FURTHER proof is being sought ie they are not satisfied with the proof supplied so far. They must have supplied proof to the administrators to purchase but clearly this was insufficient to the RFL?
[quote][p][bold]collos25[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Videoref[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]flashdonut[/bold] wrote: Am I been daft, but doesn't it say loaned after OK had gone? So was this loaned to Moore?[/p][/quote]Sounds like it to me. More worrying though is the line that the RFL need more proof of funding from the new consortium. Oh what tangled webs..... Mandy might get it yet-watch this space.[/p][/quote]Its quite normal in all buyouts or takeovers for the seller or administrator to confirm the buyer has enough funds so do not read anything into that statement.[/p][/quote]Yes but it says FURTHER proof is being sought ie they are not satisfied with the proof supplied so far. They must have supplied proof to the administrators to purchase but clearly this was insufficient to the RFL? Videoref
  • Score: 9

8:53am Sat 22 Mar 14

Ray Mac says...

The loan was to whitcut, borrowed against the assets of the club (players). He sold Bateman to Wigan, he was then found to not be a fit and proper person by the RFL and immediately left the club, Moore and co knew nothing about it until a payment demand was forced on them.perhaps questions need asking, who has the 150k and the money from Bateman sale? Easy answer, bet it isn't Moore and co or the club.
The loan was to whitcut, borrowed against the assets of the club (players). He sold Bateman to Wigan, he was then found to not be a fit and proper person by the RFL and immediately left the club, Moore and co knew nothing about it until a payment demand was forced on them.perhaps questions need asking, who has the 150k and the money from Bateman sale? Easy answer, bet it isn't Moore and co or the club. Ray Mac
  • Score: 7

8:59am Sat 22 Mar 14

Mike Strutter says...

Ray Mac wrote:
The loan was to whitcut, borrowed against the assets of the club (players). He sold Bateman to Wigan, he was then found to not be a fit and proper person by the RFL and immediately left the club, Moore and co knew nothing about it until a payment demand was forced on them.perhaps questions need asking, who has the 150k and the money from Bateman sale? Easy answer, bet it isn't Moore and co or the club.
Almost 100% but do you really believe Bateman was sold without anyone else knowing ?
[quote][p][bold]Ray Mac[/bold] wrote: The loan was to whitcut, borrowed against the assets of the club (players). He sold Bateman to Wigan, he was then found to not be a fit and proper person by the RFL and immediately left the club, Moore and co knew nothing about it until a payment demand was forced on them.perhaps questions need asking, who has the 150k and the money from Bateman sale? Easy answer, bet it isn't Moore and co or the club.[/p][/quote]Almost 100% but do you really believe Bateman was sold without anyone else knowing ? Mike Strutter
  • Score: 2

8:59am Sat 22 Mar 14

Mike Strutter says...

Ray Mac wrote:
The loan was to whitcut, borrowed against the assets of the club (players). He sold Bateman to Wigan, he was then found to not be a fit and proper person by the RFL and immediately left the club, Moore and co knew nothing about it until a payment demand was forced on them.perhaps questions need asking, who has the 150k and the money from Bateman sale? Easy answer, bet it isn't Moore and co or the club.
Almost 100% but do you really believe Bateman was sold without anyone else knowing ?
[quote][p][bold]Ray Mac[/bold] wrote: The loan was to whitcut, borrowed against the assets of the club (players). He sold Bateman to Wigan, he was then found to not be a fit and proper person by the RFL and immediately left the club, Moore and co knew nothing about it until a payment demand was forced on them.perhaps questions need asking, who has the 150k and the money from Bateman sale? Easy answer, bet it isn't Moore and co or the club.[/p][/quote]Almost 100% but do you really believe Bateman was sold without anyone else knowing ? Mike Strutter
  • Score: 1

9:51am Sat 22 Mar 14

The Man From the Pru says...

Why rake over old coals. It's the present we need to look at. Administrator says ok for Lamb to buy Bulls. Must have cash to do so. Along comes The RFL, saying more proof needed. Lamb and Co then have to re do the bid to satisfy RFL. Ie proof they've got the cash, proof they have a business plan.
Any wonder the game is in decline, with the the likes of Wood, Rimmer, Solly and Barwick in charge. For the game to survive, they need to go.
Why rake over old coals. It's the present we need to look at. Administrator says ok for Lamb to buy Bulls. Must have cash to do so. Along comes The RFL, saying more proof needed. Lamb and Co then have to re do the bid to satisfy RFL. Ie proof they've got the cash, proof they have a business plan. Any wonder the game is in decline, with the the likes of Wood, Rimmer, Solly and Barwick in charge. For the game to survive, they need to go. The Man From the Pru
  • Score: 9

9:54am Sat 22 Mar 14

Miss Doubtfire says...

Administrator 'seeking further proof of funds.' Okay, I get that. But it is staggering to think the administrator passed over Lamb's bid last time in favour of Moore's. Just how did Moore persuade the administrator he had the funds to pay off all the creditors and take a club losing around £100,000 a month into a bright future. The extra sky tv money afforded Super League clubs had already been swallowed up save for a small percentage and the triumvirate had no money of their own. Why was this bid approved at the time and not Lamb's? It makes you wonder what guidelines the administrator is really working to. Does he have the best interests of the club at heart?
Administrator 'seeking further proof of funds.' Okay, I get that. But it is staggering to think the administrator passed over Lamb's bid last time in favour of Moore's. Just how did Moore persuade the administrator he had the funds to pay off all the creditors and take a club losing around £100,000 a month into a bright future. The extra sky tv money afforded Super League clubs had already been swallowed up save for a small percentage and the triumvirate had no money of their own. Why was this bid approved at the time and not Lamb's? It makes you wonder what guidelines the administrator is really working to. Does he have the best interests of the club at heart? Miss Doubtfire
  • Score: 13

10:34am Sat 22 Mar 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Miss Doubtfire wrote:
Administrator 'seeking further proof of funds.' Okay, I get that. But it is staggering to think the administrator passed over Lamb's bid last time in favour of Moore's. Just how did Moore persuade the administrator he had the funds to pay off all the creditors and take a club losing around £100,000 a month into a bright future. The extra sky tv money afforded Super League clubs had already been swallowed up save for a small percentage and the triumvirate had no money of their own. Why was this bid approved at the time and not Lamb's? It makes you wonder what guidelines the administrator is really working to. Does he have the best interests of the club at heart?
Moore was going to buy the club with £500k of money from the RFL. Thats how he beat Lambs bid last time.
[quote][p][bold]Miss Doubtfire[/bold] wrote: Administrator 'seeking further proof of funds.' Okay, I get that. But it is staggering to think the administrator passed over Lamb's bid last time in favour of Moore's. Just how did Moore persuade the administrator he had the funds to pay off all the creditors and take a club losing around £100,000 a month into a bright future. The extra sky tv money afforded Super League clubs had already been swallowed up save for a small percentage and the triumvirate had no money of their own. Why was this bid approved at the time and not Lamb's? It makes you wonder what guidelines the administrator is really working to. Does he have the best interests of the club at heart?[/p][/quote]Moore was going to buy the club with £500k of money from the RFL. Thats how he beat Lambs bid last time. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 4

10:49am Sat 22 Mar 14

Videoref says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Miss Doubtfire wrote:
Administrator 'seeking further proof of funds.' Okay, I get that. But it is staggering to think the administrator passed over Lamb's bid last time in favour of Moore's. Just how did Moore persuade the administrator he had the funds to pay off all the creditors and take a club losing around £100,000 a month into a bright future. The extra sky tv money afforded Super League clubs had already been swallowed up save for a small percentage and the triumvirate had no money of their own. Why was this bid approved at the time and not Lamb's? It makes you wonder what guidelines the administrator is really working to. Does he have the best interests of the club at heart?
Moore was going to buy the club with £500k of money from the RFL. Thats how he beat Lambs bid last time.
He made his bed but couldn't lie in it then?
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Miss Doubtfire[/bold] wrote: Administrator 'seeking further proof of funds.' Okay, I get that. But it is staggering to think the administrator passed over Lamb's bid last time in favour of Moore's. Just how did Moore persuade the administrator he had the funds to pay off all the creditors and take a club losing around £100,000 a month into a bright future. The extra sky tv money afforded Super League clubs had already been swallowed up save for a small percentage and the triumvirate had no money of their own. Why was this bid approved at the time and not Lamb's? It makes you wonder what guidelines the administrator is really working to. Does he have the best interests of the club at heart?[/p][/quote]Moore was going to buy the club with £500k of money from the RFL. Thats how he beat Lambs bid last time.[/p][/quote]He made his bed but couldn't lie in it then? Videoref
  • Score: 1

10:51am Sat 22 Mar 14

raisemeup says...

I seem to remember that Andrew Calvert said that they knew of an unpaid tax bill of £60k from the OK Bulls ownership. which he said would be paid, presumably once the new ownership was settled after the joint meeting with all parties concerned, I think that was the gist of it?
bearing in mind that Moore et al. would not be able to settle this bill, until ownership was established.
Well it's speculative, but the article by MG seems to be a damage limitation on his involvement to supposedly save the club, not his £150K! Which now seems to be £240k. although I have read it was originally £180k borrowed with a 1% share in the business, and then it was £240K according to other reports..PHEW shall we prepare another room for Mr **** up??
I seem to remember that Andrew Calvert said that they knew of an unpaid tax bill of £60k from the OK Bulls ownership. which he said would be paid, presumably once the new ownership was settled after the joint meeting with all parties concerned, I think that was the gist of it? bearing in mind that Moore et al. would not be able to settle this bill, until ownership was established. Well it's speculative, but the article by MG seems to be a damage limitation on his involvement to supposedly save the club, not his £150K! Which now seems to be £240k. although I have read it was originally £180k borrowed with a 1% share in the business, and then it was £240K according to other reports..PHEW shall we prepare another room for Mr **** up?? raisemeup
  • Score: 4

10:52am Sat 22 Mar 14

collos25 says...

Videoref wrote:
collos25 wrote:
Videoref wrote:
flashdonut wrote:
Am I been daft, but doesn't it say loaned after OK had gone? So was this loaned to Moore?
Sounds like it to me. More worrying though is the line that the RFL need more proof of funding from the new consortium. Oh what tangled webs.....
Mandy might get it yet-watch this space.
Its quite normal in all buyouts or takeovers for the seller or administrator to confirm the buyer has enough funds so do not read anything into that statement.
Yes but it says FURTHER proof is being sought ie they are not satisfied with the proof supplied so far. They must have supplied proof to the administrators to purchase but clearly this was insufficient to the RFL?
Quite normal you would not open all your bank accounts and prove your assets till you had to.This happens in just about all takeover bids its not unusual.
[quote][p][bold]Videoref[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]collos25[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Videoref[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]flashdonut[/bold] wrote: Am I been daft, but doesn't it say loaned after OK had gone? So was this loaned to Moore?[/p][/quote]Sounds like it to me. More worrying though is the line that the RFL need more proof of funding from the new consortium. Oh what tangled webs..... Mandy might get it yet-watch this space.[/p][/quote]Its quite normal in all buyouts or takeovers for the seller or administrator to confirm the buyer has enough funds so do not read anything into that statement.[/p][/quote]Yes but it says FURTHER proof is being sought ie they are not satisfied with the proof supplied so far. They must have supplied proof to the administrators to purchase but clearly this was insufficient to the RFL?[/p][/quote]Quite normal you would not open all your bank accounts and prove your assets till you had to.This happens in just about all takeover bids its not unusual. collos25
  • Score: 4

11:00am Sat 22 Mar 14

rogerthat! says...

The Man From the Pru wrote:
Why rake over old coals. It's the present we need to look at. Administrator says ok for Lamb to buy Bulls. Must have cash to do so. Along comes The RFL, saying more proof needed. Lamb and Co then have to re do the bid to satisfy RFL. Ie proof they've got the cash, proof they have a business plan.
Any wonder the game is in decline, with the the likes of Wood, Rimmer, Solly and Barwick in charge. For the game to survive, they need to go.
It would suite Khan and Whitcut, as you put it, not to Rake over old coals.
All those imposters should be held to Account and legal action taken. Too often supporters will spit the Bile about Players but they did not put our Club into Administration. Turn your attention on who will made the Big decisions these were the Clowns who created. All the problems.
Has Khan or Whitcut been seen in Bradford lately? Hold them to account.
[quote][p][bold]The Man From the Pru[/bold] wrote: Why rake over old coals. It's the present we need to look at. Administrator says ok for Lamb to buy Bulls. Must have cash to do so. Along comes The RFL, saying more proof needed. Lamb and Co then have to re do the bid to satisfy RFL. Ie proof they've got the cash, proof they have a business plan. Any wonder the game is in decline, with the the likes of Wood, Rimmer, Solly and Barwick in charge. For the game to survive, they need to go.[/p][/quote]It would suite Khan and Whitcut, as you put it, not to Rake over old coals. All those imposters should be held to Account and legal action taken. Too often supporters will spit the Bile about Players but they did not put our Club into Administration. Turn your attention on who will made the Big decisions these were the Clowns who created. All the problems. Has Khan or Whitcut been seen in Bradford lately? Hold them to account. rogerthat!
  • Score: 4

11:49am Sat 22 Mar 14

Mike Strutter says...

rogerthat! wrote:
The Man From the Pru wrote:
Why rake over old coals. It's the present we need to look at. Administrator says ok for Lamb to buy Bulls. Must have cash to do so. Along comes The RFL, saying more proof needed. Lamb and Co then have to re do the bid to satisfy RFL. Ie proof they've got the cash, proof they have a business plan.
Any wonder the game is in decline, with the the likes of Wood, Rimmer, Solly and Barwick in charge. For the game to survive, they need to go.
It would suite Khan and Whitcut, as you put it, not to Rake over old coals.
All those imposters should be held to Account and legal action taken. Too often supporters will spit the Bile about Players but they did not put our Club into Administration. Turn your attention on who will made the Big decisions these were the Clowns who created. All the problems.
Has Khan or Whitcut been seen in Bradford lately? Hold them to account.
..............and not forgetting a certain Bradford South MP who seems to have gone VERY quiet.

Ooops, forgot we are only 13 months and a bit away from a general election
[quote][p][bold]rogerthat![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Man From the Pru[/bold] wrote: Why rake over old coals. It's the present we need to look at. Administrator says ok for Lamb to buy Bulls. Must have cash to do so. Along comes The RFL, saying more proof needed. Lamb and Co then have to re do the bid to satisfy RFL. Ie proof they've got the cash, proof they have a business plan. Any wonder the game is in decline, with the the likes of Wood, Rimmer, Solly and Barwick in charge. For the game to survive, they need to go.[/p][/quote]It would suite Khan and Whitcut, as you put it, not to Rake over old coals. All those imposters should be held to Account and legal action taken. Too often supporters will spit the Bile about Players but they did not put our Club into Administration. Turn your attention on who will made the Big decisions these were the Clowns who created. All the problems. Has Khan or Whitcut been seen in Bradford lately? Hold them to account.[/p][/quote]..............and not forgetting a certain Bradford South MP who seems to have gone VERY quiet. Ooops, forgot we are only 13 months and a bit away from a general election Mike Strutter
  • Score: 3

1:06pm Sat 22 Mar 14

johnhem says...

Bradford rugby league clubs have not been fairly treated since I think it was 1973. in a match against a hull/hull kr team the dirty play was getting out of hand, and no protection afforded by the ref, so Geoff Grayson quite rightly brought the team off before a mass brawl occurred. since then nobody from bfd northern or bulls has had fair treatment from the RFL.
all point deductions and penalties against them have been the maximum allowed when others have had the minimum for the same problem.
the bulls on-field discipline in that game was amazing, I was there to see it and even after travelling for the game agreed with graysons decision to keep his team from injury or the brawl. I believe they were heavily fined with points deducted even though the fault laid with the ref, and they were charged with bringing the game into disrepute. I would argue the brawl would have done that much more than the walk off.
whatever happens with the takeover expect no help from the RFL.
Bradford rugby league clubs have not been fairly treated since I think it was 1973. in a match against a hull/hull kr team the dirty play was getting out of hand, and no protection afforded by the ref, so Geoff Grayson quite rightly brought the team off before a mass brawl occurred. since then nobody from bfd northern or bulls has had fair treatment from the RFL. all point deductions and penalties against them have been the maximum allowed when others have had the minimum for the same problem. the bulls on-field discipline in that game was amazing, I was there to see it and even after travelling for the game agreed with graysons decision to keep his team from injury or the brawl. I believe they were heavily fined with points deducted even though the fault laid with the ref, and they were charged with bringing the game into disrepute. I would argue the brawl would have done that much more than the walk off. whatever happens with the takeover expect no help from the RFL. johnhem
  • Score: 2

1:23pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Milo08 says...

Is this what RFL call a speedy solution.
Are they stringing this on to make sure
the Bulls won't have time to avoid relegation?
Is this what RFL call a speedy solution. Are they stringing this on to make sure the Bulls won't have time to avoid relegation? Milo08
  • Score: 5

2:10pm Sat 22 Mar 14

The Man From the Pru says...

Rogertw@, the reference to raking over old coals, means what it says, any problems that the past owners of Bulls caused ie Khan, Whitcut, stay in the past with them. But they should be persued through the Courts. Details of All loans, transfer fees for a player sold, should be made public. Who took the loans out, who agreed the deals with Green and Wigan, more importantly what collateral was put up by previous owners, club assets or personal property.
The Current Management will have agreed to pay ALL the creditors, inc HMRC. But as stated, they will have no responsibility, for loans etc, taken out on a personal basis.
The survival of the club is paramount at the moment, but what the new owners are at the mercy of the RFL and their flaky policies regarding the Bulls.
Rogertw@, the reference to raking over old coals, means what it says, any problems that the past owners of Bulls caused ie Khan, Whitcut, stay in the past with them. But they should be persued through the Courts. Details of All loans, transfer fees for a player sold, should be made public. Who took the loans out, who agreed the deals with Green and Wigan, more importantly what collateral was put up by previous owners, club assets or personal property. The Current Management will have agreed to pay ALL the creditors, inc HMRC. But as stated, they will have no responsibility, for loans etc, taken out on a personal basis. The survival of the club is paramount at the moment, but what the new owners are at the mercy of the RFL and their flaky policies regarding the Bulls. The Man From the Pru
  • Score: -3

2:38pm Sat 22 Mar 14

rogerthat! says...

The Man From the Pru wrote:
Rogertw@, the reference to raking over old coals, means what it says, any problems that the past owners of Bulls caused ie Khan, Whitcut, stay in the past with them. But they should be persued through the Courts. Details of All loans, transfer fees for a player sold, should be made public. Who took the loans out, who agreed the deals with Green and Wigan, more importantly what collateral was put up by previous owners, club assets or personal property.
The Current Management will have agreed to pay ALL the creditors, inc HMRC. But as stated, they will have no responsibility, for loans etc, taken out on a personal basis.
The survival of the club is paramount at the moment, but what the new owners are at the mercy of the RFL and their flaky policies regarding the Bulls.
Stop trying to lay all the blame with the RFL. It is the Governing Body for all the Clubs. This Circus has been played out now for the second time. The Bulls have been run like a Christmas Club by Clowns who have Talked the Talk mostly Bulls?it. I hope history does not repeat itself again so do the checks , take the Time get it right this time.
[quote][p][bold]The Man From the Pru[/bold] wrote: Rogertw@, the reference to raking over old coals, means what it says, any problems that the past owners of Bulls caused ie Khan, Whitcut, stay in the past with them. But they should be persued through the Courts. Details of All loans, transfer fees for a player sold, should be made public. Who took the loans out, who agreed the deals with Green and Wigan, more importantly what collateral was put up by previous owners, club assets or personal property. The Current Management will have agreed to pay ALL the creditors, inc HMRC. But as stated, they will have no responsibility, for loans etc, taken out on a personal basis. The survival of the club is paramount at the moment, but what the new owners are at the mercy of the RFL and their flaky policies regarding the Bulls.[/p][/quote]Stop trying to lay all the blame with the RFL. It is the Governing Body for all the Clubs. This Circus has been played out now for the second time. The Bulls have been run like a Christmas Club by Clowns who have Talked the Talk mostly Bulls?it. I hope history does not repeat itself again so do the checks , take the Time get it right this time. rogerthat!
  • Score: 2

3:43pm Sat 22 Mar 14

tuono 59 says...

it was Hood who started this farce the rest found themselves out of their depth and did a runner.Remember the bulls are just another business the fans are customers like any other.
it was Hood who started this farce the rest found themselves out of their depth and did a runner.Remember the bulls are just another business the fans are customers like any other. tuono 59
  • Score: 3

3:45pm Sat 22 Mar 14

vikksy says...

We are still in business so get over it #COYB
We are still in business so get over it #COYB vikksy
  • Score: -6

4:03pm Sat 22 Mar 14

tuono 59 says...

I am over it ,but if you read the other posts some clearly are not the clubs business dealings have nothing to do with its customers.
I am over it ,but if you read the other posts some clearly are not the clubs business dealings have nothing to do with its customers. tuono 59
  • Score: -1

5:05pm Sat 22 Mar 14

raisemeup says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Miss Doubtfire wrote:
Administrator 'seeking further proof of funds.' Okay, I get that. But it is staggering to think the administrator passed over Lamb's bid last time in favour of Moore's. Just how did Moore persuade the administrator he had the funds to pay off all the creditors and take a club losing around £100,000 a month into a bright future. The extra sky tv money afforded Super League clubs had already been swallowed up save for a small percentage and the triumvirate had no money of their own. Why was this bid approved at the time and not Lamb's? It makes you wonder what guidelines the administrator is really working to. Does he have the best interests of the club at heart?
Moore was going to buy the club with £500k of money from the RFL. Thats how he beat Lambs bid last time.
Were you at the meeting as a fly on the wall, or are you part of the secretive RFL mafiosa.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Miss Doubtfire[/bold] wrote: Administrator 'seeking further proof of funds.' Okay, I get that. But it is staggering to think the administrator passed over Lamb's bid last time in favour of Moore's. Just how did Moore persuade the administrator he had the funds to pay off all the creditors and take a club losing around £100,000 a month into a bright future. The extra sky tv money afforded Super League clubs had already been swallowed up save for a small percentage and the triumvirate had no money of their own. Why was this bid approved at the time and not Lamb's? It makes you wonder what guidelines the administrator is really working to. Does he have the best interests of the club at heart?[/p][/quote]Moore was going to buy the club with £500k of money from the RFL. Thats how he beat Lambs bid last time.[/p][/quote]Were you at the meeting as a fly on the wall, or are you part of the secretive RFL mafiosa. raisemeup
  • Score: 0

7:24pm Sat 22 Mar 14

The Man From the Pru says...

Rogertw@, not casting blame on RFL, but they do seem to have a different way of dealing with the Bulls. So, if the cap fits they should wear it. If we're talking of Clowns here, look very closely at the RFL, two years running Super League without any sponsorship money coming in, good business isn't it. They run Red Hall to suite themselves, not the game. Is there any wonder people like Koukash want to run the game, he has done more to put the game into the public domain, in the short time he has been involved in the game, than Red Hall, has in the same time. The Bulls have done more, as well, but for different reasons.
Rogertw@, not casting blame on RFL, but they do seem to have a different way of dealing with the Bulls. So, if the cap fits they should wear it. If we're talking of Clowns here, look very closely at the RFL, two years running Super League without any sponsorship money coming in, good business isn't it. They run Red Hall to suite themselves, not the game. Is there any wonder people like Koukash want to run the game, he has done more to put the game into the public domain, in the short time he has been involved in the game, than Red Hall, has in the same time. The Bulls have done more, as well, but for different reasons. The Man From the Pru
  • Score: 0

8:49am Sun 23 Mar 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

raisemeup wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Miss Doubtfire wrote:
Administrator 'seeking further proof of funds.' Okay, I get that. But it is staggering to think the administrator passed over Lamb's bid last time in favour of Moore's. Just how did Moore persuade the administrator he had the funds to pay off all the creditors and take a club losing around £100,000 a month into a bright future. The extra sky tv money afforded Super League clubs had already been swallowed up save for a small percentage and the triumvirate had no money of their own. Why was this bid approved at the time and not Lamb's? It makes you wonder what guidelines the administrator is really working to. Does he have the best interests of the club at heart?
Moore was going to buy the club with £500k of money from the RFL. Thats how he beat Lambs bid last time.
Were you at the meeting as a fly on the wall, or are you part of the secretive RFL mafiosa.
It's called taking in all the info rather than simply believing what the club tell you. Lets be honest the club over the last year has been far from honest with it's fans.
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Miss Doubtfire[/bold] wrote: Administrator 'seeking further proof of funds.' Okay, I get that. But it is staggering to think the administrator passed over Lamb's bid last time in favour of Moore's. Just how did Moore persuade the administrator he had the funds to pay off all the creditors and take a club losing around £100,000 a month into a bright future. The extra sky tv money afforded Super League clubs had already been swallowed up save for a small percentage and the triumvirate had no money of their own. Why was this bid approved at the time and not Lamb's? It makes you wonder what guidelines the administrator is really working to. Does he have the best interests of the club at heart?[/p][/quote]Moore was going to buy the club with £500k of money from the RFL. Thats how he beat Lambs bid last time.[/p][/quote]Were you at the meeting as a fly on the wall, or are you part of the secretive RFL mafiosa.[/p][/quote]It's called taking in all the info rather than simply believing what the club tell you. Lets be honest the club over the last year has been far from honest with it's fans. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: -1

8:54am Sun 23 Mar 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

The Man From the Pru wrote:
Rogertw@, not casting blame on RFL, but they do seem to have a different way of dealing with the Bulls. So, if the cap fits they should wear it. If we're talking of Clowns here, look very closely at the RFL, two years running Super League without any sponsorship money coming in, good business isn't it. They run Red Hall to suite themselves, not the game. Is there any wonder people like Koukash want to run the game, he has done more to put the game into the public domain, in the short time he has been involved in the game, than Red Hall, has in the same time. The Bulls have done more, as well, but for different reasons.
I'm not blaming the RFL but I will proceed to slate then off in my post.
Your not fooling anyone. The current mess lies at Khan, Whitcut amd Sutcliffes door. The RFL is to blame for thinking they could run the club. Due to this mess they are clearly taking a more indepth look at things which take time. Once bitten and all that.
[quote][p][bold]The Man From the Pru[/bold] wrote: Rogertw@, not casting blame on RFL, but they do seem to have a different way of dealing with the Bulls. So, if the cap fits they should wear it. If we're talking of Clowns here, look very closely at the RFL, two years running Super League without any sponsorship money coming in, good business isn't it. They run Red Hall to suite themselves, not the game. Is there any wonder people like Koukash want to run the game, he has done more to put the game into the public domain, in the short time he has been involved in the game, than Red Hall, has in the same time. The Bulls have done more, as well, but for different reasons.[/p][/quote]I'm not blaming the RFL but I will proceed to slate then off in my post. Your not fooling anyone. The current mess lies at Khan, Whitcut amd Sutcliffes door. The RFL is to blame for thinking they could run the club. Due to this mess they are clearly taking a more indepth look at things which take time. Once bitten and all that. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 0

9:43am Sun 23 Mar 14

Videoref says...

tuono 59 wrote:
it was Hood who started this farce the rest found themselves out of their depth and did a runner.Remember the bulls are just another business the fans are customers like any other.
I think it was thr Iestin Harris saga thatvstarted all this. Value for money? Don't make me laugh!
[quote][p][bold]tuono 59[/bold] wrote: it was Hood who started this farce the rest found themselves out of their depth and did a runner.Remember the bulls are just another business the fans are customers like any other.[/p][/quote]I think it was thr Iestin Harris saga thatvstarted all this. Value for money? Don't make me laugh! Videoref
  • Score: 1

10:13am Sun 23 Mar 14

raisemeup says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Miss Doubtfire wrote:
Administrator 'seeking further proof of funds.' Okay, I get that. But it is staggering to think the administrator passed over Lamb's bid last time in favour of Moore's. Just how did Moore persuade the administrator he had the funds to pay off all the creditors and take a club losing around £100,000 a month into a bright future. The extra sky tv money afforded Super League clubs had already been swallowed up save for a small percentage and the triumvirate had no money of their own. Why was this bid approved at the time and not Lamb's? It makes you wonder what guidelines the administrator is really working to. Does he have the best interests of the club at heart?
Moore was going to buy the club with £500k of money from the RFL. Thats how he beat Lambs bid last time.
Were you at the meeting as a fly on the wall, or are you part of the secretive RFL mafiosa.
It's called taking in all the info rather than simply believing what the club tell you. Lets be honest the club over the last year has been far from honest with it's fans.
No it's called using information for your own purpose, whilst ignoring the subsequent rebuttals that may add another dimension to a story.
Something you and some others on here seem very adept at!

For example the £500k (a forecast of a budget at that time presumably) that was said to be asked for by the custodian board, this according to the same report you seem to be quoting from, was re configured as £100k on feb 20th the day before any points were being deducted.
So concede you should not make a statement that cannot be backed up by facts? Or don't you care who you slander or libel, just so you can appear to be in the know?

You seem to have a parasitic need to latch on to any host you can find who will believe everything you say.

So even if you may have a point sometimes, reasonable and decent people will be reluctant to believe you, due to your past record!
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Miss Doubtfire[/bold] wrote: Administrator 'seeking further proof of funds.' Okay, I get that. But it is staggering to think the administrator passed over Lamb's bid last time in favour of Moore's. Just how did Moore persuade the administrator he had the funds to pay off all the creditors and take a club losing around £100,000 a month into a bright future. The extra sky tv money afforded Super League clubs had already been swallowed up save for a small percentage and the triumvirate had no money of their own. Why was this bid approved at the time and not Lamb's? It makes you wonder what guidelines the administrator is really working to. Does he have the best interests of the club at heart?[/p][/quote]Moore was going to buy the club with £500k of money from the RFL. Thats how he beat Lambs bid last time.[/p][/quote]Were you at the meeting as a fly on the wall, or are you part of the secretive RFL mafiosa.[/p][/quote]It's called taking in all the info rather than simply believing what the club tell you. Lets be honest the club over the last year has been far from honest with it's fans.[/p][/quote]No it's called using information for your own purpose, whilst ignoring the subsequent rebuttals that may add another dimension to a story. Something you and some others on here seem very adept at! For example the £500k (a forecast of a budget at that time presumably) that was said to be asked for by the custodian board, this according to the same report you seem to be quoting from, was re configured as £100k on feb 20th the day before any points were being deducted. So concede you should not make a statement that cannot be backed up by facts? Or don't you care who you slander or libel, just so you can appear to be in the know? You seem to have a parasitic need to latch on to any host you can find who will believe everything you say. So even if you may have a point sometimes, reasonable and decent people will be reluctant to believe you, due to your past record! raisemeup
  • Score: 3

2:19pm Mon 24 Mar 14

BierleyBoy says...

Mike Strutter wrote:
rogerthat! wrote:
The Man From the Pru wrote:
Why rake over old coals. It's the present we need to look at. Administrator says ok for Lamb to buy Bulls. Must have cash to do so. Along comes The RFL, saying more proof needed. Lamb and Co then have to re do the bid to satisfy RFL. Ie proof they've got the cash, proof they have a business plan.
Any wonder the game is in decline, with the the likes of Wood, Rimmer, Solly and Barwick in charge. For the game to survive, they need to go.
It would suite Khan and Whitcut, as you put it, not to Rake over old coals.
All those imposters should be held to Account and legal action taken. Too often supporters will spit the Bile about Players but they did not put our Club into Administration. Turn your attention on who will made the Big decisions these were the Clowns who created. All the problems.
Has Khan or Whitcut been seen in Bradford lately? Hold them to account.
..............and not forgetting a certain Bradford South MP who seems to have gone VERY quiet.

Ooops, forgot we are only 13 months and a bit away from a general election
Gerry Sutcliffe blames the RFL for OK Bulls going into administration. He is on record as saying they could & should have paid the £170k HMRC debt run up by his business.

Sutcliffe is also on record as saying he never had any intention of funding OK. Bulls, even though he has happy to be honorary chairman & a director.

Of course he & all the other Labour mob didn't have to use their own money, his mate Dave Green nodded through a £200k loan to cash flow the business for them.

It's ridiculous to suggest that deal with SSG was out together in the 4 days between Khan stepping down & it being completed. Khan knew all about it. He knew Platinum Partnership were handling it.

Whitcut was left in there by Khan to get cash out of the business, player sales etc, before it went under. All this stuff about court action over a purchase that didn't go through is a smoke screen to get him off the hook.

Sadly, the Bulls are a dead duck from here on in. It's tough to see where the next. Win will come from & with such a weak squad the second spot with London has Bulls written all over it.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Strutter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rogerthat![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Man From the Pru[/bold] wrote: Why rake over old coals. It's the present we need to look at. Administrator says ok for Lamb to buy Bulls. Must have cash to do so. Along comes The RFL, saying more proof needed. Lamb and Co then have to re do the bid to satisfy RFL. Ie proof they've got the cash, proof they have a business plan. Any wonder the game is in decline, with the the likes of Wood, Rimmer, Solly and Barwick in charge. For the game to survive, they need to go.[/p][/quote]It would suite Khan and Whitcut, as you put it, not to Rake over old coals. All those imposters should be held to Account and legal action taken. Too often supporters will spit the Bile about Players but they did not put our Club into Administration. Turn your attention on who will made the Big decisions these were the Clowns who created. All the problems. Has Khan or Whitcut been seen in Bradford lately? Hold them to account.[/p][/quote]..............and not forgetting a certain Bradford South MP who seems to have gone VERY quiet. Ooops, forgot we are only 13 months and a bit away from a general election[/p][/quote]Gerry Sutcliffe blames the RFL for OK Bulls going into administration. He is on record as saying they could & should have paid the £170k HMRC debt run up by his business. Sutcliffe is also on record as saying he never had any intention of funding OK. Bulls, even though he has happy to be honorary chairman & a director. Of course he & all the other Labour mob didn't have to use their own money, his mate Dave Green nodded through a £200k loan to cash flow the business for them. It's ridiculous to suggest that deal with SSG was out together in the 4 days between Khan stepping down & it being completed. Khan knew all about it. He knew Platinum Partnership were handling it. Whitcut was left in there by Khan to get cash out of the business, player sales etc, before it went under. All this stuff about court action over a purchase that didn't go through is a smoke screen to get him off the hook. Sadly, the Bulls are a dead duck from here on in. It's tough to see where the next. Win will come from & with such a weak squad the second spot with London has Bulls written all over it. BierleyBoy
  • Score: 0

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