RFL pay-out ‘only way to save Bulls’ (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

Bullcity wrote:
The Voice of reason is quite right I would suggest .What i would like to know is --what are the minmum reuirements that would secure the ownership of the club in terms of finance , committment & in turn defered benefits after the club is starting to break even. Why has the RFL if it issues licences not published a minimum requirement business plan for all RL clubs to aspire to or even exceed. This would be most helpful but too late now I fear for the Bulls

blue marlin wrote:
And while all this is going on the administrators get there wedge?

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

blue marlin wrote: And while all this is going on the administrators get there wedge?

The administrators are paid by the hour. They may reduce their total fee at the end but yes they will end up with their piece of the pie.

albut71 wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt the question i would pose is would any sensible businessman invest in a company with debts to be restructured and no assets. Simple answer No. So any potential purchaser needs the assurance of a) an ongoing concern i.e. SL status and potentially b) the option to buy back the lease. For the RL what value is the lease if bradford fold NONE. They have no surplus to redevelop the ground and have enough challenges putting on a profitable world cup. The administrator is the only winner here as i posted previously he has a vested interest in elongating the process for financial gain and if he indeed secures a deal he gets a nice cherry on top. I say lets fold and start again and move away from the circling vultures as for Halifax getting a SL licence its laughable the away support Bradford generate is more than Halifax home support.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Firstly, why put in a bid with the same conditions that have been rejected by the RFL already, all that will happen in the bid will be rejected and if it isn't you can see the ABC group taking legal advice to why theirs was rejected with the same conditions.

I mentioned in the other thread it appears the RFL are simply getting the Bulls to the end of the season to fufill the super league fixtures. The six point penalty far from being in place to make people wrongly assume the future of the club is secured appears to be in place to ensure the Bulls season ends before the play-offs and further funding to allow them to carry on isn't handed out by the RFL.

The last thing the RFL want at this stage is an unfufilled fixture list which may then require adding back results against the Bulls shaking the table up at this late stage.

It's now that I fear the worse for the Bulls and hopefully am wrong in assuming that this season will be the last of the club in it's current form.

Why do the bid require the lease back from the RFL, surely the future of the club is more important that aquiring the lease, maybe an option to aquire the lease at a later date is a more workable condition, rather than submitting the same bids which are too similar to the ones being rejected.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

albut71 wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt the question i would pose is would any sensible businessman invest in a company with debts to be restructured and no assets. Simple answer No. So any potential purchaser needs the assurance of a) an ongoing concern i.e. SL status and potentially b) the option to buy back the lease. For the RL what value is the lease if bradford fold NONE. They have no surplus to redevelop the ground and have enough challenges putting on a profitable world cup. The administrator is the only winner here as i posted previously he has a vested interest in elongating the process for financial gain and if he indeed secures a deal he gets a nice cherry on top. I say lets fold and start again and move away from the circling vultures as for Halifax getting a SL licence its laughable the away support Bradford generate is more than Halifax home support.

It's not about support though it is, it about keeping ones house in order, and on that basis the Bulls have been failed by those that have run the club.

Halifax have done no wrong and deserve a crack of the whip regardless of the number of fans they have. Anyhow whats to say their crowds won't grow significantly if they are given Super League status.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

albut71 wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt the question i would pose is would any sensible businessman invest in a company with debts to be restructured and no assets. Simple answer No. So any potential purchaser needs the assurance of a) an ongoing concern i.e. SL status and potentially b) the option to buy back the lease. For the RL what value is the lease if bradford fold NONE. They have no surplus to redevelop the ground and have enough challenges putting on a profitable world cup. The administrator is the only winner here as i posted previously he has a vested interest in elongating the process for financial gain and if he indeed secures a deal he gets a nice cherry on top. I say lets fold and start again and move away from the circling vultures as for Halifax getting a SL licence its laughable the away support Bradford generate is more than Halifax home support.

It's not about support though it is, it about keeping ones house in order, and on that basis the Bulls have been failed by those that have run the club.

Halifax have done no wrong and deserve a crack of the whip regardless of the number of fans they have. Anyhow whats to say their crowds won't grow significantly if they are given Super League status.

Steam Pigs wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

albut71 wrote: For the avoidance of doubt the question i would pose is would any sensible businessman invest in a company with debts to be restructured and no assets. Simple answer No. So any potential purchaser needs the assurance of a) an ongoing concern i.e. SL status and potentially b) the option to buy back the lease. For the RL what value is the lease if bradford fold NONE. They have no surplus to redevelop the ground and have enough challenges putting on a profitable world cup. The administrator is the only winner here as i posted previously he has a vested interest in elongating the process for financial gain and if he indeed secures a deal he gets a nice cherry on top. I say lets fold and start again and move away from the circling vultures as for Halifax getting a SL licence its laughable the away support Bradford generate is more than Halifax home support.

It's not about support though it is, it about keeping ones house in order, and on that basis the Bulls have been failed by those that have run the club. Halifax have done no wrong and deserve a crack of the whip regardless of the number of fans they have. Anyhow whats to say their crowds won't grow significantly if they are given Super League status.

Your lack of Rl knowledge is astounding!!! Fax have never been financially secure http://news.bbc.co.u k/sport1/hi/rugby_le ague/2844695.stm please go back to the city forum!!!

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

albut71 wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt the question i would pose is would any sensible businessman invest in a company with debts to be restructured and no assets. Simple answer No. So any potential purchaser needs the assurance of a) an ongoing concern i.e. SL status and potentially b) the option to buy back the lease. For the RL what value is the lease if bradford fold NONE. They have no surplus to redevelop the ground and have enough challenges putting on a profitable world cup. The administrator is the only winner here as i posted previously he has a vested interest in elongating the process for financial gain and if he indeed secures a deal he gets a nice cherry on top. I say lets fold and start again and move away from the circling vultures as for Halifax getting a SL licence its laughable the away support Bradford generate is more than Halifax home support.

It's not about support though it is, it about keeping ones house in order, and on that basis the Bulls have been failed by those that have run the club.

Halifax have done no wrong and deserve a crack of the whip regardless of the number of fans they have. Anyhow whats to say their crowds won't grow significantly if they are given Super League status.

lonniejockstrap wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Firstly, why put in a bid with the same conditions that have been rejected by the RFL already, all that will happen in the bid will be rejected and if it isn't you can see the ABC group taking legal advice to why theirs was rejected with the same conditions.

I mentioned in the other thread it appears the RFL are simply getting the Bulls to the end of the season to fufill the super league fixtures. The six point penalty far from being in place to make people wrongly assume the future of the club is secured appears to be in place to ensure the Bulls season ends before the play-offs and further funding to allow them to carry on isn't handed out by the RFL.

The last thing the RFL want at this stage is an unfufilled fixture list which may then require adding back results against the Bulls shaking the table up at this late stage.

It's now that I fear the worse for the Bulls and hopefully am wrong in assuming that this season will be the last of the club in it's current form.

Why do the bid require the lease back from the RFL, surely the future of the club is more important that aquiring the lease, maybe an option to aquire the lease at a later date is a more workable condition, rather than submitting the same bids which are too similar to the ones being rejected.

I would have thought that the survival of the Club is only the most important issue if you are a supporter. If you are a businessman looking at taking over then I would have thought your investment is the most important thing. If the Bulls are lucky enough to have a supporter who is also a businessman then maybe he/they would be prepared to take a small affordable loss to keep the Club going. However, I fear there are only a very few business people in Bradford who are prepared to do that and at least two of them are involved with Bradford City. All they ever seem to get from their involvement is abuse, accusations that they are liars, making a killing out of the Club and other criticism from people who think they know how to run the Club better. How many people would want to get involved to such a financial commitment purely for the love of the Club. Hmmm.

raisemeup wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

albut71 wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt the question i would pose is would any sensible businessman invest in a company with debts to be restructured and no assets. Simple answer No. So any potential purchaser needs the assurance of a) an ongoing concern i.e. SL status and potentially b) the option to buy back the lease. For the RL what value is the lease if bradford fold NONE. They have no surplus to redevelop the ground and have enough challenges putting on a profitable world cup. The administrator is the only winner here as i posted previously he has a vested interest in elongating the process for financial gain and if he indeed secures a deal he gets a nice cherry on top. I say lets fold and start again and move away from the circling vultures as for Halifax getting a SL licence its laughable the away support Bradford generate is more than Halifax home support.

It's not about support though it is, it about keeping ones house in order, and on that basis the Bulls have been failed by those that have run the club.

Halifax have done no wrong and deserve a crack of the whip regardless of the number of fans they have. Anyhow whats to say their crowds won't grow significantly if they are given Super League status.

The biggest problem is 1) Halifax would shudder at the prospect, as they are owned by Calderdale Council, in effect, they need another couple of years to re establish themselves before even contemplating a bid for SL.
That's my opinion, based on fact and some conjecture, granted.
2) The population of Halifax and Calderdale is 202k whereas Bradford MBC is close to 500k and growing.
3) The Shay is not yet completed, but when it is in 2013 it will still be only a maximum of circa 10,000.
4) They couldn't afford a full professional squad as yet..
(no neither can we at moment, but the consortiums bid would have seen to that problem.)

I think you will find that Halifax are far more realistic than you suggest !

They are a sensible lot, you know.

raisemeup wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

albut71 wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt the question i would pose is would any sensible businessman invest in a company with debts to be restructured and no assets. Simple answer No. So any potential purchaser needs the assurance of a) an ongoing concern i.e. SL status and potentially b) the option to buy back the lease. For the RL what value is the lease if bradford fold NONE. They have no surplus to redevelop the ground and have enough challenges putting on a profitable world cup. The administrator is the only winner here as i posted previously he has a vested interest in elongating the process for financial gain and if he indeed secures a deal he gets a nice cherry on top. I say lets fold and start again and move away from the circling vultures as for Halifax getting a SL licence its laughable the away support Bradford generate is more than Halifax home support.

It's not about support though it is, it about keeping ones house in order, and on that basis the Bulls have been failed by those that have run the club.

Halifax have done no wrong and deserve a crack of the whip regardless of the number of fans they have. Anyhow whats to say their crowds won't grow significantly if they are given Super League status.

The biggest problem is 1) Halifax would shudder at the prospect, as they are owned by Calderdale Council, in effect, they need another couple of years to re establish themselves before even contemplating a bid for SL.
That's my opinion, based on fact and some conjecture, granted.
2) The population of Halifax and Calderdale is 202k whereas Bradford MBC is close to 500k and growing.
3) The Shay is not yet completed, but when it is in 2013 it will still be only a maximum of circa 10,000.
4) They couldn't afford a full professional squad as yet..
(no neither can we at moment, but the consortiums bid would have seen to that problem.)

I think you will find that Halifax are far more realistic than you suggest !

They are a sensible lot, you know.

bidrsend wrote:

raisemeup wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

albut71 wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt the question i would pose is would any sensible businessman invest in a company with debts to be restructured and no assets. Simple answer No. So any potential purchaser needs the assurance of a) an ongoing concern i.e. SL status and potentially b) the option to buy back the lease. For the RL what value is the lease if bradford fold NONE. They have no surplus to redevelop the ground and have enough challenges putting on a profitable world cup. The administrator is the only winner here as i posted previously he has a vested interest in elongating the process for financial gain and if he indeed secures a deal he gets a nice cherry on top. I say lets fold and start again and move away from the circling vultures as for Halifax getting a SL licence its laughable the away support Bradford generate is more than Halifax home support.

It's not about support though it is, it about keeping ones house in order, and on that basis the Bulls have been failed by those that have run the club.

Halifax have done no wrong and deserve a crack of the whip regardless of the number of fans they have. Anyhow whats to say their crowds won't grow significantly if they are given Super League status.

The biggest problem is 1) Halifax would shudder at the prospect, as they are owned by Calderdale Council, in effect, they need another couple of years to re establish themselves before even contemplating a bid for SL.
That's my opinion, based on fact and some conjecture, granted.
2) The population of Halifax and Calderdale is 202k whereas Bradford MBC is close to 500k and growing.
3) The Shay is not yet completed, but when it is in 2013 it will still be only a maximum of circa 10,000.
4) They couldn't afford a full professional squad as yet..
(no neither can we at moment, but the consortiums bid would have seen to that problem.)

I think you will find that Halifax are far more realistic than you suggest !

They are a sensible lot, you know.

1)Fax ground is owned by the council not Fax its self
2)can't see how with time fax's support would not be able to match that of bulls
3)The Shay Is down on wikapidia as having over 14k capacity
4) can't comment on what Fax can afford but I do know they made a profit last year and already have a hand full of super league quality players already! In the likes of Penky, Barrlow, Feildhouse, Tonks, Worrincy, Nanyn, Ambler and so on.
I also can't see how Bulls could possibly go down just one league to the championship as 3 teams have already gained promotion to the championship from championship 1 this year. Unless a team was to get shunted up to super league to create space.

scandanavian's love child52 wrote:
Did you give to the halifax cause raisemeup ?

Reality50 wrote:
Fax almost gained a SL licence in March and were told how very close they got.They fulfilled all criteria but Widnes got the nod but only just.Fax would be a good asset to SL unlike Bradford who are a laughing stock and an embarrassment.As for Bradford's population growing that is true however it is growing with Muslims and Muslims and Asians generally have no interest in rugby league.

scandanavian's love child52 wrote:
From the rubbish you spout mumby you have on idea of rugby league never mind interest.

Sheffieldbull wrote:

lonniejockstrap wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Firstly, why put in a bid with the same conditions that have been rejected by the RFL already, all that will happen in the bid will be rejected and if it isn't you can see the ABC group taking legal advice to why theirs was rejected with the same conditions.

I mentioned in the other thread it appears the RFL are simply getting the Bulls to the end of the season to fufill the super league fixtures. The six point penalty far from being in place to make people wrongly assume the future of the club is secured appears to be in place to ensure the Bulls season ends before the play-offs and further funding to allow them to carry on isn't handed out by the RFL.

The last thing the RFL want at this stage is an unfufilled fixture list which may then require adding back results against the Bulls shaking the table up at this late stage.

It's now that I fear the worse for the Bulls and hopefully am wrong in assuming that this season will be the last of the club in it's current form.

Why do the bid require the lease back from the RFL, surely the future of the club is more important that aquiring the lease, maybe an option to aquire the lease at a later date is a more workable condition, rather than submitting the same bids which are too similar to the ones being rejected.

I would have thought that the survival of the Club is only the most important issue if you are a supporter. If you are a businessman looking at taking over then I would have thought your investment is the most important thing. If the Bulls are lucky enough to have a supporter who is also a businessman then maybe he/they would be prepared to take a small affordable loss to keep the Club going. However, I fear there are only a very few business people in Bradford who are prepared to do that and at least two of them are involved with Bradford City. All they ever seem to get from their involvement is abuse, accusations that they are liars, making a killing out of the Club and other criticism from people who think they know how to run the Club better. How many people would want to get involved to such a financial commitment purely for the love of the Club. Hmmm.

Imo, lonniejockstrap added the bits that others had not considered carefully enough re; the Lease (that will be my only acknowledgement to you TVOR, so play nicely eh?)

modman61 wrote:
And still no voice from Caisley and Co!

yorkiewyke wrote:

modman61 wrote:
And still no voice from Caisley and Co!

He is waiting for us to go into liquidation then come in with his £1

Shelfrhino wrote:
TVoR,
Sheffdull, Northerndull, Steamedfig, I'm Brian and so's my wife and countless others on here are just deluded fools.
You can't get a straight answer answer off any of them.
Notice sheffdull never came back with her ST price?

Mumby was the best wrote:

yorkiewyke wrote:

modman61 wrote:
And still no voice from Caisley and Co!

He is waiting for us to go into liquidation then come in with his £1

Fear you are right, hope it`s not the case, we need someone who has no previous involvement with the club at Board level.

Reality50 wrote:
Halifax were a well supported club until Super League was invented and it is well known many Fax fans changed their allegiance once Bradford got a SL licence and Fax didn't.It is ridiculous to compare RL clubs gates in the Championship as most fans of those clubs don't bother attending as they think what's the point as there is no promotion.Put Fax in SL and they would pull 6-8000 initially and more if they did well.They are the best team outside SL and the most able club to make the step up.Bradford have had their chance and sat on their laurels in a tired old stadium building up debt and blatantly lied about their financial situation to get past the last SL franchise licence procedure.Bradford need to restart like Glasgow Rangers in the bottom division and play at Valley Parade and take the punishment like men.This whole scenario has now stripped Bradford Bulls of it's dignity and the RFL should pay Bulls enough to get them through the last few fixtures then cut them adrift at the end of the season and relegate them to the lowest possible league.

Wots up wrote:

Reality50 wrote:
Halifax were a well supported club until Super League was invented and it is well known many Fax fans changed their allegiance once Bradford got a SL licence and Fax didn't.It is ridiculous to compare RL clubs gates in the Championship as most fans of those clubs don't bother attending as they think what's the point as there is no promotion.Put Fax in SL and they would pull 6-8000 initially and more if they did well.They are the best team outside SL and the most able club to make the step up.Bradford have had their chance and sat on their laurels in a tired old stadium building up debt and blatantly lied about their financial situation to get past the last SL franchise licence procedure.Bradford need to restart like Glasgow Rangers in the bottom division and play at Valley Parade and take the punishment like men.This whole scenario has now stripped Bradford Bulls of it's dignity and the RFL should pay Bulls enough to get them through the last few fixtures then cut them adrift at the end of the season and relegate them to the lowest possible league.

You are having a laugh. Halifax were last in SL in 2003 and embarrassingly only won one game in the whole season. A record that I believe has never been equalled. What is a much bigger concern is their average attendance was less than 3,000. Correct me if I am wrong but all these matches would have been against SL clubs!!!

yorkiewyke wrote:

Mumby was the best wrote:

yorkiewyke wrote:

modman61 wrote: And still no voice from Caisley and Co!

He is waiting for us to go into liquidation then come in with his £1

Fear you are right, hope it`s not the case, we need someone who has no previous involvement with the club at Board level.

Agree with you there m8

Shelfrhino wrote:
TVoR,
Sheffdull, Northerndull, Steamedfig, I'm Brian and so's my wife and countless others on here are just deluded fools.
You can't get a straight answer answer off any of them.
Notice sheffdull never came back with her ST price?

scandanavian's love child52 wrote:
Course you did. I am going to tell my mate shelf about your kids.

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Shelfrhino wrote:
TVoR,
Sheffdull, Northerndull, Steamedfig, I'm Brian and so's my wife and countless others on here are just deluded fools.
You can't get a straight answer answer off any of them.
Notice sheffdull never came back with her ST price?

What was there to come back with you numpty? - and TVOR please take note.. £60 has nothing to do with this seasons ticket price, so whats your point? either get your facts right or don't spout OK! (I was sure you'd be fed up with being 'owned' by now.) For the Slugwhino, I paid in excess of the 4 years (your admission, slimy) you've paid for your season tickets at the Cricket Grounds overspill Car Park and have done for more years than I care to remember sweet cheeks... though what's that got to do with you is beyond comprehension. Thought you were off to Spain slimy, have you had difficulty cleaning up after yourself, PS. your missus told me you were messy...... Sorry to hear about your eviction, i'm sure you'll find another stone soon in the LS area.

Mumby was the best wrote:
£85 is correct Mine was £80 (pensioner) Terrace entrance

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Shelfrhino wrote: TVoR, Sheffdull, Northerndull, Steamedfig, I'm Brian and so's my wife and countless others on here are just deluded fools. You can't get a straight answer answer off any of them. Notice sheffdull never came back with her ST price?

What was there to come back with you numpty? - and TVOR please take note.. £60 has nothing to do with this seasons ticket price, so whats your point? either get your facts right or don't spout OK! (I was sure you'd be fed up with being 'owned' by now.) For the Slugwhino, I paid in excess of the 4 years (your admission, slimy) you've paid for your season tickets at the Cricket Grounds overspill Car Park and have done for more years than I care to remember sweet cheeks... though what's that got to do with you is beyond comprehension. Thought you were off to Spain slimy, have you had difficulty cleaning up after yourself, PS. your missus told me you were messy...... Sorry to hear about your eviction, i'm sure you'll find another stone soon in the LS area.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Shelfrhino wrote:
TVoR,
Sheffdull, Northerndull, Steamedfig, I'm Brian and so's my wife and countless others on here are just deluded fools.
You can't get a straight answer answer off any of them.
Notice sheffdull never came back with her ST price?

What was there to come back with you numpty? - and TVOR please take note.. £60 has nothing to do with this seasons ticket price, so whats your point? either get your facts right or don't spout OK! (I was sure you'd be fed up with being 'owned' by now.) For the Slugwhino, I paid in excess of the 4 years (your admission, slimy) you've paid for your season tickets at the Cricket Grounds overspill Car Park and have done for more years than I care to remember sweet cheeks... though what's that got to do with you is beyond comprehension. Thought you were off to Spain slimy, have you had difficulty cleaning up after yourself, PS. your missus told me you were messy...... Sorry to hear about your eviction, i'm sure you'll find another stone soon in the LS area.

Fed up with being owned, what is this the schoolyard?

As I was refering to cheap season ticket is it not factual that I should refer to the price of those cheap season tickets being £60.
As you've not answeed me about this season tickets can you confirm if £85 is correct please.

Shelfrhino wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Shelfrhino wrote: TVoR, Sheffdull, Northerndull, Steamedfig, I'm Brian and so's my wife and countless others on here are just deluded fools. You can't get a straight answer answer off any of them. Notice sheffdull never came back with her ST price?

What was there to come back with you numpty? - and TVOR please take note.. £60 has nothing to do with this seasons ticket price, so whats your point? either get your facts right or don't spout OK! (I was sure you'd be fed up with being 'owned' by now.) For the Slugwhino, I paid in excess of the 4 years (your admission, slimy) you've paid for your season tickets at the Cricket Grounds overspill Car Park and have done for more years than I care to remember sweet cheeks... though what's that got to do with you is beyond comprehension. Thought you were off to Spain slimy, have you had difficulty cleaning up after yourself, PS. your missus told me you were messy...... Sorry to hear about your eviction, i'm sure you'll find another stone soon in the LS area.

Do keep up sheffdull, I went to see my dad on Sunday morning, I came home this afternoon I went for a couple of days like I said.
As for you talking to my missus, I very much doubt you did for reasons that I shall keep to myself.
You are clearly just a troll and a bad liar to boot.
Also I'm not being evicted, I'm moving house to a very nice area, the like of which you could only dream of.
Don't bother commenting on here anymore troll.
ps the £60 comment still sticks no matter how much you deny it.

Shelfrhino wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Shelfrhino wrote: TVoR, Sheffdull, Northerndull, Steamedfig, I'm Brian and so's my wife and countless others on here are just deluded fools. You can't get a straight answer answer off any of them. Notice sheffdull never came back with her ST price?

What was there to come back with you numpty? - and TVOR please take note.. £60 has nothing to do with this seasons ticket price, so whats your point? either get your facts right or don't spout OK! (I was sure you'd be fed up with being 'owned' by now.) For the Slugwhino, I paid in excess of the 4 years (your admission, slimy) you've paid for your season tickets at the Cricket Grounds overspill Car Park and have done for more years than I care to remember sweet cheeks... though what's that got to do with you is beyond comprehension. Thought you were off to Spain slimy, have you had difficulty cleaning up after yourself, PS. your missus told me you were messy...... Sorry to hear about your eviction, i'm sure you'll find another stone soon in the LS area.

Do keep up sheffdull, I went to see my dad on Sunday morning, I came home this afternoon I went for a couple of days like I said.
As for you talking to my missus, I very much doubt you did for reasons that I shall keep to myself.
You are clearly just a troll and a bad liar to boot.
Also I'm not being evicted, I'm moving house to a very nice area, the like of which you could only dream of.
Don't bother commenting on here anymore troll.
ps the £60 comment still sticks no matter how much you deny it.

tyker2 wrote:
£200k per month wages plus employer's national insurance at 10% plus makes a total outgoing of £220k per month. Season tickets at £x pounds and only around 8000 sold. The whole set up could not be sustained irrespective of some television rights and a bit of stadium sponsorship.!! THE ECONOMIC MODEL WAS FLAWED FROM THE OUTSET!!

Shelfrhino wrote:

tyker2 wrote:
£200k per month wages plus employer's national insurance at 10% plus makes a total outgoing of £220k per month. Season tickets at £x pounds and only around 8000 sold. The whole set up could not be sustained irrespective of some television rights and a bit of stadium sponsorship.!! THE ECONOMIC MODEL WAS FLAWED FROM THE OUTSET!!

I know, I said this when they first did this offer at the beginning of the 2011 season and was told I didn't know what I was talking about.
Seems I was right all along.
Now the latest plan for the dulls is to act like a tramp smelling of p*ss and going around tapping everybody for a few quid and generally showing the game of RL up.
The only good news is that what generally happens to tramps in the winter ( they snuff it) will happen to this embarrassment as well.

hemsworthbull formerly known as pontebull wrote:

Shelfrhino wrote:

tyker2 wrote:
£200k per month wages plus employer's national insurance at 10% plus makes a total outgoing of £220k per month. Season tickets at £x pounds and only around 8000 sold. The whole set up could not be sustained irrespective of some television rights and a bit of stadium sponsorship.!! THE ECONOMIC MODEL WAS FLAWED FROM THE OUTSET!!

I know, I said this when they first did this offer at the beginning of the 2011 season and was told I didn't know what I was talking about.
Seems I was right all along.
Now the latest plan for the dulls is to act like a tramp smelling of p*ss and going around tapping everybody for a few quid and generally showing the game of RL up.
The only good news is that what generally happens to tramps in the winter ( they snuff it) will happen to this embarrassment as well.

There is a sad case called shelfrhino
Who is the biggest moron that I know
His life is so sad
His ground is as bad
So he's turned to a scratty wino.

scandanavian's love child52 wrote:
They are all coming out of the woodwork today to slag shelf. He has owned you all and you come back for more.

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Shelfrhino wrote:
TVoR,
Sheffdull, Northerndull, Steamedfig, I'm Brian and so's my wife and countless others on here are just deluded fools.
You can't get a straight answer answer off any of them.
Notice sheffdull never came back with her ST price?

What was there to come back with you numpty? - and TVOR please take note.. £60 has nothing to do with this seasons ticket price, so whats your point? either get your facts right or don't spout OK! (I was sure you'd be fed up with being 'owned' by now.) For the Slugwhino, I paid in excess of the 4 years (your admission, slimy) you've paid for your season tickets at the Cricket Grounds overspill Car Park and have done for more years than I care to remember sweet cheeks... though what's that got to do with you is beyond comprehension. Thought you were off to Spain slimy, have you had difficulty cleaning up after yourself, PS. your missus told me you were messy...... Sorry to hear about your eviction, i'm sure you'll find another stone soon in the LS area.

Fed up with being owned, what is this the schoolyard?

As I was refering to cheap season ticket is it not factual that I should refer to the price of those cheap season tickets being £60.
As you've not answeed me about this season tickets can you confirm if £85 is correct please.

My season tickets cost a hell of a lot more than that, I can confirm.
.
£85 is NOT £60 so I will take that as your own correction on the subject. I know you like facts ;-)
.
As to the SKY coverage of Bulls v Leeds games - yeah, I agree with you, i was wrong, none of the c21K at Odsal were interested or the 18.6K at LS6 gave a crap that SKY didn't cover it.- now, what was your point?

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Shelfrhino wrote:
TVoR,
Sheffdull, Northerndull, Steamedfig, I'm Brian and so's my wife and countless others on here are just deluded fools.
You can't get a straight answer answer off any of them.
Notice sheffdull never came back with her ST price?

What was there to come back with you numpty? - and TVOR please take note.. £60 has nothing to do with this seasons ticket price, so whats your point? either get your facts right or don't spout OK! (I was sure you'd be fed up with being 'owned' by now.) For the Slugwhino, I paid in excess of the 4 years (your admission, slimy) you've paid for your season tickets at the Cricket Grounds overspill Car Park and have done for more years than I care to remember sweet cheeks... though what's that got to do with you is beyond comprehension. Thought you were off to Spain slimy, have you had difficulty cleaning up after yourself, PS. your missus told me you were messy...... Sorry to hear about your eviction, i'm sure you'll find another stone soon in the LS area.

Fed up with being owned, what is this the schoolyard?

As I was refering to cheap season ticket is it not factual that I should refer to the price of those cheap season tickets being £60.
As you've not answeed me about this season tickets can you confirm if £85 is correct please.

My season tickets cost a hell of a lot more than that, I can confirm.
.
£85 is NOT £60 so I will take that as your own correction on the subject. I know you like facts ;-)
.
As to the SKY coverage of Bulls v Leeds games - yeah, I agree with you, i was wrong, none of the c21K at Odsal were interested or the 18.6K at LS6 gave a crap that SKY didn't cover it.- now, what was your point?

Sheffieldbrickwallbu

ll.

It's not my fault you either are to stuborn to admit your wrong or to stupid to realise that when I talk of cheap season tickets I was comparing previous years of BCFCs cheap deals with what the Bulls have offered in the past to.

Re read the comment as I can't edit it so its still there. I brought up two different charges from BCFC so that in itself would suggest I was talk about previous years and not just the current season.

scandanavian's love child52 wrote:
Ever heard of the youraboringcoontact2

012 ?

scandanavian's love child52 wrote:
They are all coming out of the woodwork today to slag shelf. He has owned you all and you come back for more.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Shelfrhino wrote:
TVoR,
Sheffdull, Northerndull, Steamedfig, I'm Brian and so's my wife and countless others on here are just deluded fools.
You can't get a straight answer answer off any of them.
Notice sheffdull never came back with her ST price?

What was there to come back with you numpty? - and TVOR please take note.. £60 has nothing to do with this seasons ticket price, so whats your point? either get your facts right or don't spout OK! (I was sure you'd be fed up with being 'owned' by now.) For the Slugwhino, I paid in excess of the 4 years (your admission, slimy) you've paid for your season tickets at the Cricket Grounds overspill Car Park and have done for more years than I care to remember sweet cheeks... though what's that got to do with you is beyond comprehension. Thought you were off to Spain slimy, have you had difficulty cleaning up after yourself, PS. your missus told me you were messy...... Sorry to hear about your eviction, i'm sure you'll find another stone soon in the LS area.

Fed up with being owned, what is this the schoolyard?

As I was refering to cheap season ticket is it not factual that I should refer to the price of those cheap season tickets being £60.
As you've not answeed me about this season tickets can you confirm if £85 is correct please.

Mumby was the best wrote:
I think you need to come up with something a bit more objective than just quoting the figures of £60 and £85 because they are virtually meaningless unless you can put these into context.
Also the season ticket for the Stand was more money I believe around £120 and most were sold.
If all the problems were down to season ticket cost as you point out why aren`t City in same position considering number of home games and probably soccer players command better wages even in the bottom tiers of football

lonniejockstrap wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Shelfrhino wrote:
TVoR,
Sheffdull, Northerndull, Steamedfig, I'm Brian and so's my wife and countless others on here are just deluded fools.
You can't get a straight answer answer off any of them.
Notice sheffdull never came back with her ST price?

What was there to come back with you numpty? - and TVOR please take note.. £60 has nothing to do with this seasons ticket price, so whats your point? either get your facts right or don't spout OK! (I was sure you'd be fed up with being 'owned' by now.) For the Slugwhino, I paid in excess of the 4 years (your admission, slimy) you've paid for your season tickets at the Cricket Grounds overspill Car Park and have done for more years than I care to remember sweet cheeks... though what's that got to do with you is beyond comprehension. Thought you were off to Spain slimy, have you had difficulty cleaning up after yourself, PS. your missus told me you were messy...... Sorry to hear about your eviction, i'm sure you'll find another stone soon in the LS area.

Fed up with being owned, what is this the schoolyard?

As I was refering to cheap season ticket is it not factual that I should refer to the price of those cheap season tickets being £60.
As you've not answeed me about this season tickets can you confirm if £85 is correct please.

But what is your point about the price of the tickets? I asked you this earlier but I don't recall you clarifying. The tickets were cheap yes but are you saying that is the sole reason, main reason or simply one of a number of reasons for the financial state of the Bulls? I bought a season ticket for Bradford City last season for £110 and they haven't gone bust. They play 23 home games the Bulls tickets were £60 last season with 13 home games. If as claimed by a previous poster the ave attendance is around 14750 then there must be some positives to be acknowledged when discussing the ticket price. I think you need to come up with something a bit more objective than just quoting the figures of £60 and £85 because they are virtually meaningless unless you can put these into context.

lonniejockstrap wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Shelfrhino wrote:
TVoR,
Sheffdull, Northerndull, Steamedfig, I'm Brian and so's my wife and countless others on here are just deluded fools.
You can't get a straight answer answer off any of them.
Notice sheffdull never came back with her ST price?

What was there to come back with you numpty? - and TVOR please take note.. £60 has nothing to do with this seasons ticket price, so whats your point? either get your facts right or don't spout OK! (I was sure you'd be fed up with being 'owned' by now.) For the Slugwhino, I paid in excess of the 4 years (your admission, slimy) you've paid for your season tickets at the Cricket Grounds overspill Car Park and have done for more years than I care to remember sweet cheeks... though what's that got to do with you is beyond comprehension. Thought you were off to Spain slimy, have you had difficulty cleaning up after yourself, PS. your missus told me you were messy...... Sorry to hear about your eviction, i'm sure you'll find another stone soon in the LS area.

Fed up with being owned, what is this the schoolyard?

As I was refering to cheap season ticket is it not factual that I should refer to the price of those cheap season tickets being £60.
As you've not answeed me about this season tickets can you confirm if £85 is correct please.

But what is your point about the price of the tickets? I asked you this earlier but I don't recall you clarifying. The tickets were cheap yes but are you saying that is the sole reason, main reason or simply one of a number of reasons for the financial state of the Bulls? I bought a season ticket for Bradford City last season for £110 and they haven't gone bust. They play 23 home games the Bulls tickets were £60 last season with 13 home games. If as claimed by a previous poster the ave attendance is around 14750 then there must be some positives to be acknowledged when discussing the ticket price. I think you need to come up with something a bit more objective than just quoting the figures of £60 and £85 because they are virtually meaningless unless you can put these into context.

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

lonniejockstrap wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Shelfrhino wrote: TVoR, Sheffdull, Northerndull, Steamedfig, I'm Brian and so's my wife and countless others on here are just deluded fools. You can't get a straight answer answer off any of them. Notice sheffdull never came back with her ST price?

What was there to come back with you numpty? - and TVOR please take note.. £60 has nothing to do with this seasons ticket price, so whats your point? either get your facts right or don't spout OK! (I was sure you'd be fed up with being 'owned' by now.) For the Slugwhino, I paid in excess of the 4 years (your admission, slimy) you've paid for your season tickets at the Cricket Grounds overspill Car Park and have done for more years than I care to remember sweet cheeks... though what's that got to do with you is beyond comprehension. Thought you were off to Spain slimy, have you had difficulty cleaning up after yourself, PS. your missus told me you were messy...... Sorry to hear about your eviction, i'm sure you'll find another stone soon in the LS area.

Fed up with being owned, what is this the schoolyard? As I was refering to cheap season ticket is it not factual that I should refer to the price of those cheap season tickets being £60. As you've not answeed me about this season tickets can you confirm if £85 is correct please.

But what is your point about the price of the tickets? I asked you this earlier but I don't recall you clarifying. The tickets were cheap yes but are you saying that is the sole reason, main reason or simply one of a number of reasons for the financial state of the Bulls? I bought a season ticket for Bradford City last season for £110 and they haven't gone bust. They play 23 home games the Bulls tickets were £60 last season with 13 home games. If as claimed by a previous poster the ave attendance is around 14750 then there must be some positives to be acknowledged when discussing the ticket price. I think you need to come up with something a bit more objective than just quoting the figures of £60 and £85 because they are virtually meaningless unless you can put these into context.

The wage bill at the Bulls was over £200k per month, at VP its half that and they have twice the games to generate income, more cup competitions and better facilities to fund additional income. Therefore they can afford to sell season tickets cheaper and still make it work, in addition the directors have admitted tocovering shortfalls. The Bulls appear to have sold of their only asset to fund their shortfall before the overdraft was cut which tells you it wasn't planned out properly.

raisemeup wrote:
The main problem in this scenario. Is that firstly the RFL see themselves as being between a rock and a hard place! I think that anyway? Firstly I ask myself why did they purchase the lease from the Club Directors (all 2 of them, with poor old Ryan having to have 49 shares to make up the numbers).? Rhetorical question no answers needed. They are left with a negotiation that they seem not to want. In fact if it was a case of some bidder just buying the club. the administrator would have already sold it to them. No need for the RFL to be involved, excepting for the conditions that the new owners of the Bulls would have asked for. And anyone in their right business mind would ask for conditions to be a part of any application to re- join Super League, after all a number of SL clubs asked for and were granted significant concessions in the past. Even St Helens would you believe??? The issue is that there are two buying streams to be made for any bidder for the Bulls RLFC. One bid to the Administrator who effectively owns the Club, and the other bid, to the RFL who own the lease. (shareholders and directors are not in the equation) Blake Solly is taking the role of whipping boy (certainly if things go bellly up on him) and spokesperson for every one at the RFL, where is the CEO and what are his views? I have never been involved in a purchase of anything, (either as a broker on a buyers behalf, or as an individual) where the outcome was decided by a minnion before the actual bid was even looked at. How many times have we been told conditions are unacceptable or unrealistic.Once was after the first bid, and then as a warning before the second bid, where Blake Solly second guessed the outcome before it had been scrutinised. As for conditions: Well take this as a for example: If Morrisons were negotiating for a Lease from the council to build a new store, would it be a condition of their bid that they were allowed to sell Groceries from this store, and wouldn't they wish assurances before they built it ???

lonniejockstrap wrote:

lonniejockstrap wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Shelfrhino wrote:
TVoR,
Sheffdull, Northerndull, Steamedfig, I'm Brian and so's my wife and countless others on here are just deluded fools.
You can't get a straight answer answer off any of them.
Notice sheffdull never came back with her ST price?

What was there to come back with you numpty? - and TVOR please take note.. £60 has nothing to do with this seasons ticket price, so whats your point? either get your facts right or don't spout OK! (I was sure you'd be fed up with being 'owned' by now.) For the Slugwhino, I paid in excess of the 4 years (your admission, slimy) you've paid for your season tickets at the Cricket Grounds overspill Car Park and have done for more years than I care to remember sweet cheeks... though what's that got to do with you is beyond comprehension. Thought you were off to Spain slimy, have you had difficulty cleaning up after yourself, PS. your missus told me you were messy...... Sorry to hear about your eviction, i'm sure you'll find another stone soon in the LS area.

Fed up with being owned, what is this the schoolyard?

As I was refering to cheap season ticket is it not factual that I should refer to the price of those cheap season tickets being £60.
As you've not answeed me about this season tickets can you confirm if £85 is correct please.

But what is your point about the price of the tickets? I asked you this earlier but I don't recall you clarifying. The tickets were cheap yes but are you saying that is the sole reason, main reason or simply one of a number of reasons for the financial state of the Bulls? I bought a season ticket for Bradford City last season for £110 and they haven't gone bust. They play 23 home games the Bulls tickets were £60 last season with 13 home games. If as claimed by a previous poster the ave attendance is around 14750 then there must be some positives to be acknowledged when discussing the ticket price. I think you need to come up with something a bit more objective than just quoting the figures of £60 and £85 because they are virtually meaningless unless you can put these into context.

The 13 home games is obviously a major problem as regards income posters have mentioned this before I know -regarding not enough utilisation of the ground- and with only 13 opportunities to sell your wares at the ground it must be difficult to sell high rewarding contracts to catering companies etc.

Sheffieldbull wrote:
Shelfrino says
"Seems I was right all along.
Now the latest plan for the dulls is to act like a tramp smelling of p*ss and going around tapping everybody for a few quid and generally showing the game of RL up.
The only good news is that what generally happens to tramps in the winter ( they snuff it) will happen to this embarrassment as well.”
.
Interesting to hear your thoughts about the mortality of the 'homeless' Just what needed on here.....ever heard of the Malicious Communications Act 1988?

BD16 wrote:

scandanavian's love child52 wrote:
They are all coming out of the woodwork today to slag shelf. He has owned you all and you come back for more.

From what your mate has said he can't even his own home without his daddy's help, so he has no chance of owning anybody else.

Shelfrhino wrote:

BD16 wrote:

scandanavian's love child52 wrote:
They are all coming out of the woodwork today to slag shelf. He has owned you all and you come back for more.

From what your mate has said he can't even his own home without his daddy's help, so he has no chance of owning anybody else.

Shut up you plank.
See, that's how easy it is to own somebody of your sad calibre.