Bradford Bulls put to sword in Perpignan

Catalan Dragons 50, Bulls 26

Jarrod Sammut’s four-try haul proved in vain as the Bulls’ dream of making the play-offs finally died in Perpignan this afternoon.

Mick Potter’s men simply had to win to stand any chance of overhauling Wakefield and sneaking into the final play-off spot.

They stormed 10-0 ahead after just six minutes with tries from Michael Platt and Sammut, much to the delight of new owner Omar Khan in the main stand.

But Catalan hit back with four tries in 17 minutes through Clint Greenshields, Vincent Duport, Setaimata Sa and Louis Anderson.

That put the Dragons 22-10 up but Sammut struck twice again before the break to complete his hat-trick and leave the scores finely poised at 22-20 at the half-time interval.

After the break, though, Catalan were utterly dominant and turned up the heat on the Bulls with tries from former Odsal star Steve Menzies, Daryl Millard, Greenshields and Scott Dureau.

The desire and effort shown by Potter’s players could not be faulted and Sammut claimed a late consolation after intercepting an errant pass before Greenshields completed his hat-trick.

But defeat effectively handed the final play-off berth to Wakefield before their match at Salford later this evening had even kicked off.
 

Comments (78)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:35pm Sat 8 Sep 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Now the Bulls have failed to make the play offs, I bet the RFL will suddenly announce the future.
Now the Bulls have failed to make the play offs, I bet the RFL will suddenly announce the future. Thee Voice of Reason

6:09pm Sat 8 Sep 12

yangyeight says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Now the Bulls have failed to make the play offs, I bet the RFL will suddenly announce the future.
give it a rest, they did well to finish where they did.
let them have time to reflect before you stick the boot in.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Now the Bulls have failed to make the play offs, I bet the RFL will suddenly announce the future.[/p][/quote]give it a rest, they did well to finish where they did. let them have time to reflect before you stick the boot in. yangyeight

6:12pm Sat 8 Sep 12

raisemeup says...

Think you are right. This nightmare TVofR has to end sometime -even though the RFL said it would be before the match - again it's next week. Mrs. R
Think you are right. This nightmare TVofR has to end sometime -even though the RFL said it would be before the match - again it's next week. Mrs. R raisemeup

6:45pm Sat 8 Sep 12

Correctness says...

Lets get things sorted out as soon as possible. Potter on the way, Nobby back in and a good start to next season 120points conceded in two games really does show the full capability of Potter.
Lets get things sorted out as soon as possible. Potter on the way, Nobby back in and a good start to next season 120points conceded in two games really does show the full capability of Potter. Correctness

6:54pm Sat 8 Sep 12

New Hall Nev says...

hahahahahahaha see you some time in about 4 seasons lol
hahahahahahaha see you some time in about 4 seasons lol New Hall Nev

7:15pm Sat 8 Sep 12

Rhinoman says...

Good result today for rugby league , i hope the bulls stay in super league but had they qualified for the play offs then that would have been at expense of a club that have kept their house in order.
Good result today for rugby league , i hope the bulls stay in super league but had they qualified for the play offs then that would have been at expense of a club that have kept their house in order. Rhinoman

8:25pm Sat 8 Sep 12

Prycey says...

Glad the season is over. Agree in some ways about it better that we finished 8th. Let the dust settle a bit now and all of those players who don't want to be here can slip out of the door. We will get over this season but it may take a few years. We will be back and hopefully give Huddersfield a good spanking.
Glad the season is over. Agree in some ways about it better that we finished 8th. Let the dust settle a bit now and all of those players who don't want to be here can slip out of the door. We will get over this season but it may take a few years. We will be back and hopefully give Huddersfield a good spanking. Prycey

8:32pm Sat 8 Sep 12

mumbyfan says...

Biggest disappointment is missing out on a playoff at Leeds. They would have had anybody but us, but it's not to be...


See you in February!
Biggest disappointment is missing out on a playoff at Leeds. They would have had anybody but us, but it's not to be... See you in February! mumbyfan

8:55pm Sat 8 Sep 12

New Hall Nev says...

Prycey wrote:
Glad the season is over. Agree in some ways about it better that we finished 8th. Let the dust settle a bit now and all of those players who don't want to be here can slip out of the door. We will get over this season but it may take a few years. We will be back and hopefully give Huddersfield a good spanking.
9th
[quote][p][bold]Prycey[/bold] wrote: Glad the season is over. Agree in some ways about it better that we finished 8th. Let the dust settle a bit now and all of those players who don't want to be here can slip out of the door. We will get over this season but it may take a few years. We will be back and hopefully give Huddersfield a good spanking.[/p][/quote]9th New Hall Nev

9:01pm Sat 8 Sep 12

moomooland says...

Looking forward to the Rhino's smashing Wakefield next week
Looking forward to the Rhino's smashing Wakefield next week moomooland

9:14pm Sat 8 Sep 12

Correctness says...

mumbyfan wrote:
Biggest disappointment is missing out on a playoff at Leeds. They would have had anybody but us, but it's not to be... See you in February!
You've not taken your medication again.
[quote][p][bold]mumbyfan[/bold] wrote: Biggest disappointment is missing out on a playoff at Leeds. They would have had anybody but us, but it's not to be... See you in February![/p][/quote]You've not taken your medication again. Correctness

9:41pm Sat 8 Sep 12

Sheffieldbull says...

yangyeight wrote:
Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Now the Bulls have failed to make the play offs, I bet the RFL will suddenly announce the future.
give it a rest, they did well to finish where they did.
let them have time to reflect before you stick the boot in.
For once, I agree with 'Reason.I actually think I heard the sigh of relief from 'Sodall' today here in Sheffield... After watching the match on Sky yangy......
[quote][p][bold]yangyeight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Now the Bulls have failed to make the play offs, I bet the RFL will suddenly announce the future.[/p][/quote]give it a rest, they did well to finish where they did. let them have time to reflect before you stick the boot in.[/p][/quote]For once, I agree with 'Reason.I actually think I heard the sigh of relief from 'Sodall' today here in Sheffield... After watching the match on Sky yangy...... Sheffieldbull

9:42pm Sat 8 Sep 12

bradfordbronco says...

We would have finished 7th, if Caisley hadn't forced Hood out so he could put us into administration with the aim of liquidating the club & buying back on the cheap. His plan didn't work mainly because of the efforts & commitment of the fans(raising money) coaches (working for nothing) Groundsmen, Admin staff etc(Also working for nothing) Bullbuilder (Raising funds for juniors & volunteers).

We might not have an individual with deep pockets to cover the losses like most of the other teams. The thing is apart from Leeds & Wigan we probably have the most viable club in the League. We have always had a great support base even through the bad times. We are a great club & the RFL would be stupid to kick us out & replace us with another small town club.

We have stuck together & come through the nightmare. We have new owners who want to take the club forward, A fan base of over 10000 loyal fans, A good junior development setup. We are ready to take up our place in SL next year in what will be our 150th year.

We are the oldest Rugby Club in the game. Its about time the RFL rewarded the extraordinary efforts of everyone involved with club( since caisley opted to appoint his mate Guilfoyle as administrator) and gave us the green light to continue.

BTW good luck to Wakey against Leeds. You will be the wost team ever to make the play offs(losing more games than you won!) and think New Hall Nev might need some help understanding the format!! Wakefield have certainly benefited financially at our expense. Hope the RLF take that into consideration when deciding if we had some unfair 'advantage' by going into admin & enduring what we have this season.
We would have finished 7th, if Caisley hadn't forced Hood out so he could put us into administration with the aim of liquidating the club & buying back on the cheap. His plan didn't work mainly because of the efforts & commitment of the fans(raising money) coaches (working for nothing) Groundsmen, Admin staff etc(Also working for nothing) Bullbuilder (Raising funds for juniors & volunteers). We might not have an individual with deep pockets to cover the losses like most of the other teams. The thing is apart from Leeds & Wigan we probably have the most viable club in the League. We have always had a great support base even through the bad times. We are a great club & the RFL would be stupid to kick us out & replace us with another small town club. We have stuck together & come through the nightmare. We have new owners who want to take the club forward, A fan base of over 10000 loyal fans, A good junior development setup. We are ready to take up our place in SL next year in what will be our 150th year. We are the oldest Rugby Club in the game. Its about time the RFL rewarded the extraordinary efforts of everyone involved with club( since caisley opted to appoint his mate Guilfoyle as administrator) and gave us the green light to continue. BTW good luck to Wakey against Leeds. You will be the wost team ever to make the play offs(losing more games than you won!) and think New Hall Nev might need some help understanding the format!! Wakefield have certainly benefited financially at our expense. Hope the RLF take that into consideration when deciding if we had some unfair 'advantage' by going into admin & enduring what we have this season. bradfordbronco

9:50pm Sat 8 Sep 12

Sheffieldbull says...

Good post bradfordbronco, says it all really.
Good post bradfordbronco, says it all really. Sheffieldbull

10:46pm Sat 8 Sep 12

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Just for the record Bronco if the Bulls had not entered admin HMRC would have wound them up.months ago.
Just for the record Bronco if the Bulls had not entered admin HMRC would have wound them up.months ago. Thee Voice of Reason

10:52pm Sat 8 Sep 12

New Hall Nev says...

bradfordbronco wrote:
We would have finished 7th, if Caisley hadn't forced Hood out so he could put us into administration with the aim of liquidating the club & buying back on the cheap. His plan didn't work mainly because of the efforts & commitment of the fans(raising money) coaches (working for nothing) Groundsmen, Admin staff etc(Also working for nothing) Bullbuilder (Raising funds for juniors & volunteers).

We might not have an individual with deep pockets to cover the losses like most of the other teams. The thing is apart from Leeds & Wigan we probably have the most viable club in the League. We have always had a great support base even through the bad times. We are a great club & the RFL would be stupid to kick us out & replace us with another small town club.

We have stuck together & come through the nightmare. We have new owners who want to take the club forward, A fan base of over 10000 loyal fans, A good junior development setup. We are ready to take up our place in SL next year in what will be our 150th year.

We are the oldest Rugby Club in the game. Its about time the RFL rewarded the extraordinary efforts of everyone involved with club( since caisley opted to appoint his mate Guilfoyle as administrator) and gave us the green light to continue.

BTW good luck to Wakey against Leeds. You will be the wost team ever to make the play offs(losing more games than you won!) and think New Hall Nev might need some help understanding the format!! Wakefield have certainly benefited financially at our expense. Hope the RLF take that into consideration when deciding if we had some unfair 'advantage' by going into admin & enduring what we have this season.
lol your not upset then haha how have Wakey benefit at your expense idiot looser
[quote][p][bold]bradfordbronco[/bold] wrote: We would have finished 7th, if Caisley hadn't forced Hood out so he could put us into administration with the aim of liquidating the club & buying back on the cheap. His plan didn't work mainly because of the efforts & commitment of the fans(raising money) coaches (working for nothing) Groundsmen, Admin staff etc(Also working for nothing) Bullbuilder (Raising funds for juniors & volunteers). We might not have an individual with deep pockets to cover the losses like most of the other teams. The thing is apart from Leeds & Wigan we probably have the most viable club in the League. We have always had a great support base even through the bad times. We are a great club & the RFL would be stupid to kick us out & replace us with another small town club. We have stuck together & come through the nightmare. We have new owners who want to take the club forward, A fan base of over 10000 loyal fans, A good junior development setup. We are ready to take up our place in SL next year in what will be our 150th year. We are the oldest Rugby Club in the game. Its about time the RFL rewarded the extraordinary efforts of everyone involved with club( since caisley opted to appoint his mate Guilfoyle as administrator) and gave us the green light to continue. BTW good luck to Wakey against Leeds. You will be the wost team ever to make the play offs(losing more games than you won!) and think New Hall Nev might need some help understanding the format!! Wakefield have certainly benefited financially at our expense. Hope the RLF take that into consideration when deciding if we had some unfair 'advantage' by going into admin & enduring what we have this season.[/p][/quote]lol your not upset then haha how have Wakey benefit at your expense idiot looser New Hall Nev

11:34pm Sat 8 Sep 12

raisemeup says...

Rhinoman wrote:
Good result today for rugby league , i hope the bulls stay in super league but had they qualified for the play offs then that would have been at expense of a club that have kept their house in order.
Who would that be then?
[quote][p][bold]Rhinoman[/bold] wrote: Good result today for rugby league , i hope the bulls stay in super league but had they qualified for the play offs then that would have been at expense of a club that have kept their house in order.[/p][/quote]Who would that be then? raisemeup

11:39pm Sat 8 Sep 12

murphyslaw says...

Strange how the great efforts on the field failed to mask the disaster off it.
We have to commend and thank the players and coaches who exceeded all expectations with their heroic efforts, only to have it all come to nothing as a result of some awful decisions taken by those who should have known better. Lets hope next season some of the damage can be repaired but it looks a long haul.
Strange how the great efforts on the field failed to mask the disaster off it. We have to commend and thank the players and coaches who exceeded all expectations with their heroic efforts, only to have it all come to nothing as a result of some awful decisions taken by those who should have known better. Lets hope next season some of the damage can be repaired but it looks a long haul. murphyslaw

11:45pm Sat 8 Sep 12

raisemeup says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Just for the record Bronco if the Bulls had not entered admin HMRC would have wound them up.months ago.
I agree but Bronco covers a lot of points that are quite valid, but we can't blame CC for taking us into administration, he has lost £50k in worthless shares.
So I don't buy that, even PH has lost money, which may or may not be poetic justice as he had, I think about £40k in shares.

So the name - blame is a pointless exercise, financial circumstances overtook the club.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Just for the record Bronco if the Bulls had not entered admin HMRC would have wound them up.months ago.[/p][/quote]I agree but Bronco covers a lot of points that are quite valid, but we can't blame CC for taking us into administration, he has lost £50k in worthless shares. So I don't buy that, even PH has lost money, which may or may not be poetic justice as he had, I think about £40k in shares. So the name - blame is a pointless exercise, financial circumstances overtook the club. raisemeup

12:14am Sun 9 Sep 12

bradfordbronco says...

We'll never know what would have happened if Caisley hadn't got involved. We know he did & we know we went into admin soon after. We also know that the administrator had professional links to Caisley. We also know that the administrator had trouble hearing of any other bids for the club (Even when they were telling him at public meeting they wanted to make a bid!!) other than ABC bid. We also know this was rejected by the RFL because of certain conditions & because they wouldnt name all the directors behind the bid. If A was for Akbahs what did C stand for.

We also know Caisley wanted to bring in Tasker & Noble. We know one of the 1st things Guilfoyle did was to sack the admin & coaching staff.The club wouldn't be able to run without these. Luckily for him, Nobel & Tasker were ready to offer their services for free. How convenient.

This is where it starts to unravel. Potter stays. Noble changes his mind, Caisley vanishes. The next time we hear anything from the Director acting on caisley's behalf(Coulby) Its on the eve of the ABC bid finally getting the boot. He's telling us its vital it goes through. It doesn't, not heard from hoim since!

It just seems that there was a plan which didn't work out as some peaople might have liked.

Adey from Bull Builder is pretty clued up. He reckons we weren't far off paying our outstanding PAYE at the time Hood left. We raised the initial£500,000 and had other people not got involved with promises of investors that didnt turn up, we MIGHT have found someone to invest & raise the other £500,000 needed to get to the end of the season.

We now also know that the club gets its sky money on a monthly basis. This with the goodwill of the fans & prehaps selling a couple of players(Koppy or Bateman) would have been enough to get us through.

In short its not certain that we would have gone into administration If a certain person & his friend who charges vast sums by the hour hadn't chosen to put us into admin.

I hope all this is investigated one day, cos it seems a right 'fix up' to me
We'll never know what would have happened if Caisley hadn't got involved. We know he did & we know we went into admin soon after. We also know that the administrator had professional links to Caisley. We also know that the administrator had trouble hearing of any other bids for the club (Even when they were telling him at public meeting they wanted to make a bid!!) other than ABC bid. We also know this was rejected by the RFL because of certain conditions & because they wouldnt name all the directors behind the bid. If A was for Akbahs what did C stand for. We also know Caisley wanted to bring in Tasker & Noble. We know one of the 1st things Guilfoyle did was to sack the admin & coaching staff.The club wouldn't be able to run without these. Luckily for him, Nobel & Tasker were ready to offer their services for free. How convenient. This is where it starts to unravel. Potter stays. Noble changes his mind, Caisley vanishes. The next time we hear anything from the Director acting on caisley's behalf(Coulby) Its on the eve of the ABC bid finally getting the boot. He's telling us its vital it goes through. It doesn't, not heard from hoim since! It just seems that there was a plan which didn't work out as some peaople might have liked. Adey from Bull Builder is pretty clued up. He reckons we weren't far off paying our outstanding PAYE at the time Hood left. We raised the initial£500,000 and had other people not got involved with promises of investors that didnt turn up, we MIGHT have found someone to invest & raise the other £500,000 needed to get to the end of the season. We now also know that the club gets its sky money on a monthly basis. This with the goodwill of the fans & prehaps selling a couple of players(Koppy or Bateman) would have been enough to get us through. In short its not certain that we would have gone into administration If a certain person & his friend who charges vast sums by the hour hadn't chosen to put us into admin. I hope all this is investigated one day, cos it seems a right 'fix up' to me bradfordbronco

5:07am Sun 9 Sep 12

alfucham says...

bradfordbronco wrote:
We'll never know what would have happened if Caisley hadn't got involved. We know he did & we know we went into admin soon after. We also know that the administrator had professional links to Caisley. We also know that the administrator had trouble hearing of any other bids for the club (Even when they were telling him at public meeting they wanted to make a bid!!) other than ABC bid. We also know this was rejected by the RFL because of certain conditions & because they wouldnt name all the directors behind the bid. If A was for Akbahs what did C stand for. We also know Caisley wanted to bring in Tasker & Noble. We know one of the 1st things Guilfoyle did was to sack the admin & coaching staff.The club wouldn't be able to run without these. Luckily for him, Nobel & Tasker were ready to offer their services for free. How convenient. This is where it starts to unravel. Potter stays. Noble changes his mind, Caisley vanishes. The next time we hear anything from the Director acting on caisley's behalf(Coulby) Its on the eve of the ABC bid finally getting the boot. He's telling us its vital it goes through. It doesn't, not heard from hoim since! It just seems that there was a plan which didn't work out as some peaople might have liked. Adey from Bull Builder is pretty clued up. He reckons we weren't far off paying our outstanding PAYE at the time Hood left. We raised the initial£500,000 and had other people not got involved with promises of investors that didnt turn up, we MIGHT have found someone to invest & raise the other £500,000 needed to get to the end of the season. We now also know that the club gets its sky money on a monthly basis. This with the goodwill of the fans & prehaps selling a couple of players(Koppy or Bateman) would have been enough to get us through. In short its not certain that we would have gone into administration If a certain person & his friend who charges vast sums by the hour hadn't chosen to put us into admin. I hope all this is investigated one day, cos it seems a right 'fix up' to me
I agree Adey is clued up.

But even he did not know the full extent of the creditors.

Losses were wracked up for ten years.
The Bulls had the cushion of a £5 million "gift" from the council to cover ground maintenance of Odsal going forward from 2002 which was to last until 2019.
This money was long gone years ago.

It would appear with losses growing as success became a thing of the distant past,a director perhaps pannicked and took what he believed to be a way forward in mimicking the Bradford City Scheme of reduced season tickets.

That failed as unlike BCFC wages were not controlled properly.

And season tickets only brought in half a million.Gave them away hoping the revenues would increase in the ground that never materialised.

The Bulls were clearly insolvent in 2011 when the franchise was given but it appears the RFL bent over backwards to help retain the Bulls by lending them £750000.

I am told that Mr H advised supporters that the club was debt free as early as January 2012.
It now comes out that not only was there arrears of PAYE, there was also a bank overdraft and a huge list of slowly paid creditors together with the debt to the RFL which was considerable.

Supporters have no right to hope that going forward there is anything but a team playing in Red Amber and Black.

It was entirely right that a swift end to administration came about in the best interest in the Bulls future for 2013 and forward.

If the best way given ALL the circumstances was for only the assets to be bought and the old company ultimately liquidated then so be it.

The RFL have known about the Bulls solvency for a long time.
They lent them (under emergency £750000 in 2011.
Given wages were so high that was clearly not going to be enough for 2012.

So Mr H found himself needing more.
And more and more.

Whilst I accept that certain posters on here have commented that The RFL were then complicit in affecting the Bulls solvency by snatching back the £750000 advanced in 2011 when they took on the Odsal long lease as security/settlement of the loans one has to ask,how long could this financial suicide continue unchecked.

The RFL have a duty to be seen to be fair to all clubs.

In assisting the Bulls to that level in 2011 and that then proving to be not enough,the other clubs would have every right to say.
"hey what about us,we are struggling too why are they getting that sort of bail out and not us"

The RFL have then continued to support the players in the period of administration.
All 2012 distributions of central funds (mainly sky brass) have been used up.

And the 35 players still need paying for sept,oct,nov.
Enter Mr Omar who has committed to that end.£750000 needed with no income until 2013.

Some players who the fans would not have as first pick are on £110000.

Others who the fans would have as first pick are on considerably less and have been brought through the system.

Given it was right the Bulls came out of admin quick(if only so the administrater can turn his attention to the forensic scrutiny of potential misdemeanor with the funds he has)
that has now been achieved.

Which leaves the creditors.
Inland Revenue £500000
Central Government through billed business rates £45000.
A company controlled by Mr H (NAK)£67000.
Tong School training facility approaching £200000.

So that leaves about half a million in the smaller creditor including the cheerleaders,young girls perhaps saving for university or study or clothes or even food.
And many more small businessmen who the level of debt could sink.

Is this right when players have continued to be paid in full through all this mismanagement.
The Hell it is.

especially when they turn out to be not very lyal as in the case of one such home grown talent who was ably supported through tough family times.

True Bradfordian got it right.

The future contracts of All Bulls players need to be massively reduced.

Season ticket revenue needs to be at least 8 to 10 thousand at £150.

sky money could be used (1.2 million a year) to pay the small creditors who stand to lose most over 5 years which would only take £100000 a year out of the £1.2 million given.
The price of one players fat salary who may not even have been the fans pick.
The RFl would be a lot happier if the creditors were paid.

It is not they that have sunk the club.

It is the level of wages not matched or justified either in performance(though I accept this year has been better)or in incomes/revenues.

The Bulls have had a competitive advantage.
No other club has been bailed to this extent by the RFL.

No other club has exited administration by wind up of a company which is what will now happen to Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd.

The club is apparently saved.
It would have much more chance going forward by agreement to pay the small creditors and finance it out of Sky money over 5 years.

Rather than see Sky money reduced anyway at figures the RFL determine.

Shocking story and I simply cannot do with the seeming gloating acceptance that the creditors lot is a sad fact of business life.

Guilfoyle stated he needed to preserve the players regarding them as assets.
far from being assets many were millstones round the neck.
As soon as the season ends they are showing (or some are)little loyalty and thanks to all who have ensured they remain to be paid.

Are any worth anything?
Its a long time since Wigan paid half a million for Fielden.

And just to add to the misery all Sky brass would dissapear anyway if the Bulls were condemned to Championship.

The decks need clearing.
The wages need dramatically reducing.
The small creditors should now be sorted in a fair long term debt repayment scheme.

Because the small businessmen of this area are more important in terms of goodwill going forward than a player who jumps as soon as allowed.

Goodwill cannot be easily be measured in pounds shillings and pence.
But Omar would do well not to take the attitude of some that its tough on them but it wern"t my fault.
When 31.2 million is given to his new business every year simply for been part of Super league.

so far few have come out of this with much credit.

The coaches and staff who have worked for expenses only have.

the young girl cheerleaders owed 4 rand were in all probability more watchable than the £110 grand a year men that saw 70 and then 50 put past them in the last two games.

It just dont seem too fair to have led these creditors up the garden path in january with announcements like the club is debt free.

So to all true Bulls fans

1.stick up for the small creditor
2.Dont stick up for players quick to show disloyalty to you all who raised £400k
3Pay the right brass for a season ticket at at least £150
4.insist that contracts for players reflect revenues in and performance.

Stay happy and as in 1964 say "we must never let this happen again"
Until next time
[quote][p][bold]bradfordbronco[/bold] wrote: We'll never know what would have happened if Caisley hadn't got involved. We know he did & we know we went into admin soon after. We also know that the administrator had professional links to Caisley. We also know that the administrator had trouble hearing of any other bids for the club (Even when they were telling him at public meeting they wanted to make a bid!!) other than ABC bid. We also know this was rejected by the RFL because of certain conditions & because they wouldnt name all the directors behind the bid. If A was for Akbahs what did C stand for. We also know Caisley wanted to bring in Tasker & Noble. We know one of the 1st things Guilfoyle did was to sack the admin & coaching staff.The club wouldn't be able to run without these. Luckily for him, Nobel & Tasker were ready to offer their services for free. How convenient. This is where it starts to unravel. Potter stays. Noble changes his mind, Caisley vanishes. The next time we hear anything from the Director acting on caisley's behalf(Coulby) Its on the eve of the ABC bid finally getting the boot. He's telling us its vital it goes through. It doesn't, not heard from hoim since! It just seems that there was a plan which didn't work out as some peaople might have liked. Adey from Bull Builder is pretty clued up. He reckons we weren't far off paying our outstanding PAYE at the time Hood left. We raised the initial£500,000 and had other people not got involved with promises of investors that didnt turn up, we MIGHT have found someone to invest & raise the other £500,000 needed to get to the end of the season. We now also know that the club gets its sky money on a monthly basis. This with the goodwill of the fans & prehaps selling a couple of players(Koppy or Bateman) would have been enough to get us through. In short its not certain that we would have gone into administration If a certain person & his friend who charges vast sums by the hour hadn't chosen to put us into admin. I hope all this is investigated one day, cos it seems a right 'fix up' to me[/p][/quote]I agree Adey is clued up. But even he did not know the full extent of the creditors. Losses were wracked up for ten years. The Bulls had the cushion of a £5 million "gift" from the council to cover ground maintenance of Odsal going forward from 2002 which was to last until 2019. This money was long gone years ago. It would appear with losses growing as success became a thing of the distant past,a director perhaps pannicked and took what he believed to be a way forward in mimicking the Bradford City Scheme of reduced season tickets. That failed as unlike BCFC wages were not controlled properly. And season tickets only brought in half a million.Gave them away hoping the revenues would increase in the ground that never materialised. The Bulls were clearly insolvent in 2011 when the franchise was given but it appears the RFL bent over backwards to help retain the Bulls by lending them £750000. I am told that Mr H advised supporters that the club was debt free as early as January 2012. It now comes out that not only was there arrears of PAYE, there was also a bank overdraft and a huge list of slowly paid creditors together with the debt to the RFL which was considerable. Supporters have no right to hope that going forward there is anything but a team playing in Red Amber and Black. It was entirely right that a swift end to administration came about in the best interest in the Bulls future for 2013 and forward. If the best way given ALL the circumstances was for only the assets to be bought and the old company ultimately liquidated then so be it. The RFL have known about the Bulls solvency for a long time. They lent them (under emergency £750000 in 2011. Given wages were so high that was clearly not going to be enough for 2012. So Mr H found himself needing more. And more and more. Whilst I accept that certain posters on here have commented that The RFL were then complicit in affecting the Bulls solvency by snatching back the £750000 advanced in 2011 when they took on the Odsal long lease as security/settlement of the loans one has to ask,how long could this financial suicide continue unchecked. The RFL have a duty to be seen to be fair to all clubs. In assisting the Bulls to that level in 2011 and that then proving to be not enough,the other clubs would have every right to say. "hey what about us,we are struggling too why are they getting that sort of bail out and not us" The RFL have then continued to support the players in the period of administration. All 2012 distributions of central funds (mainly sky brass) have been used up. And the 35 players still need paying for sept,oct,nov. Enter Mr Omar who has committed to that end.£750000 needed with no income until 2013. Some players who the fans would not have as first pick are on £110000. Others who the fans would have as first pick are on considerably less and have been brought through the system. Given it was right the Bulls came out of admin quick(if only so the administrater can turn his attention to the forensic scrutiny of potential misdemeanor with the funds he has) that has now been achieved. Which leaves the creditors. Inland Revenue £500000 Central Government through billed business rates £45000. A company controlled by Mr H (NAK)£67000. Tong School training facility approaching £200000. So that leaves about half a million in the smaller creditor including the cheerleaders,young girls perhaps saving for university or study or clothes or even food. And many more small businessmen who the level of debt could sink. Is this right when players have continued to be paid in full through all this mismanagement. The Hell it is. especially when they turn out to be not very lyal as in the case of one such home grown talent who was ably supported through tough family times. True Bradfordian got it right. The future contracts of All Bulls players need to be massively reduced. Season ticket revenue needs to be at least 8 to 10 thousand at £150. sky money could be used (1.2 million a year) to pay the small creditors who stand to lose most over 5 years which would only take £100000 a year out of the £1.2 million given. The price of one players fat salary who may not even have been the fans pick. The RFl would be a lot happier if the creditors were paid. It is not they that have sunk the club. It is the level of wages not matched or justified either in performance(though I accept this year has been better)or in incomes/revenues. The Bulls have had a competitive advantage. No other club has been bailed to this extent by the RFL. No other club has exited administration by wind up of a company which is what will now happen to Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd. The club is apparently saved. It would have much more chance going forward by agreement to pay the small creditors and finance it out of Sky money over 5 years. Rather than see Sky money reduced anyway at figures the RFL determine. Shocking story and I simply cannot do with the seeming gloating acceptance that the creditors lot is a sad fact of business life. Guilfoyle stated he needed to preserve the players regarding them as assets. far from being assets many were millstones round the neck. As soon as the season ends they are showing (or some are)little loyalty and thanks to all who have ensured they remain to be paid. Are any worth anything? Its a long time since Wigan paid half a million for Fielden. And just to add to the misery all Sky brass would dissapear anyway if the Bulls were condemned to Championship. The decks need clearing. The wages need dramatically reducing. The small creditors should now be sorted in a fair long term debt repayment scheme. Because the small businessmen of this area are more important in terms of goodwill going forward than a player who jumps as soon as allowed. Goodwill cannot be easily be measured in pounds shillings and pence. But Omar would do well not to take the attitude of some that its tough on them but it wern"t my fault. When 31.2 million is given to his new business every year simply for been part of Super league. so far few have come out of this with much credit. The coaches and staff who have worked for expenses only have. the young girl cheerleaders owed 4 rand were in all probability more watchable than the £110 grand a year men that saw 70 and then 50 put past them in the last two games. It just dont seem too fair to have led these creditors up the garden path in january with announcements like the club is debt free. So to all true Bulls fans 1.stick up for the small creditor 2.Dont stick up for players quick to show disloyalty to you all who raised £400k 3Pay the right brass for a season ticket at at least £150 4.insist that contracts for players reflect revenues in and performance. Stay happy and as in 1964 say "we must never let this happen again" Until next time alfucham

5:17am Sun 9 Sep 12

alfucham says...

bradfordbronco wrote:
We'll never know what would have happened if Caisley hadn't got involved. We know he did & we know we went into admin soon after. We also know that the administrator had professional links to Caisley. We also know that the administrator had trouble hearing of any other bids for the club (Even when they were telling him at public meeting they wanted to make a bid!!) other than ABC bid. We also know this was rejected by the RFL because of certain conditions & because they wouldnt name all the directors behind the bid. If A was for Akbahs what did C stand for. We also know Caisley wanted to bring in Tasker & Noble. We know one of the 1st things Guilfoyle did was to sack the admin & coaching staff.The club wouldn't be able to run without these. Luckily for him, Nobel & Tasker were ready to offer their services for free. How convenient. This is where it starts to unravel. Potter stays. Noble changes his mind, Caisley vanishes. The next time we hear anything from the Director acting on caisley's behalf(Coulby) Its on the eve of the ABC bid finally getting the boot. He's telling us its vital it goes through. It doesn't, not heard from hoim since! It just seems that there was a plan which didn't work out as some peaople might have liked. Adey from Bull Builder is pretty clued up. He reckons we weren't far off paying our outstanding PAYE at the time Hood left. We raised the initial£500,000 and had other people not got involved with promises of investors that didnt turn up, we MIGHT have found someone to invest & raise the other £500,000 needed to get to the end of the season. We now also know that the club gets its sky money on a monthly basis. This with the goodwill of the fans & prehaps selling a couple of players(Koppy or Bateman) would have been enough to get us through. In short its not certain that we would have gone into administration If a certain person & his friend who charges vast sums by the hour hadn't chosen to put us into admin. I hope all this is investigated one day, cos it seems a right 'fix up' to me
Hang on three quaters of a million needs to be found just to pay the wages till the end of November.

And noone knows how much the past three or 4 months has cost the Bulls in indebtedness to the only other people beside the fans who raised £400k,the RFL.

Get real

The firm was finished.

Period.
It has left 1.3 million in debt behind.
Needs to pay £750K to players between now and 30.11
And may now owe the RFL for advances.

Not good any of it
[quote][p][bold]bradfordbronco[/bold] wrote: We'll never know what would have happened if Caisley hadn't got involved. We know he did & we know we went into admin soon after. We also know that the administrator had professional links to Caisley. We also know that the administrator had trouble hearing of any other bids for the club (Even when they were telling him at public meeting they wanted to make a bid!!) other than ABC bid. We also know this was rejected by the RFL because of certain conditions & because they wouldnt name all the directors behind the bid. If A was for Akbahs what did C stand for. We also know Caisley wanted to bring in Tasker & Noble. We know one of the 1st things Guilfoyle did was to sack the admin & coaching staff.The club wouldn't be able to run without these. Luckily for him, Nobel & Tasker were ready to offer their services for free. How convenient. This is where it starts to unravel. Potter stays. Noble changes his mind, Caisley vanishes. The next time we hear anything from the Director acting on caisley's behalf(Coulby) Its on the eve of the ABC bid finally getting the boot. He's telling us its vital it goes through. It doesn't, not heard from hoim since! It just seems that there was a plan which didn't work out as some peaople might have liked. Adey from Bull Builder is pretty clued up. He reckons we weren't far off paying our outstanding PAYE at the time Hood left. We raised the initial£500,000 and had other people not got involved with promises of investors that didnt turn up, we MIGHT have found someone to invest & raise the other £500,000 needed to get to the end of the season. We now also know that the club gets its sky money on a monthly basis. This with the goodwill of the fans & prehaps selling a couple of players(Koppy or Bateman) would have been enough to get us through. In short its not certain that we would have gone into administration If a certain person & his friend who charges vast sums by the hour hadn't chosen to put us into admin. I hope all this is investigated one day, cos it seems a right 'fix up' to me[/p][/quote]Hang on three quaters of a million needs to be found just to pay the wages till the end of November. And noone knows how much the past three or 4 months has cost the Bulls in indebtedness to the only other people beside the fans who raised £400k,the RFL. Get real The firm was finished. Period. It has left 1.3 million in debt behind. Needs to pay £750K to players between now and 30.11 And may now owe the RFL for advances. Not good any of it alfucham

6:12am Sun 9 Sep 12

alfucham says...

For all the mess made of things it strikes me that the transfer of the ground to the RFL may indeed have been a masterstroke.

It has kept it at arms length from the vultures that can be HMRC (owed half a million)and liquidators of Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd.

No landfill just yet thank god.

Not sure that scenario was been predicted by all.Not sure Mr H was clever enough.But at least a benefit of unintended consequence ensures that a future vision and dream of the place becoming the wembley of the north will rumble on for another 50 years.

Bradford city"s ground stands FL pension fund at about 2 million.

would cost at least 25 million to build from scratch at todays constructiion cost.

What a shame it was"nt rebuilt at Odsal in 1986.

Odsal would certainly be looking more like a Wembley then.
With all the economies of scale for both clubs who may have avoided the financial meltdown of the last ten years if sharing.

Seems we dont share easily in Bradford

So now both clubs are beholden to landlords and neither have much prospect of owning their own ground this millenium.
For all the mess made of things it strikes me that the transfer of the ground to the RFL may indeed have been a masterstroke. It has kept it at arms length from the vultures that can be HMRC (owed half a million)and liquidators of Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd. No landfill just yet thank god. Not sure that scenario was been predicted by all.Not sure Mr H was clever enough.But at least a benefit of unintended consequence ensures that a future vision and dream of the place becoming the wembley of the north will rumble on for another 50 years. Bradford city"s ground stands FL pension fund at about 2 million. would cost at least 25 million to build from scratch at todays constructiion cost. What a shame it was"nt rebuilt at Odsal in 1986. Odsal would certainly be looking more like a Wembley then. With all the economies of scale for both clubs who may have avoided the financial meltdown of the last ten years if sharing. Seems we dont share easily in Bradford So now both clubs are beholden to landlords and neither have much prospect of owning their own ground this millenium. alfucham

7:01am Sun 9 Sep 12

-HCK3R- says...

At the end of the day the players and coaching staff did what they needed to and got the team to the play offs...it was those off field charged with running the club who let them and the supporters down this year...Wonder if the RFL board of directors will miracuously be able to get together now and decide on the clubs future, after all think the sticking point was the embarassment it would have caused if they made the top 8 and how much money would they have made from any play off games.....
At the end of the day the players and coaching staff did what they needed to and got the team to the play offs...it was those off field charged with running the club who let them and the supporters down this year...Wonder if the RFL board of directors will miracuously be able to get together now and decide on the clubs future, after all think the sticking point was the embarassment it would have caused if they made the top 8 and how much money would they have made from any play off games..... -HCK3R-

7:09am Sun 9 Sep 12

oddshapedballs says...

Rhinoman wrote:
Good result today for rugby league , i hope the bulls stay in super league but had they qualified for the play offs then that would have been at expense of a club that have kept their house in order.
yeah of course wakey have kept their house in order!!
[quote][p][bold]Rhinoman[/bold] wrote: Good result today for rugby league , i hope the bulls stay in super league but had they qualified for the play offs then that would have been at expense of a club that have kept their house in order.[/p][/quote]yeah of course wakey have kept their house in order!! oddshapedballs

7:12am Sun 9 Sep 12

oddshapedballs says...

Prycey wrote:
Glad the season is over. Agree in some ways about it better that we finished 8th. Let the dust settle a bit now and all of those players who don't want to be here can slip out of the door. We will get over this season but it may take a few years. We will be back and hopefully give Huddersfield a good spanking.
try one place lower
[quote][p][bold]Prycey[/bold] wrote: Glad the season is over. Agree in some ways about it better that we finished 8th. Let the dust settle a bit now and all of those players who don't want to be here can slip out of the door. We will get over this season but it may take a few years. We will be back and hopefully give Huddersfield a good spanking.[/p][/quote]try one place lower oddshapedballs

7:20am Sun 9 Sep 12

Tricky Dicky says...

A terrific first half by the lads but we were blown away at the start of the second half when the Dragons moved up a gear and we helped them along their way with a litany of errors. No disgrace and something to build upon.
To Bradfordbronco, please stopp blaming Mr Caisley as his damage was long over before Mr Hood dragged us further into the mire. HMRC would have liquidated the club for one pound never mind one million. Mr Hood took a successful, World Championship side and, by his own means, engineered their demise. If administration had not happened the club would have folded mid-season. Any mooted investor would have run a mile when the full extent of the debts were revealed. Mr Hood merely cooked the books, painted over the cracks and put his finger in the dyke. But, apportionment of blame is for the historians. I'd much prefer to know what is going to happen from here on in and give my fullest support to the new owners.
On the Mr Kopczak affair, I also would agree that he was an asset of the club bought by OK Bulls and that his contract would only be rescined if the Bulls went out of Super League. So, maybe, he knows more than the rest of us. Nil desperandum as they say in the Dordogne. Onwards and upwards. Good luck to Wakefield but SL is a six team competition at best.
A terrific first half by the lads but we were blown away at the start of the second half when the Dragons moved up a gear and we helped them along their way with a litany of errors. No disgrace and something to build upon. To Bradfordbronco, please stopp blaming Mr Caisley as his damage was long over before Mr Hood dragged us further into the mire. HMRC would have liquidated the club for one pound never mind one million. Mr Hood took a successful, World Championship side and, by his own means, engineered their demise. If administration had not happened the club would have folded mid-season. Any mooted investor would have run a mile when the full extent of the debts were revealed. Mr Hood merely cooked the books, painted over the cracks and put his finger in the dyke. But, apportionment of blame is for the historians. I'd much prefer to know what is going to happen from here on in and give my fullest support to the new owners. On the Mr Kopczak affair, I also would agree that he was an asset of the club bought by OK Bulls and that his contract would only be rescined if the Bulls went out of Super League. So, maybe, he knows more than the rest of us. Nil desperandum as they say in the Dordogne. Onwards and upwards. Good luck to Wakefield but SL is a six team competition at best. Tricky Dicky

8:03am Sun 9 Sep 12

oddshapedballs says...

bradfordbronco wrote:
We would have finished 7th, if Caisley hadn't forced Hood out so he could put us into administration with the aim of liquidating the club & buying back on the cheap. His plan didn't work mainly because of the efforts & commitment of the fans(raising money) coaches (working for nothing) Groundsmen, Admin staff etc(Also working for nothing) Bullbuilder (Raising funds for juniors & volunteers).

We might not have an individual with deep pockets to cover the losses like most of the other teams. The thing is apart from Leeds & Wigan we probably have the most viable club in the League. We have always had a great support base even through the bad times. We are a great club & the RFL would be stupid to kick us out & replace us with another small town club.

We have stuck together & come through the nightmare. We have new owners who want to take the club forward, A fan base of over 10000 loyal fans, A good junior development setup. We are ready to take up our place in SL next year in what will be our 150th year.

We are the oldest Rugby Club in the game. Its about time the RFL rewarded the extraordinary efforts of everyone involved with club( since caisley opted to appoint his mate Guilfoyle as administrator) and gave us the green light to continue.

BTW good luck to Wakey against Leeds. You will be the wost team ever to make the play offs(losing more games than you won!) and think New Hall Nev might need some help understanding the format!! Wakefield have certainly benefited financially at our expense. Hope the RLF take that into consideration when deciding if we had some unfair 'advantage' by going into admin & enduring what we have this season.
"the worst team to.enter the play offs losing more games.than you won"
it is the nature of the position of eighth. check the facts. there is only one side to finish eighth who had the same win lose figures the rest have all lost more than they won
[quote][p][bold]bradfordbronco[/bold] wrote: We would have finished 7th, if Caisley hadn't forced Hood out so he could put us into administration with the aim of liquidating the club & buying back on the cheap. His plan didn't work mainly because of the efforts & commitment of the fans(raising money) coaches (working for nothing) Groundsmen, Admin staff etc(Also working for nothing) Bullbuilder (Raising funds for juniors & volunteers). We might not have an individual with deep pockets to cover the losses like most of the other teams. The thing is apart from Leeds & Wigan we probably have the most viable club in the League. We have always had a great support base even through the bad times. We are a great club & the RFL would be stupid to kick us out & replace us with another small town club. We have stuck together & come through the nightmare. We have new owners who want to take the club forward, A fan base of over 10000 loyal fans, A good junior development setup. We are ready to take up our place in SL next year in what will be our 150th year. We are the oldest Rugby Club in the game. Its about time the RFL rewarded the extraordinary efforts of everyone involved with club( since caisley opted to appoint his mate Guilfoyle as administrator) and gave us the green light to continue. BTW good luck to Wakey against Leeds. You will be the wost team ever to make the play offs(losing more games than you won!) and think New Hall Nev might need some help understanding the format!! Wakefield have certainly benefited financially at our expense. Hope the RLF take that into consideration when deciding if we had some unfair 'advantage' by going into admin & enduring what we have this season.[/p][/quote]"the worst team to.enter the play offs losing more games.than you won" it is the nature of the position of eighth. check the facts. there is only one side to finish eighth who had the same win lose figures the rest have all lost more than they won oddshapedballs

8:05am Sun 9 Sep 12

oddshapedballs says...

Tricky Dicky wrote:
A terrific first half by the lads but we were blown away at the start of the second half when the Dragons moved up a gear and we helped them along their way with a litany of errors. No disgrace and something to build upon.
To Bradfordbronco, please stopp blaming Mr Caisley as his damage was long over before Mr Hood dragged us further into the mire. HMRC would have liquidated the club for one pound never mind one million. Mr Hood took a successful, World Championship side and, by his own means, engineered their demise. If administration had not happened the club would have folded mid-season. Any mooted investor would have run a mile when the full extent of the debts were revealed. Mr Hood merely cooked the books, painted over the cracks and put his finger in the dyke. But, apportionment of blame is for the historians. I'd much prefer to know what is going to happen from here on in and give my fullest support to the new owners.
On the Mr Kopczak affair, I also would agree that he was an asset of the club bought by OK Bulls and that his contract would only be rescined if the Bulls went out of Super League. So, maybe, he knows more than the rest of us. Nil desperandum as they say in the Dordogne. Onwards and upwards. Good luck to Wakefield but SL is a six team competition at best.
latin speaking french??
[quote][p][bold]Tricky Dicky[/bold] wrote: A terrific first half by the lads but we were blown away at the start of the second half when the Dragons moved up a gear and we helped them along their way with a litany of errors. No disgrace and something to build upon. To Bradfordbronco, please stopp blaming Mr Caisley as his damage was long over before Mr Hood dragged us further into the mire. HMRC would have liquidated the club for one pound never mind one million. Mr Hood took a successful, World Championship side and, by his own means, engineered their demise. If administration had not happened the club would have folded mid-season. Any mooted investor would have run a mile when the full extent of the debts were revealed. Mr Hood merely cooked the books, painted over the cracks and put his finger in the dyke. But, apportionment of blame is for the historians. I'd much prefer to know what is going to happen from here on in and give my fullest support to the new owners. On the Mr Kopczak affair, I also would agree that he was an asset of the club bought by OK Bulls and that his contract would only be rescined if the Bulls went out of Super League. So, maybe, he knows more than the rest of us. Nil desperandum as they say in the Dordogne. Onwards and upwards. Good luck to Wakefield but SL is a six team competition at best.[/p][/quote]latin speaking french?? oddshapedballs

8:27am Sun 9 Sep 12

Mike Strutter says...

mumbyfan wrote:
Biggest disappointment is missing out on a playoff at Leeds. They would have had anybody but us, but it's not to be...


See you in February!
Very unlikely to have happened. Leeds would have done Hudds to finish 4 th
[quote][p][bold]mumbyfan[/bold] wrote: Biggest disappointment is missing out on a playoff at Leeds. They would have had anybody but us, but it's not to be... See you in February![/p][/quote]Very unlikely to have happened. Leeds would have done Hudds to finish 4 th Mike Strutter

8:27am Sun 9 Sep 12

Sheffieldbull says...

With a user name like 'alfucham' (work it out) I thought it could be either of our past two Chairman, still not convinced it might not be one of em!
With a user name like 'alfucham' (work it out) I thought it could be either of our past two Chairman, still not convinced it might not be one of em! Sheffieldbull

8:34am Sun 9 Sep 12

bradfordbronco says...

Some good points made. Hood was def an idiot & out of his depth. Can't rule Caisley out of the scenario though. He was still the major shareholder & was the guy who signed Harris. He forced Hood out & put us into administration. I think he had a plan which backfired on him

Agree that our players have been overpaid. Its also true that some of the top earners are our worst players! But lets remember we haven't spent as much as most of the other clubs on players. We haven't even got one proper international in the Squad. The quality of squad we had could easily have been put together for £1.5m. You'd have to be an idiot to spend the full salary cap and end up with squad we had!

Think the season ticket money was more like £1m than £500,000 quoted. Our income from supporters was still greater than many other clubs achieved. £10,000 paying at least £85 each is more tan £3000 paying £150 each.

We did well on the sponsorship front also. My Bradford Bulls Shirt is covered in sponsors logos. My London Broncos shirt doesn't have any!

Think the Buls loan of £750,000 was repaid when we sold the ground.

The creditors issue is nothing to do with Mr Kahn and its not up to him to repay any of them. Its up to businesses to make sure they are being paid & keep on top of money owed

The £100,000 the RFL keep 'giving' us each month is the sky money all the clubs get & its money we are entitled to not a gift.

Dont agree that we are some kind of hopeless money losing club & all the others are profitable. We have a large support base, good sponsorship income. If we stay in SL & sell season tickets at £150,000, we would be one of the few clubs actually making a profit.

If we stick together the club will be OK. I look forward to buying my 1863 replica shirt next season & celebrating 150 years of Ruby Football in Bradford. Just hope its in SL where this great club belongs
Some good points made. Hood was def an idiot & out of his depth. Can't rule Caisley out of the scenario though. He was still the major shareholder & was the guy who signed Harris. He forced Hood out & put us into administration. I think he had a plan which backfired on him Agree that our players have been overpaid. Its also true that some of the top earners are our worst players! But lets remember we haven't spent as much as most of the other clubs on players. We haven't even got one proper international in the Squad. The quality of squad we had could easily have been put together for £1.5m. You'd have to be an idiot to spend the full salary cap and end up with squad we had! Think the season ticket money was more like £1m than £500,000 quoted. Our income from supporters was still greater than many other clubs achieved. £10,000 paying at least £85 each is more tan £3000 paying £150 each. We did well on the sponsorship front also. My Bradford Bulls Shirt is covered in sponsors logos. My London Broncos shirt doesn't have any! Think the Buls loan of £750,000 was repaid when we sold the ground. The creditors issue is nothing to do with Mr Kahn and its not up to him to repay any of them. Its up to businesses to make sure they are being paid & keep on top of money owed The £100,000 the RFL keep 'giving' us each month is the sky money all the clubs get & its money we are entitled to not a gift. Dont agree that we are some kind of hopeless money losing club & all the others are profitable. We have a large support base, good sponsorship income. If we stay in SL & sell season tickets at £150,000, we would be one of the few clubs actually making a profit. If we stick together the club will be OK. I look forward to buying my 1863 replica shirt next season & celebrating 150 years of Ruby Football in Bradford. Just hope its in SL where this great club belongs bradfordbronco

8:43am Sun 9 Sep 12

bradfordbronco says...

oddshapedballs wrote:
bradfordbronco wrote:
We would have finished 7th, if Caisley hadn't forced Hood out so he could put us into administration with the aim of liquidating the club & buying back on the cheap. His plan didn't work mainly because of the efforts & commitment of the fans(raising money) coaches (working for nothing) Groundsmen, Admin staff etc(Also working for nothing) Bullbuilder (Raising funds for juniors & volunteers).

We might not have an individual with deep pockets to cover the losses like most of the other teams. The thing is apart from Leeds & Wigan we probably have the most viable club in the League. We have always had a great support base even through the bad times. We are a great club & the RFL would be stupid to kick us out & replace us with another small town club.

We have stuck together & come through the nightmare. We have new owners who want to take the club forward, A fan base of over 10000 loyal fans, A good junior development setup. We are ready to take up our place in SL next year in what will be our 150th year.

We are the oldest Rugby Club in the game. Its about time the RFL rewarded the extraordinary efforts of everyone involved with club( since caisley opted to appoint his mate Guilfoyle as administrator) and gave us the green light to continue.

BTW good luck to Wakey against Leeds. You will be the wost team ever to make the play offs(losing more games than you won!) and think New Hall Nev might need some help understanding the format!! Wakefield have certainly benefited financially at our expense. Hope the RLF take that into consideration when deciding if we had some unfair 'advantage' by going into admin & enduring what we have this season.
"the worst team to.enter the play offs losing more games.than you won"
it is the nature of the position of eighth. check the facts. there is only one side to finish eighth who had the same win lose figures the rest have all lost more than they won
last time I checked no other team has finished 9th & made the playoffs!! They're def the most worst team ever to make the playoffs
[quote][p][bold]oddshapedballs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bradfordbronco[/bold] wrote: We would have finished 7th, if Caisley hadn't forced Hood out so he could put us into administration with the aim of liquidating the club & buying back on the cheap. His plan didn't work mainly because of the efforts & commitment of the fans(raising money) coaches (working for nothing) Groundsmen, Admin staff etc(Also working for nothing) Bullbuilder (Raising funds for juniors & volunteers). We might not have an individual with deep pockets to cover the losses like most of the other teams. The thing is apart from Leeds & Wigan we probably have the most viable club in the League. We have always had a great support base even through the bad times. We are a great club & the RFL would be stupid to kick us out & replace us with another small town club. We have stuck together & come through the nightmare. We have new owners who want to take the club forward, A fan base of over 10000 loyal fans, A good junior development setup. We are ready to take up our place in SL next year in what will be our 150th year. We are the oldest Rugby Club in the game. Its about time the RFL rewarded the extraordinary efforts of everyone involved with club( since caisley opted to appoint his mate Guilfoyle as administrator) and gave us the green light to continue. BTW good luck to Wakey against Leeds. You will be the wost team ever to make the play offs(losing more games than you won!) and think New Hall Nev might need some help understanding the format!! Wakefield have certainly benefited financially at our expense. Hope the RLF take that into consideration when deciding if we had some unfair 'advantage' by going into admin & enduring what we have this season.[/p][/quote]"the worst team to.enter the play offs losing more games.than you won" it is the nature of the position of eighth. check the facts. there is only one side to finish eighth who had the same win lose figures the rest have all lost more than they won[/p][/quote]last time I checked no other team has finished 9th & made the playoffs!! They're def the most worst team ever to make the playoffs bradfordbronco

9:04am Sun 9 Sep 12

raisemeup says...

bradfordbronco wrote:
We'll never know what would have happened if Caisley hadn't got involved. We know he did & we know we went into admin soon after. We also know that the administrator had professional links to Caisley. We also know that the administrator had trouble hearing of any other bids for the club (Even when they were telling him at public meeting they wanted to make a bid!!) other than ABC bid. We also know this was rejected by the RFL because of certain conditions & because they wouldnt name all the directors behind the bid. If A was for Akbahs what did C stand for.

We also know Caisley wanted to bring in Tasker & Noble. We know one of the 1st things Guilfoyle did was to sack the admin & coaching staff.The club wouldn't be able to run without these. Luckily for him, Nobel & Tasker were ready to offer their services for free. How convenient.

This is where it starts to unravel. Potter stays. Noble changes his mind, Caisley vanishes. The next time we hear anything from the Director acting on caisley's behalf(Coulby) Its on the eve of the ABC bid finally getting the boot. He's telling us its vital it goes through. It doesn't, not heard from hoim since!

It just seems that there was a plan which didn't work out as some peaople might have liked.

Adey from Bull Builder is pretty clued up. He reckons we weren't far off paying our outstanding PAYE at the time Hood left. We raised the initial£500,000 and had other people not got involved with promises of investors that didnt turn up, we MIGHT have found someone to invest & raise the other £500,000 needed to get to the end of the season.

We now also know that the club gets its sky money on a monthly basis. This with the goodwill of the fans & prehaps selling a couple of players(Koppy or Bateman) would have been enough to get us through.

In short its not certain that we would have gone into administration If a certain person & his friend who charges vast sums by the hour hadn't chosen to put us into admin.

I hope all this is investigated one day, cos it seems a right 'fix up' to me
Good story but at the end of the day it's conjecture.(so is mine by the way, but it's a different viewpoint)

I cannot imagine in my wildest dreams, what anyone has gained from this situation. Why would a successful Lawyer get involved with a non profit organisation, in the way you say?

The finances had overtaken the club to such an extent that the previous incumbents would not have stood a cat in hells chance of bringing it back.

But it's water under the bridge now, and we shouldn't castigate anyone without knowing it's a fact.

For example the legal scrutiny an administrator is subject to means he has to do everything by the book,(there is leeway, but it's an allowed discretionary leeway) the same with a solicitor. So why would they get themselves into the picture you paint?

I suspect though that the investigation, will centre on the incumbents at Odsal previous to resiginations.

One question is if PH and AB had a plan to bring us from the brink. Why didn't they stay and face the EGM, just think what a coup that would have been??
Anyway bronco let's not fall out over it, it hasn't done either or any of us any favours has it? Lets hope for the best of news possible and look forward to seeing a brighter future for us all next season.

Cheers
[quote][p][bold]bradfordbronco[/bold] wrote: We'll never know what would have happened if Caisley hadn't got involved. We know he did & we know we went into admin soon after. We also know that the administrator had professional links to Caisley. We also know that the administrator had trouble hearing of any other bids for the club (Even when they were telling him at public meeting they wanted to make a bid!!) other than ABC bid. We also know this was rejected by the RFL because of certain conditions & because they wouldnt name all the directors behind the bid. If A was for Akbahs what did C stand for. We also know Caisley wanted to bring in Tasker & Noble. We know one of the 1st things Guilfoyle did was to sack the admin & coaching staff.The club wouldn't be able to run without these. Luckily for him, Nobel & Tasker were ready to offer their services for free. How convenient. This is where it starts to unravel. Potter stays. Noble changes his mind, Caisley vanishes. The next time we hear anything from the Director acting on caisley's behalf(Coulby) Its on the eve of the ABC bid finally getting the boot. He's telling us its vital it goes through. It doesn't, not heard from hoim since! It just seems that there was a plan which didn't work out as some peaople might have liked. Adey from Bull Builder is pretty clued up. He reckons we weren't far off paying our outstanding PAYE at the time Hood left. We raised the initial£500,000 and had other people not got involved with promises of investors that didnt turn up, we MIGHT have found someone to invest & raise the other £500,000 needed to get to the end of the season. We now also know that the club gets its sky money on a monthly basis. This with the goodwill of the fans & prehaps selling a couple of players(Koppy or Bateman) would have been enough to get us through. In short its not certain that we would have gone into administration If a certain person & his friend who charges vast sums by the hour hadn't chosen to put us into admin. I hope all this is investigated one day, cos it seems a right 'fix up' to me[/p][/quote]Good story but at the end of the day it's conjecture.(so is mine by the way, but it's a different viewpoint) I cannot imagine in my wildest dreams, what anyone has gained from this situation. Why would a successful Lawyer get involved with a non profit organisation, in the way you say? The finances had overtaken the club to such an extent that the previous incumbents would not have stood a cat in hells chance of bringing it back. But it's water under the bridge now, and we shouldn't castigate anyone without knowing it's a fact. For example the legal scrutiny an administrator is subject to means he has to do everything by the book,(there is leeway, but it's an allowed discretionary leeway) the same with a solicitor. So why would they get themselves into the picture you paint? I suspect though that the investigation, will centre on the incumbents at Odsal previous to resiginations. One question is if PH and AB had a plan to bring us from the brink. Why didn't they stay and face the EGM, just think what a coup that would have been?? Anyway bronco let's not fall out over it, it hasn't done either or any of us any favours has it? Lets hope for the best of news possible and look forward to seeing a brighter future for us all next season. Cheers raisemeup

11:17am Sun 9 Sep 12

Mike Strutter says...

bradfordbronco wrote:
Some good points made. Hood was def an idiot & out of his depth. Can't rule Caisley out of the scenario though. He was still the major shareholder & was the guy who signed Harris. He forced Hood out & put us into administration. I think he had a plan which backfired on him

Agree that our players have been overpaid. Its also true that some of the top earners are our worst players! But lets remember we haven't spent as much as most of the other clubs on players. We haven't even got one proper international in the Squad. The quality of squad we had could easily have been put together for £1.5m. You'd have to be an idiot to spend the full salary cap and end up with squad we had!

Think the season ticket money was more like £1m than £500,000 quoted. Our income from supporters was still greater than many other clubs achieved. £10,000 paying at least £85 each is more tan £3000 paying £150 each.

We did well on the sponsorship front also. My Bradford Bulls Shirt is covered in sponsors logos. My London Broncos shirt doesn't have any!

Think the Buls loan of £750,000 was repaid when we sold the ground.

The creditors issue is nothing to do with Mr Kahn and its not up to him to repay any of them. Its up to businesses to make sure they are being paid & keep on top of money owed

The £100,000 the RFL keep 'giving' us each month is the sky money all the clubs get & its money we are entitled to not a gift.

Dont agree that we are some kind of hopeless money losing club & all the others are profitable. We have a large support base, good sponsorship income. If we stay in SL & sell season tickets at £150,000, we would be one of the few clubs actually making a profit.

If we stick together the club will be OK. I look forward to buying my 1863 replica shirt next season & celebrating 150 years of Ruby Football in Bradford. Just hope its in SL where this great club belongs
Not a hopeless money losing club ?

Yes you are, why do you think you are where you are ?

Some people just refuse to accept the truth.
[quote][p][bold]bradfordbronco[/bold] wrote: Some good points made. Hood was def an idiot & out of his depth. Can't rule Caisley out of the scenario though. He was still the major shareholder & was the guy who signed Harris. He forced Hood out & put us into administration. I think he had a plan which backfired on him Agree that our players have been overpaid. Its also true that some of the top earners are our worst players! But lets remember we haven't spent as much as most of the other clubs on players. We haven't even got one proper international in the Squad. The quality of squad we had could easily have been put together for £1.5m. You'd have to be an idiot to spend the full salary cap and end up with squad we had! Think the season ticket money was more like £1m than £500,000 quoted. Our income from supporters was still greater than many other clubs achieved. £10,000 paying at least £85 each is more tan £3000 paying £150 each. We did well on the sponsorship front also. My Bradford Bulls Shirt is covered in sponsors logos. My London Broncos shirt doesn't have any! Think the Buls loan of £750,000 was repaid when we sold the ground. The creditors issue is nothing to do with Mr Kahn and its not up to him to repay any of them. Its up to businesses to make sure they are being paid & keep on top of money owed The £100,000 the RFL keep 'giving' us each month is the sky money all the clubs get & its money we are entitled to not a gift. Dont agree that we are some kind of hopeless money losing club & all the others are profitable. We have a large support base, good sponsorship income. If we stay in SL & sell season tickets at £150,000, we would be one of the few clubs actually making a profit. If we stick together the club will be OK. I look forward to buying my 1863 replica shirt next season & celebrating 150 years of Ruby Football in Bradford. Just hope its in SL where this great club belongs[/p][/quote]Not a hopeless money losing club ? Yes you are, why do you think you are where you are ? Some people just refuse to accept the truth. Mike Strutter

12:23pm Sun 9 Sep 12

theviking62 says...

Strutter, stroll on, you wind up merchant. Trying to draw one and all into the fray, as per. Anyway whose for the Grand Final. IMO, Wigan and Catalan.
Strutter, stroll on, you wind up merchant. Trying to draw one and all into the fray, as per. Anyway whose for the Grand Final. IMO, Wigan and Catalan. theviking62

2:38pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Mumby was the best says...

theviking62 wrote:
Strutter, stroll on, you wind up merchant. Trying to draw one and all into the fray, as per. Anyway whose for the Grand Final. IMO, Wigan and Catalan.
Your opinion is worthless Viking like your abusive negative attitude when you dont get your own way,
[quote][p][bold]theviking62[/bold] wrote: Strutter, stroll on, you wind up merchant. Trying to draw one and all into the fray, as per. Anyway whose for the Grand Final. IMO, Wigan and Catalan.[/p][/quote]Your opinion is worthless Viking like your abusive negative attitude when you dont get your own way, Mumby was the best

2:49pm Sun 9 Sep 12

theviking62 says...

Ah, FAKE Mumby, you've woken up. What do you know. BUGGER ALL. Give me an insight as to who You, think will make Grand Final. As to my opinion being worthless. POT, KETTLE, BLACK. Do you think Bosch, will make an impact In the play offs for the Cats.
Ah, FAKE Mumby, you've woken up. What do you know. BUGGER ALL. Give me an insight as to who You, think will make Grand Final. As to my opinion being worthless. POT, KETTLE, BLACK. Do you think Bosch, will make an impact In the play offs for the Cats. theviking62

2:57pm Sun 9 Sep 12

BCFC LAD says...

Hes just woken up cos hes been on nights while we slept in our own beds!!!!
Hes just woken up cos hes been on nights while we slept in our own beds!!!! BCFC LAD

3:13pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Mike Strutter says...

theviking62 wrote:
Strutter, stroll on, you wind up merchant. Trying to draw one and all into the fray, as per. Anyway whose for the Grand Final. IMO, Wigan and Catalan.
Leeds to get chosen by Wigan in club call, anything can happen as has been proved.

I would be very surprised if Leeds make it but who knows.

Got my ticket for the final, we go every year whoever is there, a great day out.
[quote][p][bold]theviking62[/bold] wrote: Strutter, stroll on, you wind up merchant. Trying to draw one and all into the fray, as per. Anyway whose for the Grand Final. IMO, Wigan and Catalan.[/p][/quote]Leeds to get chosen by Wigan in club call, anything can happen as has been proved. I would be very surprised if Leeds make it but who knows. Got my ticket for the final, we go every year whoever is there, a great day out. Mike Strutter

3:17pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Tricky Dicky says...

Season over. Old club liquidated, new club formed. Been there, seen that and bought the T-shirt. To keep us all going till next season, let's speculate on who's staying and who's going; what the RFL will do, which division we'll be playing in; what developments will happen and what we would like to see happen; top performers this season and the disappointments?
Thanks to Mr Potter et al. The most successful season for some time. The good times are a mere dream away. Roll on next season.
Season over. Old club liquidated, new club formed. Been there, seen that and bought the T-shirt. To keep us all going till next season, let's speculate on who's staying and who's going; what the RFL will do, which division we'll be playing in; what developments will happen and what we would like to see happen; top performers this season and the disappointments? Thanks to Mr Potter et al. The most successful season for some time. The good times are a mere dream away. Roll on next season. Tricky Dicky

4:01pm Sun 9 Sep 12

alfucham says...

Sheffieldbull wrote:
With a user name like 'alfucham' (work it out) I thought it could be either of our past two Chairman, still not convinced it might not be one of em!
Let me convince you that I have nothing but despair in my thouhts as to how this loss making has continued to be ongoing over many years by those two.

And yes my user name is a reflection of the outrage felt towards them now.

The amount owed to county caterers sums things up.

Provision of pink champagne and canopes.
Whatever happened to jellied eels and a two week growler with hammonds brown sauce

Right now I despise those in charge that led the club this way.

How can other clubs have as high a wage bill on crowds as low as they get.

I doubt they have.
[quote][p][bold]Sheffieldbull[/bold] wrote: With a user name like 'alfucham' (work it out) I thought it could be either of our past two Chairman, still not convinced it might not be one of em![/p][/quote]Let me convince you that I have nothing but despair in my thouhts as to how this loss making has continued to be ongoing over many years by those two. And yes my user name is a reflection of the outrage felt towards them now. The amount owed to county caterers sums things up. Provision of pink champagne and canopes. Whatever happened to jellied eels and a two week growler with hammonds brown sauce Right now I despise those in charge that led the club this way. How can other clubs have as high a wage bill on crowds as low as they get. I doubt they have. alfucham

4:16pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Bullcity says...

bradfordbronco wrote:
We would have finished 7th, if Caisley hadn't forced Hood out so he could put us into administration with the aim of liquidating the club & buying back on the cheap. His plan didn't work mainly because of the efforts & commitment of the fans(raising money) coaches (working for nothing) Groundsmen, Admin staff etc(Also working for nothing) Bullbuilder (Raising funds for juniors & volunteers). We might not have an individual with deep pockets to cover the losses like most of the other teams. The thing is apart from Leeds & Wigan we probably have the most viable club in the League. We have always had a great support base even through the bad times. We are a great club & the RFL would be stupid to kick us out & replace us with another small town club. We have stuck together & come through the nightmare. We have new owners who want to take the club forward, A fan base of over 10000 loyal fans, A good junior development setup. We are ready to take up our place in SL next year in what will be our 150th year. We are the oldest Rugby Club in the game. Its about time the RFL rewarded the extraordinary efforts of everyone involved with club( since caisley opted to appoint his mate Guilfoyle as administrator) and gave us the green light to continue. BTW good luck to Wakey against Leeds. You will be the wost team ever to make the play offs(losing more games than you won!) and think New Hall Nev might need some help understanding the format!! Wakefield have certainly benefited financially at our expense. Hope the RLF take that into consideration when deciding if we had some unfair 'advantage' by going into admin & enduring what we have this season.
Excellent summary of the situation and all sense spoken here --well done !!
[quote][p][bold]bradfordbronco[/bold] wrote: We would have finished 7th, if Caisley hadn't forced Hood out so he could put us into administration with the aim of liquidating the club & buying back on the cheap. His plan didn't work mainly because of the efforts & commitment of the fans(raising money) coaches (working for nothing) Groundsmen, Admin staff etc(Also working for nothing) Bullbuilder (Raising funds for juniors & volunteers). We might not have an individual with deep pockets to cover the losses like most of the other teams. The thing is apart from Leeds & Wigan we probably have the most viable club in the League. We have always had a great support base even through the bad times. We are a great club & the RFL would be stupid to kick us out & replace us with another small town club. We have stuck together & come through the nightmare. We have new owners who want to take the club forward, A fan base of over 10000 loyal fans, A good junior development setup. We are ready to take up our place in SL next year in what will be our 150th year. We are the oldest Rugby Club in the game. Its about time the RFL rewarded the extraordinary efforts of everyone involved with club( since caisley opted to appoint his mate Guilfoyle as administrator) and gave us the green light to continue. BTW good luck to Wakey against Leeds. You will be the wost team ever to make the play offs(losing more games than you won!) and think New Hall Nev might need some help understanding the format!! Wakefield have certainly benefited financially at our expense. Hope the RLF take that into consideration when deciding if we had some unfair 'advantage' by going into admin & enduring what we have this season.[/p][/quote]Excellent summary of the situation and all sense spoken here --well done !! Bullcity

4:29pm Sun 9 Sep 12

alfucham says...

bradfordbronco wrote:
Some good points made. Hood was def an idiot & out of his depth. Can't rule Caisley out of the scenario though. He was still the major shareholder & was the guy who signed Harris. He forced Hood out & put us into administration. I think he had a plan which backfired on him Agree that our players have been overpaid. Its also true that some of the top earners are our worst players! But lets remember we haven't spent as much as most of the other clubs on players. We haven't even got one proper international in the Squad. The quality of squad we had could easily have been put together for £1.5m. You'd have to be an idiot to spend the full salary cap and end up with squad we had! Think the season ticket money was more like £1m than £500,000 quoted. Our income from supporters was still greater than many other clubs achieved. £10,000 paying at least £85 each is more tan £3000 paying £150 each. We did well on the sponsorship front also. My Bradford Bulls Shirt is covered in sponsors logos. My London Broncos shirt doesn't have any! Think the Buls loan of £750,000 was repaid when we sold the ground. The creditors issue is nothing to do with Mr Kahn and its not up to him to repay any of them. Its up to businesses to make sure they are being paid & keep on top of money owed The £100,000 the RFL keep 'giving' us each month is the sky money all the clubs get & its money we are entitled to not a gift. Dont agree that we are some kind of hopeless money losing club & all the others are profitable. We have a large support base, good sponsorship income. If we stay in SL & sell season tickets at £150,000, we would be one of the few clubs actually making a profit. If we stick together the club will be OK. I look forward to buying my 1863 replica shirt next season & celebrating 150 years of Ruby Football in Bradford. Just hope its in SL where this great club belongs
Believe me the amounts the seson ticket scheme reached were nearer half a million.

The report shows average season ticket prices at £72.

As for business being told its up to them to keep on top of being paid consider this.
There has always been a liquidty problem at odsal.

Suppliers (often with an interest in the Bulls as supporters as the directorws indeed were)always got paid eventually.
The club would have been aware of the relationship and that would make it very difficuilt for a small creditor who would be unwilling to take recovery procedures that could hurt "their" club.

They deserve support.
And if £100000 a year to ensure they are paid going forward does not sound particularly expensive in light of the guaranteed £1.2 million the Bulls will continue to receive if still part of super league.

Big issues for the league I am afraid.

I am afraid some on here simply do not wish to admit how big an issue that is.

The game does need sorting generally to stop the chasing of the dream turning to your worst nightmare.

Would it not be better to forgo some of the sky money for future operating costs to ensure a better work relationship with the RFL.?

I sincerely hope that if (and I am unclear at this stage if that was the scenario)the directors in late April early May used the £400000 raised by yourselves to repay the bank overdraft where 3 of them had given personal guarantees,then that transaction can be set aside.

They will have preferred one creditor over the rest in such an action when they had already very publically declared they were insolvent.

It could be that the RFL repaid the bank overdraft when paying the balance that came Bulls way on transfer of the lease.

We await the forensic report.

Either way the creditors have being subject to a lot of manipulative dealing shrouded in secrecy.

You raised £400K to save the Bulls.
In event it MAY prove to have only saved the directors homes.

Why did the pledge campaign and appeal stop and there was a lull before the shareholders and ex directors took action to oust?

It was stated a million was needed and indeed it was.
Perhaps the well was dry after £400k was raised.
The fans spent up.

The outcome of the liqidators and insolvency service report is going to make some interesting read.
[quote][p][bold]bradfordbronco[/bold] wrote: Some good points made. Hood was def an idiot & out of his depth. Can't rule Caisley out of the scenario though. He was still the major shareholder & was the guy who signed Harris. He forced Hood out & put us into administration. I think he had a plan which backfired on him Agree that our players have been overpaid. Its also true that some of the top earners are our worst players! But lets remember we haven't spent as much as most of the other clubs on players. We haven't even got one proper international in the Squad. The quality of squad we had could easily have been put together for £1.5m. You'd have to be an idiot to spend the full salary cap and end up with squad we had! Think the season ticket money was more like £1m than £500,000 quoted. Our income from supporters was still greater than many other clubs achieved. £10,000 paying at least £85 each is more tan £3000 paying £150 each. We did well on the sponsorship front also. My Bradford Bulls Shirt is covered in sponsors logos. My London Broncos shirt doesn't have any! Think the Buls loan of £750,000 was repaid when we sold the ground. The creditors issue is nothing to do with Mr Kahn and its not up to him to repay any of them. Its up to businesses to make sure they are being paid & keep on top of money owed The £100,000 the RFL keep 'giving' us each month is the sky money all the clubs get & its money we are entitled to not a gift. Dont agree that we are some kind of hopeless money losing club & all the others are profitable. We have a large support base, good sponsorship income. If we stay in SL & sell season tickets at £150,000, we would be one of the few clubs actually making a profit. If we stick together the club will be OK. I look forward to buying my 1863 replica shirt next season & celebrating 150 years of Ruby Football in Bradford. Just hope its in SL where this great club belongs[/p][/quote]Believe me the amounts the seson ticket scheme reached were nearer half a million. The report shows average season ticket prices at £72. As for business being told its up to them to keep on top of being paid consider this. There has always been a liquidty problem at odsal. Suppliers (often with an interest in the Bulls as supporters as the directorws indeed were)always got paid eventually. The club would have been aware of the relationship and that would make it very difficuilt for a small creditor who would be unwilling to take recovery procedures that could hurt "their" club. They deserve support. And if £100000 a year to ensure they are paid going forward does not sound particularly expensive in light of the guaranteed £1.2 million the Bulls will continue to receive if still part of super league. Big issues for the league I am afraid. I am afraid some on here simply do not wish to admit how big an issue that is. The game does need sorting generally to stop the chasing of the dream turning to your worst nightmare. Would it not be better to forgo some of the sky money for future operating costs to ensure a better work relationship with the RFL.? I sincerely hope that if (and I am unclear at this stage if that was the scenario)the directors in late April early May used the £400000 raised by yourselves to repay the bank overdraft where 3 of them had given personal guarantees,then that transaction can be set aside. They will have preferred one creditor over the rest in such an action when they had already very publically declared they were insolvent. It could be that the RFL repaid the bank overdraft when paying the balance that came Bulls way on transfer of the lease. We await the forensic report. Either way the creditors have being subject to a lot of manipulative dealing shrouded in secrecy. You raised £400K to save the Bulls. In event it MAY prove to have only saved the directors homes. Why did the pledge campaign and appeal stop and there was a lull before the shareholders and ex directors took action to oust? It was stated a million was needed and indeed it was. Perhaps the well was dry after £400k was raised. The fans spent up. The outcome of the liqidators and insolvency service report is going to make some interesting read. alfucham

4:32pm Sun 9 Sep 12

theviking62 says...

Mike, only missed two, last year, this year. Health problems, forbid me mixing in crowds, buggered immune system, in dock at mo, having chemo. Haven't seen a game this season, only on the box. Seriously, think could be Catalans year, if not them, Wire.
Mike, only missed two, last year, this year. Health problems, forbid me mixing in crowds, buggered immune system, in dock at mo, having chemo. Haven't seen a game this season, only on the box. Seriously, think could be Catalans year, if not them, Wire. theviking62

4:42pm Sun 9 Sep 12

theviking62 says...

Alfucham, would be nice to see proof, of what you say. But the creditor problem is what happens, in life, the innocent suffer, whilst those that cause the problem survive. As to paying houses off, I think not. Just rumour, Unless you have proof. I get the feeling, that two things apply here, 1) your genuine and intend to publish the facts. 2) your a very good wind up merchant, with nothing but hearsay and an intent to cause harm. Which is it?
Alfucham, would be nice to see proof, of what you say. But the creditor problem is what happens, in life, the innocent suffer, whilst those that cause the problem survive. As to paying houses off, I think not. Just rumour, Unless you have proof. I get the feeling, that two things apply here, 1) your genuine and intend to publish the facts. 2) your a very good wind up merchant, with nothing but hearsay and an intent to cause harm. Which is it? theviking62

4:48pm Sun 9 Sep 12

theviking62 says...

FAKE Mumby forgot to say, although we don't often see eye to eye on matters concerning the Bulls. The REAL Mumby, doesn't resort to name calling. The more you say, the more you prove, your an idiot, to think that people believe who you think you are. You have a problem, see a shrink, he/she will help you with your schizophrenia.
FAKE Mumby forgot to say, although we don't often see eye to eye on matters concerning the Bulls. The REAL Mumby, doesn't resort to name calling. The more you say, the more you prove, your an idiot, to think that people believe who you think you are. You have a problem, see a shrink, he/she will help you with your schizophrenia. theviking62

5:11pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Mumby was the best says...

Hi Viking sorry to hear of your health problems. My Mrs is having Chemo for the second time it`s horrible but hopefully there is light at the end of it.
By the way just wait you know who will come out with some vile comment, remember he thought it was funny when Adrian Purtell had his heart attack.
Hi Viking sorry to hear of your health problems. My Mrs is having Chemo for the second time it`s horrible but hopefully there is light at the end of it. By the way just wait you know who will come out with some vile comment, remember he thought it was funny when Adrian Purtell had his heart attack. Mumby was the best

5:40pm Sun 9 Sep 12

theviking62 says...

Cheers mate. He will he's a right, pratt.
Cheers mate. He will he's a right, pratt. theviking62

5:45pm Sun 9 Sep 12

alfucham says...

theviking62 wrote:
Alfucham, would be nice to see proof, of what you say. But the creditor problem is what happens, in life, the innocent suffer, whilst those that cause the problem survive. As to paying houses off, I think not. Just rumour, Unless you have proof. I get the feeling, that two things apply here, 1) your genuine and intend to publish the facts. 2) your a very good wind up merchant, with nothing but hearsay and an intent to cause harm. Which is it?
I am no wind up merchant.

Friends have lost money.

I am trained to know these things and in relation to the Bulls can read the scenario of director wrong as a book.

The truth will come out but only after the liqwuidators and the governments Insolvency Service have done their job.

It is clearly in the interim report of the joint administraters.

3 Directors had given the bank personal guarantees.

The logic is yours.

£400000 is raised by good people as yourself.because that is 40 per cent of what Mr H said was needed to survive.

The appeal then stops.

The administrater appointed 29.6.2012 finds funds in the bank at about £23000.

So a million was needed stated Mr H in late March early April.

only 40 percent of that is raised.

A shortfall of £600000 existed still at best by the early May.

The question that only forensic examination will answer iswhat did Mr H do with the £400k.

given the hopelessness did he repay the bank in order to be able to remove the personal guarantees to the bank given by three directors or not.

The club clearly needed the money to service future ongoing commitments.

To players and suppliers (they did not even have white paint to mark the pitch).

Or did they save their own homes by paying the bank.

I have only studied the complete scenario without access to the company"s books and records.

But if Insolvent at the time of the pledge appeal the directors had a duty to take protective steps immeadiately.When losing £200k a month.

In Company Law they had no right to continue to pay one creditor at the expense of others.

And indeed even in paying the players until administration they have done precisely that.

There is no intention to cause harm on my part.

I comment merely on the stupidity and potential unlawfulness of my reading of the situation.

If you are in any doubt that the directors had not given personal guarantees ask Adey Bull or Raisemeup.
They both too have had access to the administraters interim report dated the 24.8.2012.

Which clearly states the fact.

I would also be questioning how a company owned by Mr H can be owed £67000.A website provision company.
Bradford park avenues web costs them in the region of £19 per year to run.

The madness of it all needs proper investigation.

This did not come about overnight.
ten years of financial stupidity is to blame.
It is a wake up call to go forward differently.

I shall on behalf of certain small creditors be making my feelings known to the administraters and indeed have already started that process.

The club appears safe now from those that have continued the stupidity over a long period.
I note the lack of response from the administrater in his first month at ignoring apparently expression of interest.

That would back up what others say that a certain major shareholder thought it would be easy peasy to regain 100 per cent control and recover his investment going forward.

well done to myself and many others who made enough noise to prevent that.

a new dawn
a new era.

Trouble is the sound bites coming forth as to how things are turned are not great.
A museum?
Thought the place was one anyway.
a cafe?
when there is one at Richard Dunn about to be closed because of losses.
And I thought there was one at the top of Cleckheaton road.

Anyway such thoughts will never plug a funding gap.

Only deep pocketed Bradfordians can do that.
and were all poor are we not.

I wish the Bulls every success off the field and on.

it will be very difficult.

there is no intent to cause harm.
only to seek justice for those small creditors going forward.
[quote][p][bold]theviking62[/bold] wrote: Alfucham, would be nice to see proof, of what you say. But the creditor problem is what happens, in life, the innocent suffer, whilst those that cause the problem survive. As to paying houses off, I think not. Just rumour, Unless you have proof. I get the feeling, that two things apply here, 1) your genuine and intend to publish the facts. 2) your a very good wind up merchant, with nothing but hearsay and an intent to cause harm. Which is it?[/p][/quote]I am no wind up merchant. Friends have lost money. I am trained to know these things and in relation to the Bulls can read the scenario of director wrong as a book. The truth will come out but only after the liqwuidators and the governments Insolvency Service have done their job. It is clearly in the interim report of the joint administraters. 3 Directors had given the bank personal guarantees. The logic is yours. £400000 is raised by good people as yourself.because that is 40 per cent of what Mr H said was needed to survive. The appeal then stops. The administrater appointed 29.6.2012 finds funds in the bank at about £23000. So a million was needed stated Mr H in late March early April. only 40 percent of that is raised. A shortfall of £600000 existed still at best by the early May. The question that only forensic examination will answer iswhat did Mr H do with the £400k. given the hopelessness did he repay the bank in order to be able to remove the personal guarantees to the bank given by three directors or not. The club clearly needed the money to service future ongoing commitments. To players and suppliers (they did not even have white paint to mark the pitch). Or did they save their own homes by paying the bank. I have only studied the complete scenario without access to the company"s books and records. But if Insolvent at the time of the pledge appeal the directors had a duty to take protective steps immeadiately.When losing £200k a month. In Company Law they had no right to continue to pay one creditor at the expense of others. And indeed even in paying the players until administration they have done precisely that. There is no intention to cause harm on my part. I comment merely on the stupidity and potential unlawfulness of my reading of the situation. If you are in any doubt that the directors had not given personal guarantees ask Adey Bull or Raisemeup. They both too have had access to the administraters interim report dated the 24.8.2012. Which clearly states the fact. I would also be questioning how a company owned by Mr H can be owed £67000.A website provision company. Bradford park avenues web costs them in the region of £19 per year to run. The madness of it all needs proper investigation. This did not come about overnight. ten years of financial stupidity is to blame. It is a wake up call to go forward differently. I shall on behalf of certain small creditors be making my feelings known to the administraters and indeed have already started that process. The club appears safe now from those that have continued the stupidity over a long period. I note the lack of response from the administrater in his first month at ignoring apparently expression of interest. That would back up what others say that a certain major shareholder thought it would be easy peasy to regain 100 per cent control and recover his investment going forward. well done to myself and many others who made enough noise to prevent that. a new dawn a new era. Trouble is the sound bites coming forth as to how things are turned are not great. A museum? Thought the place was one anyway. a cafe? when there is one at Richard Dunn about to be closed because of losses. And I thought there was one at the top of Cleckheaton road. Anyway such thoughts will never plug a funding gap. Only deep pocketed Bradfordians can do that. and were all poor are we not. I wish the Bulls every success off the field and on. it will be very difficult. there is no intent to cause harm. only to seek justice for those small creditors going forward. alfucham

6:17pm Sun 9 Sep 12

theviking62 says...

Re going forward, you use the word " cafe " when I think the talk was of a restaurant. Museum, would no doubt be for sport, representing all pro clubs in the city. The way forward from what I have surmised from the number of articles written is, the stadium to be used 365 days per annum. If this includes sharing with BPA, all well and good. Some have said speedway, athletics, outdoor concerts, etc. Plus, if it's to be believed, the building of an hotel. This would no doubt be offered to one of the chains, to build,who would then pay rental, for land. this would then help the clubs' finances ie not to become too reliant on central funding going to run the ground side of things. But being used to improve quality of team. My views only, alfucham, from as I said at the beginning collating several articles, from various press and Internet sites.
Re going forward, you use the word " cafe " when I think the talk was of a restaurant. Museum, would no doubt be for sport, representing all pro clubs in the city. The way forward from what I have surmised from the number of articles written is, the stadium to be used 365 days per annum. If this includes sharing with BPA, all well and good. Some have said speedway, athletics, outdoor concerts, etc. Plus, if it's to be believed, the building of an hotel. This would no doubt be offered to one of the chains, to build,who would then pay rental, for land. this would then help the clubs' finances ie not to become too reliant on central funding going to run the ground side of things. But being used to improve quality of team. My views only, alfucham, from as I said at the beginning collating several articles, from various press and Internet sites. theviking62

6:20pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Adeybull says...

Various points made by Alfucham in this thread. Much pretty factual and objective IMO. Some warranting further comment on.
.
What "Forensic Report"? Unless someone has commissioned one and is paying for one, in which case presumably to have a go at former directors financially for some contribution?
.
The report by the administrator to the authorities does not get made public, neither does that by the eventual liquidator (who will be the same people according to the proposals by the former).
.
The bank overdraft was not guaranteed by three directors, to the best of my knowledge. I believe at least one was not party to any guarantee - or he was a bloody fool if he was.
.
The bank overdraft WAS secured by a floating charge though. Given the Preferential Creditors, ranking ahead of the bank, total £42k, and then the bank ranks ahead of everyone else, how could repaying the bank amount to a fraudulent preference? They would be paid first in an insolvency anyway, after the Prefs.
.
It anyway was not a case of actually repaying the bank, as far as I know? The bank merely reduced the facility by the amount of monies paid in? That effectively meant that, until and unless the club could find another bank account to pay monies into, the bank repaid itself every time any monies were banked. As is so often the case. The bank was in any case in a position to initiate insolvency proceedings had it not been paid off, and would have been paid ahead of the mass of the creditors anyway had that happened.
.
It is not clear how much of the bank debt had been recovered by the bank before the pledge was called in. To the extent that it had been recovered, I cannot see how the then directors could be exposed. They may be more vulnerable for possible fraudulent preference for any repayment out of the pledge monies, but given the bank had first call on the assets anyway I think any liquidator would struggle to win such an action. However, I would certainly expect it to be an area to be looked at.
.
The motion put to the EGM as I understand it was to remove the directors and appoint replacements. It was not to require the directors to explain their actions and intentions. The evictors would have people believe the latter was their real intent, and one of them has told me that. I hope they will understand when I say I find that hard to believe, given both Caisley's public denunciation of the board and the Motion wording? From what I heard from two of the then directors, they were quite clear that the evictors had a majority and they were sure they were indeed going to remove them. But you would need to ask them. I have always assumed that this, being announced just before the pledge closed, had much to do with the subsequent failure to follow through after the pledge. We could do with hearing more of their side of it, and their explanations, since all we have to go on so far is speculation and what snippets some of us may have picked up from talking to key protagonists.
.
I was not surprised at the scale of the debt. Indeed, the amount stated as due to HMRC and some others is less than I expected and I wonder about the completeness of the creditors list as a result, but that is for others. I WAS surprised at the amount due to the Tong landlord. Much more than I expected, especially given that a landlord can distrain for unpaid rent. I would also have been surprised at the identity of the third largest creditor, thus far unnamed, had I not already had an idea of it. But overall, the reported debts are a little less than I was expecting to see, remembering that some of them like employee entitlements crystallise on insolvency.
.
I share the views of those who are angry at the loss to especially the small, local suppliers. I have been on record for years as a strong opposer of prepacks and phoenixes where essentially the same owners or managers seem to be able to shed their debts and start up again doing just the same thing. That was one reason why I was violently opposed to the possibility of any of the former shareholders doing precisely that via the administration route. That it seemingly never happened that way may be because it was never going to, or because it was effectively stymied. Personally, I was sure that when the joint administrators sacked all the key staff they cannot have thought the club could continue as a going concern, and so must surely have been expecting an imminent bid. Their actions made no sense whatsoever to me otherwise. Either way, we all saw that no such bid was forthcoming, with the very profound consequences we have all seen.
.
A key issue that all the holier than thou types from certain other clubs, and closer to home, seem to be deliberately avoiding is that this is seemingly no Phoenix. It is not the same old faces finding a way to free themselves of the debt and starting over with an unfair advantage having screwed he creditors. It is instead someone seemingly totally unconnected doing precisely what is envisaged by the rescue culture that was introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002 - buying a going concern (despite the actions of the administrators in sacking the key staff rendering it less so) and seeking to save a business, and jobs, and take it forward instead of wind-up. So why the attacks on the new owner for doing precisely what the legislation hoped for and envisaged is something that escapes me.
.
I have seen various comments about the club having its allocation of Sky and central funding cut in future as a consequence of the insolvency and the price of staying in SL. Something I see never happened to Wakefield, even though I believe I read that Glover only paid off a relatively small amount of local creditors? Maybe we will see more yet on the creditors issue?
.
I cannot fathom why it took nearly a month between P&A's advice being sought (assuming it had not already been sought) and the new board filing the notice of intention to appoint a dministrators. That seems far too long too me.
.
I am perplexed at why the administrators' report makes no reference to the change of directors in early May, nor of the actions and statements by certain shareholders to bring that about. If you were a creditor not familiar with this sorry soap opera, you would never guess from that report that such momentous changes had taken place shortly before the insolvency.
.
The £72 per season ticket is indeed stated in the report. Given I paid £127 for my stand ticket, I presume this is an average including kids tickets and concessions. What a "normal" average is was never stated, but if we had just over 10,000 season ticket holders then you would assume the take from those was just under £3/4m, inclusive of VAT of course...
.
Had the Intervention not taken place, would the old board have somehow managed to avoid administration? If I play around with the numbers I have, I can see how maybe they might have, with a load of winging it probably - it would certainly have needed that additional £1/2m that was stated, and that of course presupposes that they could have raised it. We know that they DID have sources they were pursuing, but it is far from clear whether they would have succeeded had the intervention not taken place. I suspect they might have somehow, but we would have seen key players sold and a much-reduced 2013 squad same as we are likely now to see anyway. But who now knows? Others who have been closely involved state that insolvency was in their view unavoidable. So take your pick. What is surely clear is that we could not have been in any worse situation than that which subsequently ensued following the Intervention? But it is now all academic, other than for any former shareholders who might want to pursue any former directors personally for reasons best known to themselves. I just hope we have seen the last of all the former major shareholders, who have none of them exactly covered themselves in glory throughout this whole sorry, sad affair.

OK, just some thoughts, and far from comprehensive, since my name seems to have been mentioned in dispatches.
Various points made by Alfucham in this thread. Much pretty factual and objective IMO. Some warranting further comment on. . What "Forensic Report"? Unless someone has commissioned one and is paying for one, in which case presumably to have a go at former directors financially for some contribution? . The report by the administrator to the authorities does not get made public, neither does that by the eventual liquidator (who will be the same people according to the proposals by the former). . The bank overdraft was not guaranteed by three directors, to the best of my knowledge. I believe at least one was not party to any guarantee - or he was a bloody fool if he was. . The bank overdraft WAS secured by a floating charge though. Given the Preferential Creditors, ranking ahead of the bank, total £42k, and then the bank ranks ahead of everyone else, how could repaying the bank amount to a fraudulent preference? They would be paid first in an insolvency anyway, after the Prefs. . It anyway was not a case of actually repaying the bank, as far as I know? The bank merely reduced the facility by the amount of monies paid in? That effectively meant that, until and unless the club could find another bank account to pay monies into, the bank repaid itself every time any monies were banked. As is so often the case. The bank was in any case in a position to initiate insolvency proceedings had it not been paid off, and would have been paid ahead of the mass of the creditors anyway had that happened. . It is not clear how much of the bank debt had been recovered by the bank before the pledge was called in. To the extent that it had been recovered, I cannot see how the then directors could be exposed. They may be more vulnerable for possible fraudulent preference for any repayment out of the pledge monies, but given the bank had first call on the assets anyway I think any liquidator would struggle to win such an action. However, I would certainly expect it to be an area to be looked at. . The motion put to the EGM as I understand it was to remove the directors and appoint replacements. It was not to require the directors to explain their actions and intentions. The evictors would have people believe the latter was their real intent, and one of them has told me that. I hope they will understand when I say I find that hard to believe, given both Caisley's public denunciation of the board and the Motion wording? From what I heard from two of the then directors, they were quite clear that the evictors had a majority and they were sure they were indeed going to remove them. But you would need to ask them. I have always assumed that this, being announced just before the pledge closed, had much to do with the subsequent failure to follow through after the pledge. We could do with hearing more of their side of it, and their explanations, since all we have to go on so far is speculation and what snippets some of us may have picked up from talking to key protagonists. . I was not surprised at the scale of the debt. Indeed, the amount stated as due to HMRC and some others is less than I expected and I wonder about the completeness of the creditors list as a result, but that is for others. I WAS surprised at the amount due to the Tong landlord. Much more than I expected, especially given that a landlord can distrain for unpaid rent. I would also have been surprised at the identity of the third largest creditor, thus far unnamed, had I not already had an idea of it. But overall, the reported debts are a little less than I was expecting to see, remembering that some of them like employee entitlements crystallise on insolvency. . I share the views of those who are angry at the loss to especially the small, local suppliers. I have been on record for years as a strong opposer of prepacks and phoenixes where essentially the same owners or managers seem to be able to shed their debts and start up again doing just the same thing. That was one reason why I was violently opposed to the possibility of any of the former shareholders doing precisely that via the administration route. That it seemingly never happened that way may be because it was never going to, or because it was effectively stymied. Personally, I was sure that when the joint administrators sacked all the key staff they cannot have thought the club could continue as a going concern, and so must surely have been expecting an imminent bid. Their actions made no sense whatsoever to me otherwise. Either way, we all saw that no such bid was forthcoming, with the very profound consequences we have all seen. . A key issue that all the holier than thou types from certain other clubs, and closer to home, seem to be deliberately avoiding is that this is seemingly no Phoenix. It is not the same old faces finding a way to free themselves of the debt and starting over with an unfair advantage having screwed he creditors. It is instead someone seemingly totally unconnected doing precisely what is envisaged by the rescue culture that was introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002 - buying a going concern (despite the actions of the administrators in sacking the key staff rendering it less so) and seeking to save a business, and jobs, and take it forward instead of wind-up. So why the attacks on the new owner for doing precisely what the legislation hoped for and envisaged is something that escapes me. . I have seen various comments about the club having its allocation of Sky and central funding cut in future as a consequence of the insolvency and the price of staying in SL. Something I see never happened to Wakefield, even though I believe I read that Glover only paid off a relatively small amount of local creditors? Maybe we will see more yet on the creditors issue? . I cannot fathom why it took nearly a month between P&A's advice being sought (assuming it had not already been sought) and the new board filing the notice of intention to appoint a dministrators. That seems far too long too me. . I am perplexed at why the administrators' report makes no reference to the change of directors in early May, nor of the actions and statements by certain shareholders to bring that about. If you were a creditor not familiar with this sorry soap opera, you would never guess from that report that such momentous changes had taken place shortly before the insolvency. . The £72 per season ticket is indeed stated in the report. Given I paid £127 for my stand ticket, I presume this is an average including kids tickets and concessions. What a "normal" average is was never stated, but if we had just over 10,000 season ticket holders then you would assume the take from those was just under £3/4m, inclusive of VAT of course... . Had the Intervention not taken place, would the old board have somehow managed to avoid administration? If I play around with the numbers I have, I can see how maybe they might have, with a load of winging it probably - it would certainly have needed that additional £1/2m that was stated, and that of course presupposes that they could have raised it. We know that they DID have sources they were pursuing, but it is far from clear whether they would have succeeded had the intervention not taken place. I suspect they might have somehow, but we would have seen key players sold and a much-reduced 2013 squad same as we are likely now to see anyway. But who now knows? Others who have been closely involved state that insolvency was in their view unavoidable. So take your pick. What is surely clear is that we could not have been in any worse situation than that which subsequently ensued following the Intervention? But it is now all academic, other than for any former shareholders who might want to pursue any former directors personally for reasons best known to themselves. I just hope we have seen the last of all the former major shareholders, who have none of them exactly covered themselves in glory throughout this whole sorry, sad affair. OK, just some thoughts, and far from comprehensive, since my name seems to have been mentioned in dispatches. Adeybull

6:58pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Correctness says...

Adeybull wrote:
Various points made by Alfucham in this thread. Much pretty factual and objective IMO. Some warranting further comment on. . What "Forensic Report"? Unless someone has commissioned one and is paying for one, in which case presumably to have a go at former directors financially for some contribution? . The report by the administrator to the authorities does not get made public, neither does that by the eventual liquidator (who will be the same people according to the proposals by the former). . The bank overdraft was not guaranteed by three directors, to the best of my knowledge. I believe at least one was not party to any guarantee - or he was a bloody fool if he was. . The bank overdraft WAS secured by a floating charge though. Given the Preferential Creditors, ranking ahead of the bank, total £42k, and then the bank ranks ahead of everyone else, how could repaying the bank amount to a fraudulent preference? They would be paid first in an insolvency anyway, after the Prefs. . It anyway was not a case of actually repaying the bank, as far as I know? The bank merely reduced the facility by the amount of monies paid in? That effectively meant that, until and unless the club could find another bank account to pay monies into, the bank repaid itself every time any monies were banked. As is so often the case. The bank was in any case in a position to initiate insolvency proceedings had it not been paid off, and would have been paid ahead of the mass of the creditors anyway had that happened. . It is not clear how much of the bank debt had been recovered by the bank before the pledge was called in. To the extent that it had been recovered, I cannot see how the then directors could be exposed. They may be more vulnerable for possible fraudulent preference for any repayment out of the pledge monies, but given the bank had first call on the assets anyway I think any liquidator would struggle to win such an action. However, I would certainly expect it to be an area to be looked at. . The motion put to the EGM as I understand it was to remove the directors and appoint replacements. It was not to require the directors to explain their actions and intentions. The evictors would have people believe the latter was their real intent, and one of them has told me that. I hope they will understand when I say I find that hard to believe, given both Caisley's public denunciation of the board and the Motion wording? From what I heard from two of the then directors, they were quite clear that the evictors had a majority and they were sure they were indeed going to remove them. But you would need to ask them. I have always assumed that this, being announced just before the pledge closed, had much to do with the subsequent failure to follow through after the pledge. We could do with hearing more of their side of it, and their explanations, since all we have to go on so far is speculation and what snippets some of us may have picked up from talking to key protagonists. . I was not surprised at the scale of the debt. Indeed, the amount stated as due to HMRC and some others is less than I expected and I wonder about the completeness of the creditors list as a result, but that is for others. I WAS surprised at the amount due to the Tong landlord. Much more than I expected, especially given that a landlord can distrain for unpaid rent. I would also have been surprised at the identity of the third largest creditor, thus far unnamed, had I not already had an idea of it. But overall, the reported debts are a little less than I was expecting to see, remembering that some of them like employee entitlements crystallise on insolvency. . I share the views of those who are angry at the loss to especially the small, local suppliers. I have been on record for years as a strong opposer of prepacks and phoenixes where essentially the same owners or managers seem to be able to shed their debts and start up again doing just the same thing. That was one reason why I was violently opposed to the possibility of any of the former shareholders doing precisely that via the administration route. That it seemingly never happened that way may be because it was never going to, or because it was effectively stymied. Personally, I was sure that when the joint administrators sacked all the key staff they cannot have thought the club could continue as a going concern, and so must surely have been expecting an imminent bid. Their actions made no sense whatsoever to me otherwise. Either way, we all saw that no such bid was forthcoming, with the very profound consequences we have all seen. . A key issue that all the holier than thou types from certain other clubs, and closer to home, seem to be deliberately avoiding is that this is seemingly no Phoenix. It is not the same old faces finding a way to free themselves of the debt and starting over with an unfair advantage having screwed he creditors. It is instead someone seemingly totally unconnected doing precisely what is envisaged by the rescue culture that was introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002 - buying a going concern (despite the actions of the administrators in sacking the key staff rendering it less so) and seeking to save a business, and jobs, and take it forward instead of wind-up. So why the attacks on the new owner for doing precisely what the legislation hoped for and envisaged is something that escapes me. . I have seen various comments about the club having its allocation of Sky and central funding cut in future as a consequence of the insolvency and the price of staying in SL. Something I see never happened to Wakefield, even though I believe I read that Glover only paid off a relatively small amount of local creditors? Maybe we will see more yet on the creditors issue? . I cannot fathom why it took nearly a month between P&A's advice being sought (assuming it had not already been sought) and the new board filing the notice of intention to appoint a dministrators. That seems far too long too me. . I am perplexed at why the administrators' report makes no reference to the change of directors in early May, nor of the actions and statements by certain shareholders to bring that about. If you were a creditor not familiar with this sorry soap opera, you would never guess from that report that such momentous changes had taken place shortly before the insolvency. . The £72 per season ticket is indeed stated in the report. Given I paid £127 for my stand ticket, I presume this is an average including kids tickets and concessions. What a "normal" average is was never stated, but if we had just over 10,000 season ticket holders then you would assume the take from those was just under £3/4m, inclusive of VAT of course... . Had the Intervention not taken place, would the old board have somehow managed to avoid administration? If I play around with the numbers I have, I can see how maybe they might have, with a load of winging it probably - it would certainly have needed that additional £1/2m that was stated, and that of course presupposes that they could have raised it. We know that they DID have sources they were pursuing, but it is far from clear whether they would have succeeded had the intervention not taken place. I suspect they might have somehow, but we would have seen key players sold and a much-reduced 2013 squad same as we are likely now to see anyway. But who now knows? Others who have been closely involved state that insolvency was in their view unavoidable. So take your pick. What is surely clear is that we could not have been in any worse situation than that which subsequently ensued following the Intervention? But it is now all academic, other than for any former shareholders who might want to pursue any former directors personally for reasons best known to themselves. I just hope we have seen the last of all the former major shareholders, who have none of them exactly covered themselves in glory throughout this whole sorry, sad affair. OK, just some thoughts, and far from comprehensive, since my name seems to have been mentioned in dispatches.
Veral Diehorreahiorhoeri, sorry shxt.
[quote][p][bold]Adeybull[/bold] wrote: Various points made by Alfucham in this thread. Much pretty factual and objective IMO. Some warranting further comment on. . What "Forensic Report"? Unless someone has commissioned one and is paying for one, in which case presumably to have a go at former directors financially for some contribution? . The report by the administrator to the authorities does not get made public, neither does that by the eventual liquidator (who will be the same people according to the proposals by the former). . The bank overdraft was not guaranteed by three directors, to the best of my knowledge. I believe at least one was not party to any guarantee - or he was a bloody fool if he was. . The bank overdraft WAS secured by a floating charge though. Given the Preferential Creditors, ranking ahead of the bank, total £42k, and then the bank ranks ahead of everyone else, how could repaying the bank amount to a fraudulent preference? They would be paid first in an insolvency anyway, after the Prefs. . It anyway was not a case of actually repaying the bank, as far as I know? The bank merely reduced the facility by the amount of monies paid in? That effectively meant that, until and unless the club could find another bank account to pay monies into, the bank repaid itself every time any monies were banked. As is so often the case. The bank was in any case in a position to initiate insolvency proceedings had it not been paid off, and would have been paid ahead of the mass of the creditors anyway had that happened. . It is not clear how much of the bank debt had been recovered by the bank before the pledge was called in. To the extent that it had been recovered, I cannot see how the then directors could be exposed. They may be more vulnerable for possible fraudulent preference for any repayment out of the pledge monies, but given the bank had first call on the assets anyway I think any liquidator would struggle to win such an action. However, I would certainly expect it to be an area to be looked at. . The motion put to the EGM as I understand it was to remove the directors and appoint replacements. It was not to require the directors to explain their actions and intentions. The evictors would have people believe the latter was their real intent, and one of them has told me that. I hope they will understand when I say I find that hard to believe, given both Caisley's public denunciation of the board and the Motion wording? From what I heard from two of the then directors, they were quite clear that the evictors had a majority and they were sure they were indeed going to remove them. But you would need to ask them. I have always assumed that this, being announced just before the pledge closed, had much to do with the subsequent failure to follow through after the pledge. We could do with hearing more of their side of it, and their explanations, since all we have to go on so far is speculation and what snippets some of us may have picked up from talking to key protagonists. . I was not surprised at the scale of the debt. Indeed, the amount stated as due to HMRC and some others is less than I expected and I wonder about the completeness of the creditors list as a result, but that is for others. I WAS surprised at the amount due to the Tong landlord. Much more than I expected, especially given that a landlord can distrain for unpaid rent. I would also have been surprised at the identity of the third largest creditor, thus far unnamed, had I not already had an idea of it. But overall, the reported debts are a little less than I was expecting to see, remembering that some of them like employee entitlements crystallise on insolvency. . I share the views of those who are angry at the loss to especially the small, local suppliers. I have been on record for years as a strong opposer of prepacks and phoenixes where essentially the same owners or managers seem to be able to shed their debts and start up again doing just the same thing. That was one reason why I was violently opposed to the possibility of any of the former shareholders doing precisely that via the administration route. That it seemingly never happened that way may be because it was never going to, or because it was effectively stymied. Personally, I was sure that when the joint administrators sacked all the key staff they cannot have thought the club could continue as a going concern, and so must surely have been expecting an imminent bid. Their actions made no sense whatsoever to me otherwise. Either way, we all saw that no such bid was forthcoming, with the very profound consequences we have all seen. . A key issue that all the holier than thou types from certain other clubs, and closer to home, seem to be deliberately avoiding is that this is seemingly no Phoenix. It is not the same old faces finding a way to free themselves of the debt and starting over with an unfair advantage having screwed he creditors. It is instead someone seemingly totally unconnected doing precisely what is envisaged by the rescue culture that was introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002 - buying a going concern (despite the actions of the administrators in sacking the key staff rendering it less so) and seeking to save a business, and jobs, and take it forward instead of wind-up. So why the attacks on the new owner for doing precisely what the legislation hoped for and envisaged is something that escapes me. . I have seen various comments about the club having its allocation of Sky and central funding cut in future as a consequence of the insolvency and the price of staying in SL. Something I see never happened to Wakefield, even though I believe I read that Glover only paid off a relatively small amount of local creditors? Maybe we will see more yet on the creditors issue? . I cannot fathom why it took nearly a month between P&A's advice being sought (assuming it had not already been sought) and the new board filing the notice of intention to appoint a dministrators. That seems far too long too me. . I am perplexed at why the administrators' report makes no reference to the change of directors in early May, nor of the actions and statements by certain shareholders to bring that about. If you were a creditor not familiar with this sorry soap opera, you would never guess from that report that such momentous changes had taken place shortly before the insolvency. . The £72 per season ticket is indeed stated in the report. Given I paid £127 for my stand ticket, I presume this is an average including kids tickets and concessions. What a "normal" average is was never stated, but if we had just over 10,000 season ticket holders then you would assume the take from those was just under £3/4m, inclusive of VAT of course... . Had the Intervention not taken place, would the old board have somehow managed to avoid administration? If I play around with the numbers I have, I can see how maybe they might have, with a load of winging it probably - it would certainly have needed that additional £1/2m that was stated, and that of course presupposes that they could have raised it. We know that they DID have sources they were pursuing, but it is far from clear whether they would have succeeded had the intervention not taken place. I suspect they might have somehow, but we would have seen key players sold and a much-reduced 2013 squad same as we are likely now to see anyway. But who now knows? Others who have been closely involved state that insolvency was in their view unavoidable. So take your pick. What is surely clear is that we could not have been in any worse situation than that which subsequently ensued following the Intervention? But it is now all academic, other than for any former shareholders who might want to pursue any former directors personally for reasons best known to themselves. I just hope we have seen the last of all the former major shareholders, who have none of them exactly covered themselves in glory throughout this whole sorry, sad affair. OK, just some thoughts, and far from comprehensive, since my name seems to have been mentioned in dispatches.[/p][/quote]Veral Diehorreahiorhoeri, sorry shxt. Correctness

6:59pm Sun 9 Sep 12

theviking62 says...

What's gone on in the past, is surely now in the past. We are OK Holdings and as such we need to move forward, for the good of the club, supporters and staff/players.

In this we need the RFL to make a decision ASAP.

We have a " close season " to do this in.

Whilst I have every sympathy for those involved, having gone down that road myself. I feel that any further talk on creditors, past board members, be confined to the those persons involved. Because as supporters what can we do?

Like the 2012 season it as become a part of history. Something that can never be changed.
What's gone on in the past, is surely now in the past. We are OK Holdings and as such we need to move forward, for the good of the club, supporters and staff/players. In this we need the RFL to make a decision ASAP. We have a " close season " to do this in. Whilst I have every sympathy for those involved, having gone down that road myself. I feel that any further talk on creditors, past board members, be confined to the those persons involved. Because as supporters what can we do? Like the 2012 season it as become a part of history. Something that can never be changed. theviking62

7:03pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Adeybull says...

The losses were reported at maybe £100k/month not £200k.
.
Directors are unlikely to found culpable if they continued to trade the business - which means paying employees - while they had reasonable grounds to believe they could avoid insolvency. from what we are told, the directors were landed with an insolvency event in March. Hood and Bennett left office early May. If anything, the credititors' position may have improved over that few weeks, because of the pledge receipts.
.
Had the directors - whether the pre- or post-Intervention lot - chosen to stop paying the employees, they would have been in breach of contract and probably precipitated insolvency anyway. but with the crucial difference that they would have added maybe over £1m to the list of creditors!!! as it is, the new owners have asumed that horrendous liability under the TUPE rules. So any argument that the directors were guilty of a fraudulent preference by continuing to pay the players is unlikely to get very far IMO.
.
I see the identity of the third largest creditor has now been stated, as have IMO very understandable concerns over the amount. I feel sure this is something that could be looked into.
.
I will continue to refrain from expressing an opinion on the conduct of the joint administrators. I would however suggest the creditors seek to appoint someone different as liquidator though, if they feel the administrator may have questions to answer as Alfucham suggests?
The losses were reported at maybe £100k/month not £200k. . Directors are unlikely to found culpable if they continued to trade the business - which means paying employees - while they had reasonable grounds to believe they could avoid insolvency. from what we are told, the directors were landed with an insolvency event in March. Hood and Bennett left office early May. If anything, the credititors' position may have improved over that few weeks, because of the pledge receipts. . Had the directors - whether the pre- or post-Intervention lot - chosen to stop paying the employees, they would have been in breach of contract and probably precipitated insolvency anyway. but with the crucial difference that they would have added maybe over £1m to the list of creditors!!! as it is, the new owners have asumed that horrendous liability under the TUPE rules. So any argument that the directors were guilty of a fraudulent preference by continuing to pay the players is unlikely to get very far IMO. . I see the identity of the third largest creditor has now been stated, as have IMO very understandable concerns over the amount. I feel sure this is something that could be looked into. . I will continue to refrain from expressing an opinion on the conduct of the joint administrators. I would however suggest the creditors seek to appoint someone different as liquidator though, if they feel the administrator may have questions to answer as Alfucham suggests? Adeybull

7:06pm Sun 9 Sep 12

theviking62 says...

Correctness, whilst you and your like have very little respect for anyone on here or the city site. At least respect yourself, which you obviously don't.


We respect you. Why? I can hear you asking. Why, indeed, because what you write gives us all a bloody laugh and that people like you exist, is in itself bloody hilarious.
Correctness, whilst you and your like have very little respect for anyone on here or the city site. At least respect yourself, which you obviously don't. We respect you. Why? I can hear you asking. Why, indeed, because what you write gives us all a bloody laugh and that people like you exist, is in itself bloody hilarious. theviking62

7:28pm Sun 9 Sep 12

raisemeup says...

Adeybull wrote:
Various points made by Alfucham in this thread. Much pretty factual and objective IMO. Some warranting further comment on.
.
What "Forensic Report"? Unless someone has commissioned one and is paying for one, in which case presumably to have a go at former directors financially for some contribution?
.
The report by the administrator to the authorities does not get made public, neither does that by the eventual liquidator (who will be the same people according to the proposals by the former).
.
The bank overdraft was not guaranteed by three directors, to the best of my knowledge. I believe at least one was not party to any guarantee - or he was a bloody fool if he was.
.
The bank overdraft WAS secured by a floating charge though. Given the Preferential Creditors, ranking ahead of the bank, total £42k, and then the bank ranks ahead of everyone else, how could repaying the bank amount to a fraudulent preference? They would be paid first in an insolvency anyway, after the Prefs.
.
It anyway was not a case of actually repaying the bank, as far as I know? The bank merely reduced the facility by the amount of monies paid in? That effectively meant that, until and unless the club could find another bank account to pay monies into, the bank repaid itself every time any monies were banked. As is so often the case. The bank was in any case in a position to initiate insolvency proceedings had it not been paid off, and would have been paid ahead of the mass of the creditors anyway had that happened.
.
It is not clear how much of the bank debt had been recovered by the bank before the pledge was called in. To the extent that it had been recovered, I cannot see how the then directors could be exposed. They may be more vulnerable for possible fraudulent preference for any repayment out of the pledge monies, but given the bank had first call on the assets anyway I think any liquidator would struggle to win such an action. However, I would certainly expect it to be an area to be looked at.
.
The motion put to the EGM as I understand it was to remove the directors and appoint replacements. It was not to require the directors to explain their actions and intentions. The evictors would have people believe the latter was their real intent, and one of them has told me that. I hope they will understand when I say I find that hard to believe, given both Caisley's public denunciation of the board and the Motion wording? From what I heard from two of the then directors, they were quite clear that the evictors had a majority and they were sure they were indeed going to remove them. But you would need to ask them. I have always assumed that this, being announced just before the pledge closed, had much to do with the subsequent failure to follow through after the pledge. We could do with hearing more of their side of it, and their explanations, since all we have to go on so far is speculation and what snippets some of us may have picked up from talking to key protagonists.
.
I was not surprised at the scale of the debt. Indeed, the amount stated as due to HMRC and some others is less than I expected and I wonder about the completeness of the creditors list as a result, but that is for others. I WAS surprised at the amount due to the Tong landlord. Much more than I expected, especially given that a landlord can distrain for unpaid rent. I would also have been surprised at the identity of the third largest creditor, thus far unnamed, had I not already had an idea of it. But overall, the reported debts are a little less than I was expecting to see, remembering that some of them like employee entitlements crystallise on insolvency.
.
I share the views of those who are angry at the loss to especially the small, local suppliers. I have been on record for years as a strong opposer of prepacks and phoenixes where essentially the same owners or managers seem to be able to shed their debts and start up again doing just the same thing. That was one reason why I was violently opposed to the possibility of any of the former shareholders doing precisely that via the administration route. That it seemingly never happened that way may be because it was never going to, or because it was effectively stymied. Personally, I was sure that when the joint administrators sacked all the key staff they cannot have thought the club could continue as a going concern, and so must surely have been expecting an imminent bid. Their actions made no sense whatsoever to me otherwise. Either way, we all saw that no such bid was forthcoming, with the very profound consequences we have all seen.
.
A key issue that all the holier than thou types from certain other clubs, and closer to home, seem to be deliberately avoiding is that this is seemingly no Phoenix. It is not the same old faces finding a way to free themselves of the debt and starting over with an unfair advantage having screwed he creditors. It is instead someone seemingly totally unconnected doing precisely what is envisaged by the rescue culture that was introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002 - buying a going concern (despite the actions of the administrators in sacking the key staff rendering it less so) and seeking to save a business, and jobs, and take it forward instead of wind-up. So why the attacks on the new owner for doing precisely what the legislation hoped for and envisaged is something that escapes me.
.
I have seen various comments about the club having its allocation of Sky and central funding cut in future as a consequence of the insolvency and the price of staying in SL. Something I see never happened to Wakefield, even though I believe I read that Glover only paid off a relatively small amount of local creditors? Maybe we will see more yet on the creditors issue?
.
I cannot fathom why it took nearly a month between P&A's advice being sought (assuming it had not already been sought) and the new board filing the notice of intention to appoint a dministrators. That seems far too long too me.
.
I am perplexed at why the administrators' report makes no reference to the change of directors in early May, nor of the actions and statements by certain shareholders to bring that about. If you were a creditor not familiar with this sorry soap opera, you would never guess from that report that such momentous changes had taken place shortly before the insolvency.
.
The £72 per season ticket is indeed stated in the report. Given I paid £127 for my stand ticket, I presume this is an average including kids tickets and concessions. What a "normal" average is was never stated, but if we had just over 10,000 season ticket holders then you would assume the take from those was just under £3/4m, inclusive of VAT of course...
.
Had the Intervention not taken place, would the old board have somehow managed to avoid administration? If I play around with the numbers I have, I can see how maybe they might have, with a load of winging it probably - it would certainly have needed that additional £1/2m that was stated, and that of course presupposes that they could have raised it. We know that they DID have sources they were pursuing, but it is far from clear whether they would have succeeded had the intervention not taken place. I suspect they might have somehow, but we would have seen key players sold and a much-reduced 2013 squad same as we are likely now to see anyway. But who now knows? Others who have been closely involved state that insolvency was in their view unavoidable. So take your pick. What is surely clear is that we could not have been in any worse situation than that which subsequently ensued following the Intervention? But it is now all academic, other than for any former shareholders who might want to pursue any former directors personally for reasons best known to themselves. I just hope we have seen the last of all the former major shareholders, who have none of them exactly covered themselves in glory throughout this whole sorry, sad affair.

OK, just some thoughts, and far from comprehensive, since my name seems to have been mentioned in dispatches.
Phew Adey, glad I didn't have to think that lot out. Essentially as you really say It's all academic now...but it's been a bloody mess, and certainly made more protracted by the Club versus RFL as nearly joint owners in the business.
OK Bulls has only just scratched the surface hasn't he, but the OK consortium must know what they have bought.
As for paying off creditors, where would the cash come from and who would be the first in the Q ?

Morally we all feel agrieved that they aren't being paid...but as I've said before if the club had been totally wound up, they still wouldn't have got paid.

We are supporters and all we can do is, support> Let's hope we know get some Directors who Direct.

Kind Regards and thanks for your valueable input.
[quote][p][bold]Adeybull[/bold] wrote: Various points made by Alfucham in this thread. Much pretty factual and objective IMO. Some warranting further comment on. . What "Forensic Report"? Unless someone has commissioned one and is paying for one, in which case presumably to have a go at former directors financially for some contribution? . The report by the administrator to the authorities does not get made public, neither does that by the eventual liquidator (who will be the same people according to the proposals by the former). . The bank overdraft was not guaranteed by three directors, to the best of my knowledge. I believe at least one was not party to any guarantee - or he was a bloody fool if he was. . The bank overdraft WAS secured by a floating charge though. Given the Preferential Creditors, ranking ahead of the bank, total £42k, and then the bank ranks ahead of everyone else, how could repaying the bank amount to a fraudulent preference? They would be paid first in an insolvency anyway, after the Prefs. . It anyway was not a case of actually repaying the bank, as far as I know? The bank merely reduced the facility by the amount of monies paid in? That effectively meant that, until and unless the club could find another bank account to pay monies into, the bank repaid itself every time any monies were banked. As is so often the case. The bank was in any case in a position to initiate insolvency proceedings had it not been paid off, and would have been paid ahead of the mass of the creditors anyway had that happened. . It is not clear how much of the bank debt had been recovered by the bank before the pledge was called in. To the extent that it had been recovered, I cannot see how the then directors could be exposed. They may be more vulnerable for possible fraudulent preference for any repayment out of the pledge monies, but given the bank had first call on the assets anyway I think any liquidator would struggle to win such an action. However, I would certainly expect it to be an area to be looked at. . The motion put to the EGM as I understand it was to remove the directors and appoint replacements. It was not to require the directors to explain their actions and intentions. The evictors would have people believe the latter was their real intent, and one of them has told me that. I hope they will understand when I say I find that hard to believe, given both Caisley's public denunciation of the board and the Motion wording? From what I heard from two of the then directors, they were quite clear that the evictors had a majority and they were sure they were indeed going to remove them. But you would need to ask them. I have always assumed that this, being announced just before the pledge closed, had much to do with the subsequent failure to follow through after the pledge. We could do with hearing more of their side of it, and their explanations, since all we have to go on so far is speculation and what snippets some of us may have picked up from talking to key protagonists. . I was not surprised at the scale of the debt. Indeed, the amount stated as due to HMRC and some others is less than I expected and I wonder about the completeness of the creditors list as a result, but that is for others. I WAS surprised at the amount due to the Tong landlord. Much more than I expected, especially given that a landlord can distrain for unpaid rent. I would also have been surprised at the identity of the third largest creditor, thus far unnamed, had I not already had an idea of it. But overall, the reported debts are a little less than I was expecting to see, remembering that some of them like employee entitlements crystallise on insolvency. . I share the views of those who are angry at the loss to especially the small, local suppliers. I have been on record for years as a strong opposer of prepacks and phoenixes where essentially the same owners or managers seem to be able to shed their debts and start up again doing just the same thing. That was one reason why I was violently opposed to the possibility of any of the former shareholders doing precisely that via the administration route. That it seemingly never happened that way may be because it was never going to, or because it was effectively stymied. Personally, I was sure that when the joint administrators sacked all the key staff they cannot have thought the club could continue as a going concern, and so must surely have been expecting an imminent bid. Their actions made no sense whatsoever to me otherwise. Either way, we all saw that no such bid was forthcoming, with the very profound consequences we have all seen. . A key issue that all the holier than thou types from certain other clubs, and closer to home, seem to be deliberately avoiding is that this is seemingly no Phoenix. It is not the same old faces finding a way to free themselves of the debt and starting over with an unfair advantage having screwed he creditors. It is instead someone seemingly totally unconnected doing precisely what is envisaged by the rescue culture that was introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002 - buying a going concern (despite the actions of the administrators in sacking the key staff rendering it less so) and seeking to save a business, and jobs, and take it forward instead of wind-up. So why the attacks on the new owner for doing precisely what the legislation hoped for and envisaged is something that escapes me. . I have seen various comments about the club having its allocation of Sky and central funding cut in future as a consequence of the insolvency and the price of staying in SL. Something I see never happened to Wakefield, even though I believe I read that Glover only paid off a relatively small amount of local creditors? Maybe we will see more yet on the creditors issue? . I cannot fathom why it took nearly a month between P&A's advice being sought (assuming it had not already been sought) and the new board filing the notice of intention to appoint a dministrators. That seems far too long too me. . I am perplexed at why the administrators' report makes no reference to the change of directors in early May, nor of the actions and statements by certain shareholders to bring that about. If you were a creditor not familiar with this sorry soap opera, you would never guess from that report that such momentous changes had taken place shortly before the insolvency. . The £72 per season ticket is indeed stated in the report. Given I paid £127 for my stand ticket, I presume this is an average including kids tickets and concessions. What a "normal" average is was never stated, but if we had just over 10,000 season ticket holders then you would assume the take from those was just under £3/4m, inclusive of VAT of course... . Had the Intervention not taken place, would the old board have somehow managed to avoid administration? If I play around with the numbers I have, I can see how maybe they might have, with a load of winging it probably - it would certainly have needed that additional £1/2m that was stated, and that of course presupposes that they could have raised it. We know that they DID have sources they were pursuing, but it is far from clear whether they would have succeeded had the intervention not taken place. I suspect they might have somehow, but we would have seen key players sold and a much-reduced 2013 squad same as we are likely now to see anyway. But who now knows? Others who have been closely involved state that insolvency was in their view unavoidable. So take your pick. What is surely clear is that we could not have been in any worse situation than that which subsequently ensued following the Intervention? But it is now all academic, other than for any former shareholders who might want to pursue any former directors personally for reasons best known to themselves. I just hope we have seen the last of all the former major shareholders, who have none of them exactly covered themselves in glory throughout this whole sorry, sad affair. OK, just some thoughts, and far from comprehensive, since my name seems to have been mentioned in dispatches.[/p][/quote]Phew Adey, glad I didn't have to think that lot out. Essentially as you really say It's all academic now...but it's been a bloody mess, and certainly made more protracted by the Club versus RFL as nearly joint owners in the business. OK Bulls has only just scratched the surface hasn't he, but the OK consortium must know what they have bought. As for paying off creditors, where would the cash come from and who would be the first in the Q ? Morally we all feel agrieved that they aren't being paid...but as I've said before if the club had been totally wound up, they still wouldn't have got paid. We are supporters and all we can do is, support> Let's hope we know get some Directors who Direct. Kind Regards and thanks for your valueable input. raisemeup

8:06pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Adeybull says...

alfucham wrote:
Sheffieldbull wrote:
With a user name like 'alfucham' (work it out) I thought it could be either of our past two Chairman, still not convinced it might not be one of em!
Let me convince you that I have nothing but despair in my thouhts as to how this loss making has continued to be ongoing over many years by those two.

And yes my user name is a reflection of the outrage felt towards them now.

The amount owed to county caterers sums things up.

Provision of pink champagne and canopes.
Whatever happened to jellied eels and a two week growler with hammonds brown sauce

Right now I despise those in charge that led the club this way.

How can other clubs have as high a wage bill on crowds as low as they get.

I doubt they have.
In fairness, you might want to ask the likes of Huddersfield and others who are spending the salary cap on lower crowds than us.

Bulls crowds are actually quite high by comparison with the average for the competition.

Go have a look at the accounts of clubs like Hudds, Saints and London. Tyese clubs lost far, far more than we did. For the past few years, until 2010, Bulls were one of the better-performing clubs financially. At one point they were one of only two reporting profits.

There IS a huge issue, in that the club - under its previous chairman - spent the money received from the Odsal settlement far, far earlier than it should have. I warned at the time it would end in tears, and it did.

But there is a far bigger issue again, in that most of the "top" SL clubs are surviving only because of the largesse of their wealthy owners (NOT Leeds, btw - who IMO have come out of all this with their reputation immeasurably enhanced). Bulls problem has been we have never had a sugar daddy.

Watch this space. The spending arms race may see off Wilkinson and Wright pretty soon IMO, and the likes of Hudgell and Hughes cannot be far behind? Hood said the whole competition was built on foundations of sand. IMO on that, at least, he was correct.
[quote][p][bold]alfucham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sheffieldbull[/bold] wrote: With a user name like 'alfucham' (work it out) I thought it could be either of our past two Chairman, still not convinced it might not be one of em![/p][/quote]Let me convince you that I have nothing but despair in my thouhts as to how this loss making has continued to be ongoing over many years by those two. And yes my user name is a reflection of the outrage felt towards them now. The amount owed to county caterers sums things up. Provision of pink champagne and canopes. Whatever happened to jellied eels and a two week growler with hammonds brown sauce Right now I despise those in charge that led the club this way. How can other clubs have as high a wage bill on crowds as low as they get. I doubt they have.[/p][/quote]In fairness, you might want to ask the likes of Huddersfield and others who are spending the salary cap on lower crowds than us. Bulls crowds are actually quite high by comparison with the average for the competition. Go have a look at the accounts of clubs like Hudds, Saints and London. Tyese clubs lost far, far more than we did. For the past few years, until 2010, Bulls were one of the better-performing clubs financially. At one point they were one of only two reporting profits. There IS a huge issue, in that the club - under its previous chairman - spent the money received from the Odsal settlement far, far earlier than it should have. I warned at the time it would end in tears, and it did. But there is a far bigger issue again, in that most of the "top" SL clubs are surviving only because of the largesse of their wealthy owners (NOT Leeds, btw - who IMO have come out of all this with their reputation immeasurably enhanced). Bulls problem has been we have never had a sugar daddy. Watch this space. The spending arms race may see off Wilkinson and Wright pretty soon IMO, and the likes of Hudgell and Hughes cannot be far behind? Hood said the whole competition was built on foundations of sand. IMO on that, at least, he was correct. Adeybull

8:15pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Correctness says...

theviking62 wrote:
Correctness, whilst you and your like have very little respect for anyone on here or the city site. At least respect yourself, which you obviously don't. We respect you. Why? I can hear you asking. Why, indeed, because what you write gives us all a bloody laugh and that people like you exist, is in itself bloody hilarious.
You obviously like to have a laugh suppoting the Bulls.
[quote][p][bold]theviking62[/bold] wrote: Correctness, whilst you and your like have very little respect for anyone on here or the city site. At least respect yourself, which you obviously don't. We respect you. Why? I can hear you asking. Why, indeed, because what you write gives us all a bloody laugh and that people like you exist, is in itself bloody hilarious.[/p][/quote]You obviously like to have a laugh suppoting the Bulls. Correctness

8:30pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Mumby was the best says...

It would be quite funny if a certain Welsh player was so drunk this morning his coach left him behind only for him to get a taxi to perpignan rather than barcelona airport.
It would be quite funny if a certain Welsh player was so drunk this morning his coach left him behind only for him to get a taxi to perpignan rather than barcelona airport. Mumby was the best

8:33pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Mumby was the best says...

It would be quite funny if a certain Welsh player was so drunk this morning his coach left him behind only for him to get a taxi to perpignan rather than barcelona airport.
It would be quite funny if a certain Welsh player was so drunk this morning his coach left him behind only for him to get a taxi to perpignan rather than barcelona airport. Mumby was the best

8:34pm Sun 9 Sep 12

theviking62 says...

Adeybull, I have been saying for sometime, that Salford, Cas, Giants, are in serious financial trouble. You should read, Salford chairs, letter in the last home programme. Cas, read what Ferres said about their state of affairs. Giants' their owner has stated no more cash available to plug " financial holes " HKR, said Bulls weren't the only club up to their necks in it.

It's now up to the RFL, to use some of that £25 million profit to help shore up clubs in all divisions. The promotion, relegation issue is a move forward. It's the franchise system that has brought some clubs down on their uppers. The RFL have some serious thinking to do in the next few weeks. Otherwise the game as a whole will change, possibly, for the worse.
Adeybull, I have been saying for sometime, that Salford, Cas, Giants, are in serious financial trouble. You should read, Salford chairs, letter in the last home programme. Cas, read what Ferres said about their state of affairs. Giants' their owner has stated no more cash available to plug " financial holes " HKR, said Bulls weren't the only club up to their necks in it. It's now up to the RFL, to use some of that £25 million profit to help shore up clubs in all divisions. The promotion, relegation issue is a move forward. It's the franchise system that has brought some clubs down on their uppers. The RFL have some serious thinking to do in the next few weeks. Otherwise the game as a whole will change, possibly, for the worse. theviking62

8:34pm Sun 9 Sep 12

theviking62 says...

Adeybull, I have been saying for sometime, that Salford, Cas, Giants, are in serious financial trouble. You should read, Salford chairs, letter in the last home programme. Cas, read what Ferres said about their state of affairs. Giants' their owner has stated no more cash available to plug " financial holes " HKR, said Bulls weren't the only club up to their necks in it.

It's now up to the RFL, to use some of that £25 million profit to help shore up clubs in all divisions. The promotion, relegation issue is a move forward. It's the franchise system that has brought some clubs down on their uppers. The RFL have some serious thinking to do in the next few weeks. Otherwise the game as a whole will change, possibly, for the worse.
Adeybull, I have been saying for sometime, that Salford, Cas, Giants, are in serious financial trouble. You should read, Salford chairs, letter in the last home programme. Cas, read what Ferres said about their state of affairs. Giants' their owner has stated no more cash available to plug " financial holes " HKR, said Bulls weren't the only club up to their necks in it. It's now up to the RFL, to use some of that £25 million profit to help shore up clubs in all divisions. The promotion, relegation issue is a move forward. It's the franchise system that has brought some clubs down on their uppers. The RFL have some serious thinking to do in the next few weeks. Otherwise the game as a whole will change, possibly, for the worse. theviking62

8:35pm Sun 9 Sep 12

theviking62 says...

Correctness, the only support you know about is, your truss.
Correctness, the only support you know about is, your truss. theviking62

9:06pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Mumby was the best says...

More abuse from the guy who cant take it,

WELL DONE TAKE A BOW
More abuse from the guy who cant take it, WELL DONE TAKE A BOW Mumby was the best

9:36pm Sun 9 Sep 12

theviking62 says...

Even more from the fool who thinks he's Mumby.
Even more from the fool who thinks he's Mumby. theviking62

10:56pm Sun 9 Sep 12

alfucham says...

Adeybull wrote:
Various points made by Alfucham in this thread. Much pretty factual and objective IMO. Some warranting further comment on. . What "Forensic Report"? Unless someone has commissioned one and is paying for one, in which case presumably to have a go at former directors financially for some contribution? . The report by the administrator to the authorities does not get made public, neither does that by the eventual liquidator (who will be the same people according to the proposals by the former). . The bank overdraft was not guaranteed by three directors, to the best of my knowledge. I believe at least one was not party to any guarantee - or he was a bloody fool if he was. . The bank overdraft WAS secured by a floating charge though. Given the Preferential Creditors, ranking ahead of the bank, total £42k, and then the bank ranks ahead of everyone else, how could repaying the bank amount to a fraudulent preference? They would be paid first in an insolvency anyway, after the Prefs. . It anyway was not a case of actually repaying the bank, as far as I know? The bank merely reduced the facility by the amount of monies paid in? That effectively meant that, until and unless the club could find another bank account to pay monies into, the bank repaid itself every time any monies were banked. As is so often the case. The bank was in any case in a position to initiate insolvency proceedings had it not been paid off, and would have been paid ahead of the mass of the creditors anyway had that happened. . It is not clear how much of the bank debt had been recovered by the bank before the pledge was called in. To the extent that it had been recovered, I cannot see how the then directors could be exposed. They may be more vulnerable for possible fraudulent preference for any repayment out of the pledge monies, but given the bank had first call on the assets anyway I think any liquidator would struggle to win such an action. However, I would certainly expect it to be an area to be looked at. . The motion put to the EGM as I understand it was to remove the directors and appoint replacements. It was not to require the directors to explain their actions and intentions. The evictors would have people believe the latter was their real intent, and one of them has told me that. I hope they will understand when I say I find that hard to believe, given both Caisley's public denunciation of the board and the Motion wording? From what I heard from two of the then directors, they were quite clear that the evictors had a majority and they were sure they were indeed going to remove them. But you would need to ask them. I have always assumed that this, being announced just before the pledge closed, had much to do with the subsequent failure to follow through after the pledge. We could do with hearing more of their side of it, and their explanations, since all we have to go on so far is speculation and what snippets some of us may have picked up from talking to key protagonists. . I was not surprised at the scale of the debt. Indeed, the amount stated as due to HMRC and some others is less than I expected and I wonder about the completeness of the creditors list as a result, but that is for others. I WAS surprised at the amount due to the Tong landlord. Much more than I expected, especially given that a landlord can distrain for unpaid rent. I would also have been surprised at the identity of the third largest creditor, thus far unnamed, had I not already had an idea of it. But overall, the reported debts are a little less than I was expecting to see, remembering that some of them like employee entitlements crystallise on insolvency. . I share the views of those who are angry at the loss to especially the small, local suppliers. I have been on record for years as a strong opposer of prepacks and phoenixes where essentially the same owners or managers seem to be able to shed their debts and start up again doing just the same thing. That was one reason why I was violently opposed to the possibility of any of the former shareholders doing precisely that via the administration route. That it seemingly never happened that way may be because it was never going to, or because it was effectively stymied. Personally, I was sure that when the joint administrators sacked all the key staff they cannot have thought the club could continue as a going concern, and so must surely have been expecting an imminent bid. Their actions made no sense whatsoever to me otherwise. Either way, we all saw that no such bid was forthcoming, with the very profound consequences we have all seen. . A key issue that all the holier than thou types from certain other clubs, and closer to home, seem to be deliberately avoiding is that this is seemingly no Phoenix. It is not the same old faces finding a way to free themselves of the debt and starting over with an unfair advantage having screwed he creditors. It is instead someone seemingly totally unconnected doing precisely what is envisaged by the rescue culture that was introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002 - buying a going concern (despite the actions of the administrators in sacking the key staff rendering it less so) and seeking to save a business, and jobs, and take it forward instead of wind-up. So why the attacks on the new owner for doing precisely what the legislation hoped for and envisaged is something that escapes me. . I have seen various comments about the club having its allocation of Sky and central funding cut in future as a consequence of the insolvency and the price of staying in SL. Something I see never happened to Wakefield, even though I believe I read that Glover only paid off a relatively small amount of local creditors? Maybe we will see more yet on the creditors issue? . I cannot fathom why it took nearly a month between P&A's advice being sought (assuming it had not already been sought) and the new board filing the notice of intention to appoint a dministrators. That seems far too long too me. . I am perplexed at why the administrators' report makes no reference to the change of directors in early May, nor of the actions and statements by certain shareholders to bring that about. If you were a creditor not familiar with this sorry soap opera, you would never guess from that report that such momentous changes had taken place shortly before the insolvency. . The £72 per season ticket is indeed stated in the report. Given I paid £127 for my stand ticket, I presume this is an average including kids tickets and concessions. What a "normal" average is was never stated, but if we had just over 10,000 season ticket holders then you would assume the take from those was just under £3/4m, inclusive of VAT of course... . Had the Intervention not taken place, would the old board have somehow managed to avoid administration? If I play around with the numbers I have, I can see how maybe they might have, with a load of winging it probably - it would certainly have needed that additional £1/2m that was stated, and that of course presupposes that they could have raised it. We know that they DID have sources they were pursuing, but it is far from clear whether they would have succeeded had the intervention not taken place. I suspect they might have somehow, but we would have seen key players sold and a much-reduced 2013 squad same as we are likely now to see anyway. But who now knows? Others who have been closely involved state that insolvency was in their view unavoidable. So take your pick. What is surely clear is that we could not have been in any worse situation than that which subsequently ensued following the Intervention? But it is now all academic, other than for any former shareholders who might want to pursue any former directors personally for reasons best known to themselves. I just hope we have seen the last of all the former major shareholders, who have none of them exactly covered themselves in glory throughout this whole sorry, sad affair. OK, just some thoughts, and far from comprehensive, since my name seems to have been mentioned in dispatches.
Hi Adey excellent synopsis but I would ask you revisit the interim administaters report.

At 4.8 "historicaly 3 directors had given the bank personal guarantees."

It also refers to the bank o/d being secured by a fixed and floating charge.

Given the long leasehold was transferred to the RFL not sure how the fixed charge was dealt with.
It can only have being on the land and buildings.

I am advised by P & A that a forensic examination has comenced.
They refer to how well they did at Luton Town and if I recall that case corrrect from memory some went to jail.
Was that not over how players were being paid?will have to revisit.

Squeeky bum time for some I hope.

Without a timeline accurate as to transactions the work is indeed best given to those tasked.

The creditors would be best to get together and ask a different firm if appropriate to investigate on their behalf.

Poppleton & Appleby are I suppose as good as any.

The report says that the bank caklled in their o/d in March which precipitated Mr H insolvent appeal.

You previously stated that you felt the council had th benefit of a floating charge.
I presumne to protect their intererst in the long lease which was drawn I believe with stringent penalties if rugby was not played at odsal until 2019 and the 5 million provided as a golden goodbye to the councils maintenance responsibilities was of course meant to last to do precisely that not prop up losses.

The local taxpayer has a right to be miffed that those funds were misused for other purpose.propping up losses I would suggest.

Mr H appears to be entirely correct in his asssertion the game is built on foundations of sand.So why did he commit the club to such a high wage bill and chase the dream as those before him without the sugar daddy that other clubs had.?Don"t think he will be answering now.

Given that there are still £750000 in wages till the end of november plus all other costs and the season is over looks like this years losses of the Bulls (there are of course 2 companies involved in this financial year)will end up way in excess of £2 million.

Some creditor values on the long list are not known yet and the book debts will not be recoverable at £74000.

The stock at £94k appears a dodgy figure at 29.6.2012.Given it was all sold in an excellent response by the fans and the administrater/shop accounts for sales in the period of administration of only £32000 one has to ask was it buy one get two free.

Or has some gone walkabout.

The RFL really do need to clean up this ridiculous model.
All clubs probably constantly break the rules in chasing glory that I have said before as only ever being won by 4 clubs.
You hear of a player some years ago who signed for St helens instead of Bulls despite being officially on much less money.The inference fiddle.

All clubs need strictly controlling.

It may be why they all have ultimately come down in support of the Bulls future.they go we by the grace of god perhaps.There all at it and if there is truth in the rumour that Kos has been tapped it shows there is little loyalty in the game.

whist any future report is not for the public the creditors have got rights for a thorough and proper investigation.

Will they get that with a firm appointed as you suspect by the leading shareholder whose coup des gras has been scuppered who knows.

There is from what I see potentially in the pot to cover the liquidator fees £250k from OK £49k from the balance of administration funds at 24.8 and what can remain to be recovered from book debts at £74K.

Not a lot given that Mr BG has already run up in two months costs of £173k and that with a lot of free help.
He does not have to run (was he ever)the club anymore and others within his firm have the expertise in investigating wrong doing.

Most people on here do not seem to realise how serious this all is.

Fact of business life and all that cobblers makes me very angry.

You do not give players contracts as they have had without the means to fund them.

I rest ma case ma lord and hope this leads precisely there.

But as we know governent these days just seem to accept wrongdoing and in all probability a slight slap on the wrist with an undertaking not to act as a company director for a couple of years.

Shocking story.

Keep up the great work with Bullbuilder.
The likes of Bateman being produced are the way forward not £110k a men not even first pick
Or has some gone missing.
[quote][p][bold]Adeybull[/bold] wrote: Various points made by Alfucham in this thread. Much pretty factual and objective IMO. Some warranting further comment on. . What "Forensic Report"? Unless someone has commissioned one and is paying for one, in which case presumably to have a go at former directors financially for some contribution? . The report by the administrator to the authorities does not get made public, neither does that by the eventual liquidator (who will be the same people according to the proposals by the former). . The bank overdraft was not guaranteed by three directors, to the best of my knowledge. I believe at least one was not party to any guarantee - or he was a bloody fool if he was. . The bank overdraft WAS secured by a floating charge though. Given the Preferential Creditors, ranking ahead of the bank, total £42k, and then the bank ranks ahead of everyone else, how could repaying the bank amount to a fraudulent preference? They would be paid first in an insolvency anyway, after the Prefs. . It anyway was not a case of actually repaying the bank, as far as I know? The bank merely reduced the facility by the amount of monies paid in? That effectively meant that, until and unless the club could find another bank account to pay monies into, the bank repaid itself every time any monies were banked. As is so often the case. The bank was in any case in a position to initiate insolvency proceedings had it not been paid off, and would have been paid ahead of the mass of the creditors anyway had that happened. . It is not clear how much of the bank debt had been recovered by the bank before the pledge was called in. To the extent that it had been recovered, I cannot see how the then directors could be exposed. They may be more vulnerable for possible fraudulent preference for any repayment out of the pledge monies, but given the bank had first call on the assets anyway I think any liquidator would struggle to win such an action. However, I would certainly expect it to be an area to be looked at. . The motion put to the EGM as I understand it was to remove the directors and appoint replacements. It was not to require the directors to explain their actions and intentions. The evictors would have people believe the latter was their real intent, and one of them has told me that. I hope they will understand when I say I find that hard to believe, given both Caisley's public denunciation of the board and the Motion wording? From what I heard from two of the then directors, they were quite clear that the evictors had a majority and they were sure they were indeed going to remove them. But you would need to ask them. I have always assumed that this, being announced just before the pledge closed, had much to do with the subsequent failure to follow through after the pledge. We could do with hearing more of their side of it, and their explanations, since all we have to go on so far is speculation and what snippets some of us may have picked up from talking to key protagonists. . I was not surprised at the scale of the debt. Indeed, the amount stated as due to HMRC and some others is less than I expected and I wonder about the completeness of the creditors list as a result, but that is for others. I WAS surprised at the amount due to the Tong landlord. Much more than I expected, especially given that a landlord can distrain for unpaid rent. I would also have been surprised at the identity of the third largest creditor, thus far unnamed, had I not already had an idea of it. But overall, the reported debts are a little less than I was expecting to see, remembering that some of them like employee entitlements crystallise on insolvency. . I share the views of those who are angry at the loss to especially the small, local suppliers. I have been on record for years as a strong opposer of prepacks and phoenixes where essentially the same owners or managers seem to be able to shed their debts and start up again doing just the same thing. That was one reason why I was violently opposed to the possibility of any of the former shareholders doing precisely that via the administration route. That it seemingly never happened that way may be because it was never going to, or because it was effectively stymied. Personally, I was sure that when the joint administrators sacked all the key staff they cannot have thought the club could continue as a going concern, and so must surely have been expecting an imminent bid. Their actions made no sense whatsoever to me otherwise. Either way, we all saw that no such bid was forthcoming, with the very profound consequences we have all seen. . A key issue that all the holier than thou types from certain other clubs, and closer to home, seem to be deliberately avoiding is that this is seemingly no Phoenix. It is not the same old faces finding a way to free themselves of the debt and starting over with an unfair advantage having screwed he creditors. It is instead someone seemingly totally unconnected doing precisely what is envisaged by the rescue culture that was introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002 - buying a going concern (despite the actions of the administrators in sacking the key staff rendering it less so) and seeking to save a business, and jobs, and take it forward instead of wind-up. So why the attacks on the new owner for doing precisely what the legislation hoped for and envisaged is something that escapes me. . I have seen various comments about the club having its allocation of Sky and central funding cut in future as a consequence of the insolvency and the price of staying in SL. Something I see never happened to Wakefield, even though I believe I read that Glover only paid off a relatively small amount of local creditors? Maybe we will see more yet on the creditors issue? . I cannot fathom why it took nearly a month between P&A's advice being sought (assuming it had not already been sought) and the new board filing the notice of intention to appoint a dministrators. That seems far too long too me. . I am perplexed at why the administrators' report makes no reference to the change of directors in early May, nor of the actions and statements by certain shareholders to bring that about. If you were a creditor not familiar with this sorry soap opera, you would never guess from that report that such momentous changes had taken place shortly before the insolvency. . The £72 per season ticket is indeed stated in the report. Given I paid £127 for my stand ticket, I presume this is an average including kids tickets and concessions. What a "normal" average is was never stated, but if we had just over 10,000 season ticket holders then you would assume the take from those was just under £3/4m, inclusive of VAT of course... . Had the Intervention not taken place, would the old board have somehow managed to avoid administration? If I play around with the numbers I have, I can see how maybe they might have, with a load of winging it probably - it would certainly have needed that additional £1/2m that was stated, and that of course presupposes that they could have raised it. We know that they DID have sources they were pursuing, but it is far from clear whether they would have succeeded had the intervention not taken place. I suspect they might have somehow, but we would have seen key players sold and a much-reduced 2013 squad same as we are likely now to see anyway. But who now knows? Others who have been closely involved state that insolvency was in their view unavoidable. So take your pick. What is surely clear is that we could not have been in any worse situation than that which subsequently ensued following the Intervention? But it is now all academic, other than for any former shareholders who might want to pursue any former directors personally for reasons best known to themselves. I just hope we have seen the last of all the former major shareholders, who have none of them exactly covered themselves in glory throughout this whole sorry, sad affair. OK, just some thoughts, and far from comprehensive, since my name seems to have been mentioned in dispatches.[/p][/quote]Hi Adey excellent synopsis but I would ask you revisit the interim administaters report. At 4.8 "historicaly 3 directors had given the bank personal guarantees." It also refers to the bank o/d being secured by a fixed and floating charge. Given the long leasehold was transferred to the RFL not sure how the fixed charge was dealt with. It can only have being on the land and buildings. I am advised by P & A that a forensic examination has comenced. They refer to how well they did at Luton Town and if I recall that case corrrect from memory some went to jail. Was that not over how players were being paid?will have to revisit. Squeeky bum time for some I hope. Without a timeline accurate as to transactions the work is indeed best given to those tasked. The creditors would be best to get together and ask a different firm if appropriate to investigate on their behalf. Poppleton & Appleby are I suppose as good as any. The report says that the bank caklled in their o/d in March which precipitated Mr H insolvent appeal. You previously stated that you felt the council had th benefit of a floating charge. I presumne to protect their intererst in the long lease which was drawn I believe with stringent penalties if rugby was not played at odsal until 2019 and the 5 million provided as a golden goodbye to the councils maintenance responsibilities was of course meant to last to do precisely that not prop up losses. The local taxpayer has a right to be miffed that those funds were misused for other purpose.propping up losses I would suggest. Mr H appears to be entirely correct in his asssertion the game is built on foundations of sand.So why did he commit the club to such a high wage bill and chase the dream as those before him without the sugar daddy that other clubs had.?Don"t think he will be answering now. Given that there are still £750000 in wages till the end of november plus all other costs and the season is over looks like this years losses of the Bulls (there are of course 2 companies involved in this financial year)will end up way in excess of £2 million. Some creditor values on the long list are not known yet and the book debts will not be recoverable at £74000. The stock at £94k appears a dodgy figure at 29.6.2012.Given it was all sold in an excellent response by the fans and the administrater/shop accounts for sales in the period of administration of only £32000 one has to ask was it buy one get two free. Or has some gone walkabout. The RFL really do need to clean up this ridiculous model. All clubs probably constantly break the rules in chasing glory that I have said before as only ever being won by 4 clubs. You hear of a player some years ago who signed for St helens instead of Bulls despite being officially on much less money.The inference fiddle. All clubs need strictly controlling. It may be why they all have ultimately come down in support of the Bulls future.they go we by the grace of god perhaps.There all at it and if there is truth in the rumour that Kos has been tapped it shows there is little loyalty in the game. whist any future report is not for the public the creditors have got rights for a thorough and proper investigation. Will they get that with a firm appointed as you suspect by the leading shareholder whose coup des gras has been scuppered who knows. There is from what I see potentially in the pot to cover the liquidator fees £250k from OK £49k from the balance of administration funds at 24.8 and what can remain to be recovered from book debts at £74K. Not a lot given that Mr BG has already run up in two months costs of £173k and that with a lot of free help. He does not have to run (was he ever)the club anymore and others within his firm have the expertise in investigating wrong doing. Most people on here do not seem to realise how serious this all is. Fact of business life and all that cobblers makes me very angry. You do not give players contracts as they have had without the means to fund them. I rest ma case ma lord and hope this leads precisely there. But as we know governent these days just seem to accept wrongdoing and in all probability a slight slap on the wrist with an undertaking not to act as a company director for a couple of years. Shocking story. Keep up the great work with Bullbuilder. The likes of Bateman being produced are the way forward not £110k a men not even first pick Or has some gone missing. alfucham

11:12pm Sun 9 Sep 12

alfucham says...

alfucham wrote:
Adeybull wrote: Various points made by Alfucham in this thread. Much pretty factual and objective IMO. Some warranting further comment on. . What "Forensic Report"? Unless someone has commissioned one and is paying for one, in which case presumably to have a go at former directors financially for some contribution? . The report by the administrator to the authorities does not get made public, neither does that by the eventual liquidator (who will be the same people according to the proposals by the former). . The bank overdraft was not guaranteed by three directors, to the best of my knowledge. I believe at least one was not party to any guarantee - or he was a bloody fool if he was. . The bank overdraft WAS secured by a floating charge though. Given the Preferential Creditors, ranking ahead of the bank, total £42k, and then the bank ranks ahead of everyone else, how could repaying the bank amount to a fraudulent preference? They would be paid first in an insolvency anyway, after the Prefs. . It anyway was not a case of actually repaying the bank, as far as I know? The bank merely reduced the facility by the amount of monies paid in? That effectively meant that, until and unless the club could find another bank account to pay monies into, the bank repaid itself every time any monies were banked. As is so often the case. The bank was in any case in a position to initiate insolvency proceedings had it not been paid off, and would have been paid ahead of the mass of the creditors anyway had that happened. . It is not clear how much of the bank debt had been recovered by the bank before the pledge was called in. To the extent that it had been recovered, I cannot see how the then directors could be exposed. They may be more vulnerable for possible fraudulent preference for any repayment out of the pledge monies, but given the bank had first call on the assets anyway I think any liquidator would struggle to win such an action. However, I would certainly expect it to be an area to be looked at. . The motion put to the EGM as I understand it was to remove the directors and appoint replacements. It was not to require the directors to explain their actions and intentions. The evictors would have people believe the latter was their real intent, and one of them has told me that. I hope they will understand when I say I find that hard to believe, given both Caisley's public denunciation of the board and the Motion wording? From what I heard from two of the then directors, they were quite clear that the evictors had a majority and they were sure they were indeed going to remove them. But you would need to ask them. I have always assumed that this, being announced just before the pledge closed, had much to do with the subsequent failure to follow through after the pledge. We could do with hearing more of their side of it, and their explanations, since all we have to go on so far is speculation and what snippets some of us may have picked up from talking to key protagonists. . I was not surprised at the scale of the debt. Indeed, the amount stated as due to HMRC and some others is less than I expected and I wonder about the completeness of the creditors list as a result, but that is for others. I WAS surprised at the amount due to the Tong landlord. Much more than I expected, especially given that a landlord can distrain for unpaid rent. I would also have been surprised at the identity of the third largest creditor, thus far unnamed, had I not already had an idea of it. But overall, the reported debts are a little less than I was expecting to see, remembering that some of them like employee entitlements crystallise on insolvency. . I share the views of those who are angry at the loss to especially the small, local suppliers. I have been on record for years as a strong opposer of prepacks and phoenixes where essentially the same owners or managers seem to be able to shed their debts and start up again doing just the same thing. That was one reason why I was violently opposed to the possibility of any of the former shareholders doing precisely that via the administration route. That it seemingly never happened that way may be because it was never going to, or because it was effectively stymied. Personally, I was sure that when the joint administrators sacked all the key staff they cannot have thought the club could continue as a going concern, and so must surely have been expecting an imminent bid. Their actions made no sense whatsoever to me otherwise. Either way, we all saw that no such bid was forthcoming, with the very profound consequences we have all seen. . A key issue that all the holier than thou types from certain other clubs, and closer to home, seem to be deliberately avoiding is that this is seemingly no Phoenix. It is not the same old faces finding a way to free themselves of the debt and starting over with an unfair advantage having screwed he creditors. It is instead someone seemingly totally unconnected doing precisely what is envisaged by the rescue culture that was introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002 - buying a going concern (despite the actions of the administrators in sacking the key staff rendering it less so) and seeking to save a business, and jobs, and take it forward instead of wind-up. So why the attacks on the new owner for doing precisely what the legislation hoped for and envisaged is something that escapes me. . I have seen various comments about the club having its allocation of Sky and central funding cut in future as a consequence of the insolvency and the price of staying in SL. Something I see never happened to Wakefield, even though I believe I read that Glover only paid off a relatively small amount of local creditors? Maybe we will see more yet on the creditors issue? . I cannot fathom why it took nearly a month between P&A's advice being sought (assuming it had not already been sought) and the new board filing the notice of intention to appoint a dministrators. That seems far too long too me. . I am perplexed at why the administrators' report makes no reference to the change of directors in early May, nor of the actions and statements by certain shareholders to bring that about. If you were a creditor not familiar with this sorry soap opera, you would never guess from that report that such momentous changes had taken place shortly before the insolvency. . The £72 per season ticket is indeed stated in the report. Given I paid £127 for my stand ticket, I presume this is an average including kids tickets and concessions. What a "normal" average is was never stated, but if we had just over 10,000 season ticket holders then you would assume the take from those was just under £3/4m, inclusive of VAT of course... . Had the Intervention not taken place, would the old board have somehow managed to avoid administration? If I play around with the numbers I have, I can see how maybe they might have, with a load of winging it probably - it would certainly have needed that additional £1/2m that was stated, and that of course presupposes that they could have raised it. We know that they DID have sources they were pursuing, but it is far from clear whether they would have succeeded had the intervention not taken place. I suspect they might have somehow, but we would have seen key players sold and a much-reduced 2013 squad same as we are likely now to see anyway. But who now knows? Others who have been closely involved state that insolvency was in their view unavoidable. So take your pick. What is surely clear is that we could not have been in any worse situation than that which subsequently ensued following the Intervention? But it is now all academic, other than for any former shareholders who might want to pursue any former directors personally for reasons best known to themselves. I just hope we have seen the last of all the former major shareholders, who have none of them exactly covered themselves in glory throughout this whole sorry, sad affair. OK, just some thoughts, and far from comprehensive, since my name seems to have been mentioned in dispatches.
Hi Adey excellent synopsis but I would ask you revisit the interim administaters report. At 4.8 "historicaly 3 directors had given the bank personal guarantees." It also refers to the bank o/d being secured by a fixed and floating charge. Given the long leasehold was transferred to the RFL not sure how the fixed charge was dealt with. It can only have being on the land and buildings. I am advised by P & A that a forensic examination has comenced. They refer to how well they did at Luton Town and if I recall that case corrrect from memory some went to jail. Was that not over how players were being paid?will have to revisit. Squeeky bum time for some I hope. Without a timeline accurate as to transactions the work is indeed best given to those tasked. The creditors would be best to get together and ask a different firm if appropriate to investigate on their behalf. Poppleton & Appleby are I suppose as good as any. The report says that the bank caklled in their o/d in March which precipitated Mr H insolvent appeal. You previously stated that you felt the council had th benefit of a floating charge. I presumne to protect their intererst in the long lease which was drawn I believe with stringent penalties if rugby was not played at odsal until 2019 and the 5 million provided as a golden goodbye to the councils maintenance responsibilities was of course meant to last to do precisely that not prop up losses. The local taxpayer has a right to be miffed that those funds were misused for other purpose.propping up losses I would suggest. Mr H appears to be entirely correct in his asssertion the game is built on foundations of sand.So why did he commit the club to such a high wage bill and chase the dream as those before him without the sugar daddy that other clubs had.?Don"t think he will be answering now. Given that there are still £750000 in wages till the end of november plus all other costs and the season is over looks like this years losses of the Bulls (there are of course 2 companies involved in this financial year)will end up way in excess of £2 million. Some creditor values on the long list are not known yet and the book debts will not be recoverable at £74000. The stock at £94k appears a dodgy figure at 29.6.2012.Given it was all sold in an excellent response by the fans and the administrater/shop accounts for sales in the period of administration of only £32000 one has to ask was it buy one get two free. Or has some gone walkabout. The RFL really do need to clean up this ridiculous model. All clubs probably constantly break the rules in chasing glory that I have said before as only ever being won by 4 clubs. You hear of a player some years ago who signed for St helens instead of Bulls despite being officially on much less money.The inference fiddle. All clubs need strictly controlling. It may be why they all have ultimately come down in support of the Bulls future.they go we by the grace of god perhaps.There all at it and if there is truth in the rumour that Kos has been tapped it shows there is little loyalty in the game. whist any future report is not for the public the creditors have got rights for a thorough and proper investigation. Will they get that with a firm appointed as you suspect by the leading shareholder whose coup des gras has been scuppered who knows. There is from what I see potentially in the pot to cover the liquidator fees £250k from OK £49k from the balance of administration funds at 24.8 and what can remain to be recovered from book debts at £74K. Not a lot given that Mr BG has already run up in two months costs of £173k and that with a lot of free help. He does not have to run (was he ever)the club anymore and others within his firm have the expertise in investigating wrong doing. Most people on here do not seem to realise how serious this all is. Fact of business life and all that cobblers makes me very angry. You do not give players contracts as they have had without the means to fund them. I rest ma case ma lord and hope this leads precisely there. But as we know governent these days just seem to accept wrongdoing and in all probability a slight slap on the wrist with an undertaking not to act as a company director for a couple of years. Shocking story. Keep up the great work with Bullbuilder. The likes of Bateman being produced are the way forward not £110k a men not even first pick Or has some gone missing.
If you are in Bullbuilder do you think you could find some brass for the young cheerleaders who will all be back at college now and have not been paid all year.

They are owed just short of £4k.

They also danced in the 3 home games in administration period.
Some suppliers have bben paid in that period for work done in the period of admin others have not.
There boss should have got a purchase order signed for the three games at home in admin but in all the confusion it was probably omitted.
I know none of them but kids should not be treated that way.

pull the stops out if you can.

This club needs to be the role model going forward as to how to build not buy success.

Your Bullbuilder name is entirely appropriate
[quote][p][bold]alfucham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adeybull[/bold] wrote: Various points made by Alfucham in this thread. Much pretty factual and objective IMO. Some warranting further comment on. . What "Forensic Report"? Unless someone has commissioned one and is paying for one, in which case presumably to have a go at former directors financially for some contribution? . The report by the administrator to the authorities does not get made public, neither does that by the eventual liquidator (who will be the same people according to the proposals by the former). . The bank overdraft was not guaranteed by three directors, to the best of my knowledge. I believe at least one was not party to any guarantee - or he was a bloody fool if he was. . The bank overdraft WAS secured by a floating charge though. Given the Preferential Creditors, ranking ahead of the bank, total £42k, and then the bank ranks ahead of everyone else, how could repaying the bank amount to a fraudulent preference? They would be paid first in an insolvency anyway, after the Prefs. . It anyway was not a case of actually repaying the bank, as far as I know? The bank merely reduced the facility by the amount of monies paid in? That effectively meant that, until and unless the club could find another bank account to pay monies into, the bank repaid itself every time any monies were banked. As is so often the case. The bank was in any case in a position to initiate insolvency proceedings had it not been paid off, and would have been paid ahead of the mass of the creditors anyway had that happened. . It is not clear how much of the bank debt had been recovered by the bank before the pledge was called in. To the extent that it had been recovered, I cannot see how the then directors could be exposed. They may be more vulnerable for possible fraudulent preference for any repayment out of the pledge monies, but given the bank had first call on the assets anyway I think any liquidator would struggle to win such an action. However, I would certainly expect it to be an area to be looked at. . The motion put to the EGM as I understand it was to remove the directors and appoint replacements. It was not to require the directors to explain their actions and intentions. The evictors would have people believe the latter was their real intent, and one of them has told me that. I hope they will understand when I say I find that hard to believe, given both Caisley's public denunciation of the board and the Motion wording? From what I heard from two of the then directors, they were quite clear that the evictors had a majority and they were sure they were indeed going to remove them. But you would need to ask them. I have always assumed that this, being announced just before the pledge closed, had much to do with the subsequent failure to follow through after the pledge. We could do with hearing more of their side of it, and their explanations, since all we have to go on so far is speculation and what snippets some of us may have picked up from talking to key protagonists. . I was not surprised at the scale of the debt. Indeed, the amount stated as due to HMRC and some others is less than I expected and I wonder about the completeness of the creditors list as a result, but that is for others. I WAS surprised at the amount due to the Tong landlord. Much more than I expected, especially given that a landlord can distrain for unpaid rent. I would also have been surprised at the identity of the third largest creditor, thus far unnamed, had I not already had an idea of it. But overall, the reported debts are a little less than I was expecting to see, remembering that some of them like employee entitlements crystallise on insolvency. . I share the views of those who are angry at the loss to especially the small, local suppliers. I have been on record for years as a strong opposer of prepacks and phoenixes where essentially the same owners or managers seem to be able to shed their debts and start up again doing just the same thing. That was one reason why I was violently opposed to the possibility of any of the former shareholders doing precisely that via the administration route. That it seemingly never happened that way may be because it was never going to, or because it was effectively stymied. Personally, I was sure that when the joint administrators sacked all the key staff they cannot have thought the club could continue as a going concern, and so must surely have been expecting an imminent bid. Their actions made no sense whatsoever to me otherwise. Either way, we all saw that no such bid was forthcoming, with the very profound consequences we have all seen. . A key issue that all the holier than thou types from certain other clubs, and closer to home, seem to be deliberately avoiding is that this is seemingly no Phoenix. It is not the same old faces finding a way to free themselves of the debt and starting over with an unfair advantage having screwed he creditors. It is instead someone seemingly totally unconnected doing precisely what is envisaged by the rescue culture that was introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002 - buying a going concern (despite the actions of the administrators in sacking the key staff rendering it less so) and seeking to save a business, and jobs, and take it forward instead of wind-up. So why the attacks on the new owner for doing precisely what the legislation hoped for and envisaged is something that escapes me. . I have seen various comments about the club having its allocation of Sky and central funding cut in future as a consequence of the insolvency and the price of staying in SL. Something I see never happened to Wakefield, even though I believe I read that Glover only paid off a relatively small amount of local creditors? Maybe we will see more yet on the creditors issue? . I cannot fathom why it took nearly a month between P&A's advice being sought (assuming it had not already been sought) and the new board filing the notice of intention to appoint a dministrators. That seems far too long too me. . I am perplexed at why the administrators' report makes no reference to the change of directors in early May, nor of the actions and statements by certain shareholders to bring that about. If you were a creditor not familiar with this sorry soap opera, you would never guess from that report that such momentous changes had taken place shortly before the insolvency. . The £72 per season ticket is indeed stated in the report. Given I paid £127 for my stand ticket, I presume this is an average including kids tickets and concessions. What a "normal" average is was never stated, but if we had just over 10,000 season ticket holders then you would assume the take from those was just under £3/4m, inclusive of VAT of course... . Had the Intervention not taken place, would the old board have somehow managed to avoid administration? If I play around with the numbers I have, I can see how maybe they might have, with a load of winging it probably - it would certainly have needed that additional £1/2m that was stated, and that of course presupposes that they could have raised it. We know that they DID have sources they were pursuing, but it is far from clear whether they would have succeeded had the intervention not taken place. I suspect they might have somehow, but we would have seen key players sold and a much-reduced 2013 squad same as we are likely now to see anyway. But who now knows? Others who have been closely involved state that insolvency was in their view unavoidable. So take your pick. What is surely clear is that we could not have been in any worse situation than that which subsequently ensued following the Intervention? But it is now all academic, other than for any former shareholders who might want to pursue any former directors personally for reasons best known to themselves. I just hope we have seen the last of all the former major shareholders, who have none of them exactly covered themselves in glory throughout this whole sorry, sad affair. OK, just some thoughts, and far from comprehensive, since my name seems to have been mentioned in dispatches.[/p][/quote]Hi Adey excellent synopsis but I would ask you revisit the interim administaters report. At 4.8 "historicaly 3 directors had given the bank personal guarantees." It also refers to the bank o/d being secured by a fixed and floating charge. Given the long leasehold was transferred to the RFL not sure how the fixed charge was dealt with. It can only have being on the land and buildings. I am advised by P & A that a forensic examination has comenced. They refer to how well they did at Luton Town and if I recall that case corrrect from memory some went to jail. Was that not over how players were being paid?will have to revisit. Squeeky bum time for some I hope. Without a timeline accurate as to transactions the work is indeed best given to those tasked. The creditors would be best to get together and ask a different firm if appropriate to investigate on their behalf. Poppleton & Appleby are I suppose as good as any. The report says that the bank caklled in their o/d in March which precipitated Mr H insolvent appeal. You previously stated that you felt the council had th benefit of a floating charge. I presumne to protect their intererst in the long lease which was drawn I believe with stringent penalties if rugby was not played at odsal until 2019 and the 5 million provided as a golden goodbye to the councils maintenance responsibilities was of course meant to last to do precisely that not prop up losses. The local taxpayer has a right to be miffed that those funds were misused for other purpose.propping up losses I would suggest. Mr H appears to be entirely correct in his asssertion the game is built on foundations of sand.So why did he commit the club to such a high wage bill and chase the dream as those before him without the sugar daddy that other clubs had.?Don"t think he will be answering now. Given that there are still £750000 in wages till the end of november plus all other costs and the season is over looks like this years losses of the Bulls (there are of course 2 companies involved in this financial year)will end up way in excess of £2 million. Some creditor values on the long list are not known yet and the book debts will not be recoverable at £74000. The stock at £94k appears a dodgy figure at 29.6.2012.Given it was all sold in an excellent response by the fans and the administrater/shop accounts for sales in the period of administration of only £32000 one has to ask was it buy one get two free. Or has some gone walkabout. The RFL really do need to clean up this ridiculous model. All clubs probably constantly break the rules in chasing glory that I have said before as only ever being won by 4 clubs. You hear of a player some years ago who signed for St helens instead of Bulls despite being officially on much less money.The inference fiddle. All clubs need strictly controlling. It may be why they all have ultimately come down in support of the Bulls future.they go we by the grace of god perhaps.There all at it and if there is truth in the rumour that Kos has been tapped it shows there is little loyalty in the game. whist any future report is not for the public the creditors have got rights for a thorough and proper investigation. Will they get that with a firm appointed as you suspect by the leading shareholder whose coup des gras has been scuppered who knows. There is from what I see potentially in the pot to cover the liquidator fees £250k from OK £49k from the balance of administration funds at 24.8 and what can remain to be recovered from book debts at £74K. Not a lot given that Mr BG has already run up in two months costs of £173k and that with a lot of free help. He does not have to run (was he ever)the club anymore and others within his firm have the expertise in investigating wrong doing. Most people on here do not seem to realise how serious this all is. Fact of business life and all that cobblers makes me very angry. You do not give players contracts as they have had without the means to fund them. I rest ma case ma lord and hope this leads precisely there. But as we know governent these days just seem to accept wrongdoing and in all probability a slight slap on the wrist with an undertaking not to act as a company director for a couple of years. Shocking story. Keep up the great work with Bullbuilder. The likes of Bateman being produced are the way forward not £110k a men not even first pick Or has some gone missing.[/p][/quote]If you are in Bullbuilder do you think you could find some brass for the young cheerleaders who will all be back at college now and have not been paid all year. They are owed just short of £4k. They also danced in the 3 home games in administration period. Some suppliers have bben paid in that period for work done in the period of admin others have not. There boss should have got a purchase order signed for the three games at home in admin but in all the confusion it was probably omitted. I know none of them but kids should not be treated that way. pull the stops out if you can. This club needs to be the role model going forward as to how to build not buy success. Your Bullbuilder name is entirely appropriate alfucham

11:19pm Sun 9 Sep 12

bradfordbronco says...

Is it only me or does anyone else think the Bulls can break even & still compete in SL.. All our problems have been caused by bad management not because we don't have revenue streams coming in. We dont have a Sugar Daddy to prop us up but we should be able to manage without one We have crowds of over 10,000, good junior development links and good sponsorship deals. If the new owners can bring in a bit of business sense we should have a solid future.

If we are saying no club can make a profit (despite the salary cap) then whats the point. We might as well just pack up now or apply for membership of the RFU
Is it only me or does anyone else think the Bulls can break even & still compete in SL.. All our problems have been caused by bad management not because we don't have revenue streams coming in. We dont have a Sugar Daddy to prop us up but we should be able to manage without one We have crowds of over 10,000, good junior development links and good sponsorship deals. If the new owners can bring in a bit of business sense we should have a solid future. If we are saying no club can make a profit (despite the salary cap) then whats the point. We might as well just pack up now or apply for membership of the RFU bradfordbronco

11:41pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Reality50 says...

The mini round of SL licensing for next season I am bled to believe takes place behind closed doors on Tuesday and It is by no means certain Bulls will get a place in SL next season.There is a lot of anger at SL and SKY and the RFL over the disrepute Bulls have caused the game and there are a lot of promises made to Halifax last March after the last licencing round that need to be kept.Tuesday will be very very interesting indeed.....
The mini round of SL licensing for next season I am bled to believe takes place behind closed doors on Tuesday and It is by no means certain Bulls will get a place in SL next season.There is a lot of anger at SL and SKY and the RFL over the disrepute Bulls have caused the game and there are a lot of promises made to Halifax last March after the last licencing round that need to be kept.Tuesday will be very very interesting indeed..... Reality50

12:03am Mon 10 Sep 12

alfucham says...

theviking62 wrote:
Re going forward, you use the word " cafe " when I think the talk was of a restaurant. Museum, would no doubt be for sport, representing all pro clubs in the city. The way forward from what I have surmised from the number of articles written is, the stadium to be used 365 days per annum. If this includes sharing with BPA, all well and good. Some have said speedway, athletics, outdoor concerts, etc. Plus, if it's to be believed, the building of an hotel. This would no doubt be offered to one of the chains, to build,who would then pay rental, for land. this would then help the clubs' finances ie not to become too reliant on central funding going to run the ground side of things. But being used to improve quality of team. My views only, alfucham, from as I said at the beginning collating several articles, from various press and Internet sites.
Good views I would say.
Sure the frony page talked of cafe and museum.
Pop concerts excellent idea always thought ideal with the mota\rway network close.
Who would fill it.

Never understood why so underused
Hope your health improves.
The Bulls are saved that should help.
Worry not as to the future.
sounds like you"ve had enough worry.

Let whats hapened in the past be a worry for those that should have kown better.
leave those trolls alone if noone responds they will dissapear of their own accord
[quote][p][bold]theviking62[/bold] wrote: Re going forward, you use the word " cafe " when I think the talk was of a restaurant. Museum, would no doubt be for sport, representing all pro clubs in the city. The way forward from what I have surmised from the number of articles written is, the stadium to be used 365 days per annum. If this includes sharing with BPA, all well and good. Some have said speedway, athletics, outdoor concerts, etc. Plus, if it's to be believed, the building of an hotel. This would no doubt be offered to one of the chains, to build,who would then pay rental, for land. this would then help the clubs' finances ie not to become too reliant on central funding going to run the ground side of things. But being used to improve quality of team. My views only, alfucham, from as I said at the beginning collating several articles, from various press and Internet sites.[/p][/quote]Good views I would say. Sure the frony page talked of cafe and museum. Pop concerts excellent idea always thought ideal with the mota\rway network close. Who would fill it. Never understood why so underused Hope your health improves. The Bulls are saved that should help. Worry not as to the future. sounds like you"ve had enough worry. Let whats hapened in the past be a worry for those that should have kown better. leave those trolls alone if noone responds they will dissapear of their own accord alfucham

12:12am Mon 10 Sep 12

alfucham says...

bradfordbronco wrote:
Is it only me or does anyone else think the Bulls can break even & still compete in SL.. All our problems have been caused by bad management not because we don't have revenue streams coming in. We dont have a Sugar Daddy to prop us up but we should be able to manage without one We have crowds of over 10,000, good junior development links and good sponsorship deals. If the new owners can bring in a bit of business sense we should have a solid future. If we are saying no club can make a profit (despite the salary cap) then whats the point. We might as well just pack up now or apply for membership of the RFU
yes I do.

Selling season tickets 8 to 10 thousand at a reasonable price and only paying salaries that can be afforded would be a start.

You dont want a sugar daddy.They get fed up and go leaving behind an unsustainable model.

build the club again through Bullbuilder.

Dont join the rest in the mad chase for glory whuilst commitinf financial suicide..

Break even is ok.

That could be acheived with fine tuning.starting with any player on more than a thousand a week
[quote][p][bold]bradfordbronco[/bold] wrote: Is it only me or does anyone else think the Bulls can break even & still compete in SL.. All our problems have been caused by bad management not because we don't have revenue streams coming in. We dont have a Sugar Daddy to prop us up but we should be able to manage without one We have crowds of over 10,000, good junior development links and good sponsorship deals. If the new owners can bring in a bit of business sense we should have a solid future. If we are saying no club can make a profit (despite the salary cap) then whats the point. We might as well just pack up now or apply for membership of the RFU[/p][/quote]yes I do. Selling season tickets 8 to 10 thousand at a reasonable price and only paying salaries that can be afforded would be a start. You dont want a sugar daddy.They get fed up and go leaving behind an unsustainable model. build the club again through Bullbuilder. Dont join the rest in the mad chase for glory whuilst commitinf financial suicide.. Break even is ok. That could be acheived with fine tuning.starting with any player on more than a thousand a week alfucham

12:29am Mon 10 Sep 12

Adeybull says...

OK, a few more comments picking up on some points raised (and what a refreshing change to see a serious and informed debate on here, not as yet derailed by the usual pond life).
.
And, before I start, can I just express a wish that if the RFL DOES withold some or all of future sky monies (if we are allowed to stay in SL) as has been strongly mooted, then they use that windfall to repay creditors, especially the smaller creditors? That, after all, is the only justification I could see (if indeed I could see any at all) for punishing yet again those who have been blameless.
.
Regardless of what the report says, I would not ever expect to find paid employee Ryan Duckett gave any kind of personal guarantee. Someone else might have (I'll not name names), but not him. Note the the report says "three personal guarantees" from "directors", NOT "guarantees from three directors". Happy to be proved wrong, but will be beyond gobsmacked if I was to be.
.
Here's an interesting one for the creditors to ponder on: normally, personal guarantees to the bank are given by the owners of a business. Right? So where were the personal guarantees of Caisley, Agar, Bates et al? That lot of absentee owners owned half the business. Up until not that many months ago, when Colin Tordoff sold his shares to Hood and Stephen Coulby sold most of his shares to Bennett, the directors between them held 7% of the shares. Even at the end, they only held between them 25%. Has anyone on here ever, ever seen a business where the principal owners took no personal laibility whatsoever for the borrowings, but expected only the executive directors to? Regardless of circumstances? No, me neither. Whatever led up to that situation, it is yet another aspect that to me made no sense.
.
If there IS a "forensic examination" underway (and I would be happy if one IS, provided it is impartial and has not already decided what the answer needs to be), who is funding it? We already know this is an unfunded administration - Lord knows they made that clear enough by sacking all the key non-playing staff (imagine how much they would have added to the creditors had they sacked the playing staff...) - so how are they getting paid for the work? I know how much these things cost - and it all comes out of any recovery for the creditors!!!
,
In a normal insolvency (and for a whole raft of reasons I do not regard this one as "normal") a creditors committee is formed, if there seems to be action that can be taken, and the creditors decide on and fund any investigative action. I believe no such committee has yet been formed (although they propose that one be), and indeed the joint administrators do not even propose to convene a meeting of creditors, so I wonder how the creditors will get to vote on the composition of such a committee? Instead, they propose the compoany goes straight to liquidation - with themselves being appointed as liquidators...
.
So if the creditors are not funding any investigation (and if any are, surely this would have had to have been made clear?) then who IS? And what is his motive? And is it to secure redress for the creditors, if redress is indeed required? Or is it for some other reason? I feel sure Herman Melville would have been able to provide a suggestion or two?
.
I recall the charge in favour of Natwest being a floating charge only, buit will need to double-check. If it WAS also a fixed charge, it cannot have been on anything other than the book debts, because at the time it was created the club had no property or other assets to charge. And as Hood said, had the interest in the long leasehold been specifically charged to the bank, they could no more have sold it than you could sell a house subject to a mortgage. And indeed, there is no suggestion in the report that such might have happened.
.
Equally, the report does not dwell on the circumstances behind the bank abruptly withdrawing the facility, nor does it appear to pillory the then-directors over their communmication - or lack of - with the bank. This surprised me, since a load of noise was made at the time about thbe reasons whyt the bank pulled the facility at short notoice, precipitating an immediate as opposed to future crisis. It is also very quiet about the role of the shareholders, although my understanding is that they were far from satisfied with answers they were receiving months before the crisis came to a head.
.
I see the report refers to "fixed and floating charges" in section 2, but there is no mention thereafter of any fixed charge. Academic anyway since Natwest were repaid before admimistration. By the by, did I ever tell people on here of a very interesting discussion I had with a senior chap from Natwest several years ago, a serious RL fan to boot? And how he told me their bank had lost appetite for funding RL clubs, and was looking to exit the sector whenever posible? And this before the Great Crash?
.
The payroll for the three months to end November will not be as high as £750k, even if all the sacked staff happened to be re-instated. That said, it will still be a hell of a lot for the new owner to find, since indeed he will have sod all income over the next three months. One wonders, dreads, what monies the RFL will resume paying? My best guess would be to start at nil and work down from there.
.
Agree totally that there are people who still do not realise just how serious this all is, both for the club (although I think most responsible Bulls fans do) and for the game (and all those from Wakefield, Keighley, Halifax and Huddersfield in particular who re currently revelling in schadenfreude may well come to learn).
.
People may recall how violently opposed to administration I was, in the face of those (often presumed toi be in the Caisley camp as I recall?) whose seductive siren song to sort the shareholders by going into administration so it would all be fine again found far more traction than it deserved? Can you recall how some of them patronised me with their assurances that it would be for the best? And when I pointed out the effect on the suppliers, did they give a stuff? Do they now? Where are they now?
.
All I can say is I tried to warn people, to be very careful what they wished for, but some refused to listen. I warned people to beware of unexpected consequences, but was ridiculed. I guess they never read Julius Caesar? Brutus could have told them.
.
And instead some maybe found that, when the deed was done, far from the docile **** cat they had assumed, they instead had a tiger by the tail.
OK, a few more comments picking up on some points raised (and what a refreshing change to see a serious and informed debate on here, not as yet derailed by the usual pond life). . And, before I start, can I just express a wish that if the RFL DOES withold some or all of future sky monies (if we are allowed to stay in SL) as has been strongly mooted, then they use that windfall to repay creditors, especially the smaller creditors? That, after all, is the only justification I could see (if indeed I could see any at all) for punishing yet again those who have been blameless. . Regardless of what the report says, I would not ever expect to find paid employee Ryan Duckett gave any kind of personal guarantee. Someone else might have (I'll not name names), but not him. Note the the report says "three personal guarantees" from "directors", NOT "guarantees from three directors". Happy to be proved wrong, but will be beyond gobsmacked if I was to be. . Here's an interesting one for the creditors to ponder on: normally, personal guarantees to the bank are given by the owners of a business. Right? So where were the personal guarantees of Caisley, Agar, Bates et al? That lot of absentee owners owned half the business. Up until not that many months ago, when Colin Tordoff sold his shares to Hood and Stephen Coulby sold most of his shares to Bennett, the directors between them held 7% of the shares. Even at the end, they only held between them 25%. Has anyone on here ever, ever seen a business where the principal owners took no personal laibility whatsoever for the borrowings, but expected only the executive directors to? Regardless of circumstances? No, me neither. Whatever led up to that situation, it is yet another aspect that to me made no sense. . If there IS a "forensic examination" underway (and I would be happy if one IS, provided it is impartial and has not already decided what the answer needs to be), who is funding it? We already know this is an unfunded administration - Lord knows they made that clear enough by sacking all the key non-playing staff (imagine how much they would have added to the creditors had they sacked the playing staff...) - so how are they getting paid for the work? I know how much these things cost - and it all comes out of any recovery for the creditors!!! , In a normal insolvency (and for a whole raft of reasons I do not regard this one as "normal") a creditors committee is formed, if there seems to be action that can be taken, and the creditors decide on and fund any investigative action. I believe no such committee has yet been formed (although they propose that one be), and indeed the joint administrators do not even propose to convene a meeting of creditors, so I wonder how the creditors will get to vote on the composition of such a committee? Instead, they propose the compoany goes straight to liquidation - with themselves being appointed as liquidators... . So if the creditors are not funding any investigation (and if any are, surely this would have had to have been made clear?) then who IS? And what is his motive? And is it to secure redress for the creditors, if redress is indeed required? Or is it for some other reason? I feel sure Herman Melville would have been able to provide a suggestion or two? . I recall the charge in favour of Natwest being a floating charge only, buit will need to double-check. If it WAS also a fixed charge, it cannot have been on anything other than the book debts, because at the time it was created the club had no property or other assets to charge. And as Hood said, had the interest in the long leasehold been specifically charged to the bank, they could no more have sold it than you could sell a house subject to a mortgage. And indeed, there is no suggestion in the report that such might have happened. . Equally, the report does not dwell on the circumstances behind the bank abruptly withdrawing the facility, nor does it appear to pillory the then-directors over their communmication - or lack of - with the bank. This surprised me, since a load of noise was made at the time about thbe reasons whyt the bank pulled the facility at short notoice, precipitating an immediate as opposed to future crisis. It is also very quiet about the role of the shareholders, although my understanding is that they were far from satisfied with answers they were receiving months before the crisis came to a head. . I see the report refers to "fixed and floating charges" in section 2, but there is no mention thereafter of any fixed charge. Academic anyway since Natwest were repaid before admimistration. By the by, did I ever tell people on here of a very interesting discussion I had with a senior chap from Natwest several years ago, a serious RL fan to boot? And how he told me their bank had lost appetite for funding RL clubs, and was looking to exit the sector whenever posible? And this before the Great Crash? . The payroll for the three months to end November will not be as high as £750k, even if all the sacked staff happened to be re-instated. That said, it will still be a hell of a lot for the new owner to find, since indeed he will have sod all income over the next three months. One wonders, dreads, what monies the RFL will resume paying? My best guess would be to start at nil and work down from there. . Agree totally that there are people who still do not realise just how serious this all is, both for the club (although I think most responsible Bulls fans do) and for the game (and all those from Wakefield, Keighley, Halifax and Huddersfield in particular who re currently revelling in schadenfreude may well come to learn). . People may recall how violently opposed to administration I was, in the face of those (often presumed toi be in the Caisley camp as I recall?) whose seductive siren song to sort the shareholders by going into administration so it would all be fine again found far more traction than it deserved? Can you recall how some of them patronised me with their assurances that it would be for the best? And when I pointed out the effect on the suppliers, did they give a stuff? Do they now? Where are they now? . All I can say is I tried to warn people, to be very careful what they wished for, but some refused to listen. I warned people to beware of unexpected consequences, but was ridiculed. I guess they never read Julius Caesar? Brutus could have told them. . And instead some maybe found that, when the deed was done, far from the docile **** cat they had assumed, they instead had a tiger by the tail. Adeybull

12:34am Mon 10 Sep 12

Adeybull says...

Well its come to something when I cannot even refer to a domestic moggy without the naughty words filter kicking in!!!
Well its come to something when I cannot even refer to a domestic moggy without the naughty words filter kicking in!!! Adeybull

12:52am Mon 10 Sep 12

Adeybull says...

alfucham wrote:
bradfordbronco wrote:
Is it only me or does anyone else think the Bulls can break even & still compete in SL.. All our problems have been caused by bad management not because we don't have revenue streams coming in. We dont have a Sugar Daddy to prop us up but we should be able to manage without one We have crowds of over 10,000, good junior development links and good sponsorship deals. If the new owners can bring in a bit of business sense we should have a solid future. If we are saying no club can make a profit (despite the salary cap) then whats the point. We might as well just pack up now or apply for membership of the RFU
yes I do.

Selling season tickets 8 to 10 thousand at a reasonable price and only paying salaries that can be afforded would be a start.

You dont want a sugar daddy.They get fed up and go leaving behind an unsustainable model.

build the club again through Bullbuilder.

Dont join the rest in the mad chase for glory whuilst commitinf financial suicide..

Break even is ok.

That could be acheived with fine tuning.starting with any player on more than a thousand a week
This club ran at cash break-even, overall, for severall years after they slashged the cost base post the Caisley years.
.
The problem with being a club with no sugar daddy, when all your principal compeitors have one (or had one when it mattered) is that you will unlikely ever be able to compete with them on level terms. That means you risk being consigned to ongoing mediocrtity. And sponsors and fans will only stomach that for so long.
.
Why do people think Bennett came up with the original Pledge in the first place? They must have realised that after two awful seasons on the park, the chances of securing the required minimum 10k attendances were somewehere south of nil. And with collapsing attendances, sposnsorship would likewise wither away.
.
And, sadly, too many of the donkeys on the park frittered away ALL the momentum and efforts by their dire performances again in 2011. If anyone is to blame for where we ended up, start by looking there (and the circumstances behind it).
.
I really struggle to see how a club, especially in a city in such dire straits as Bradford, can survive in SL long term when the majority of other clubs are bankrolled by wealthy owners - some, like nearby Huddersfield, by massive amounts.
.
Watch this space. We will not be the last. The RFL has got a tiger by the that is bigger and nastier by an order of magnitude than anything we have let loose.
.
One thing Hood said that I DID agree with him about was the game being built on foundations of sand.
.
Too right.
.
And the sands are shifting.
[quote][p][bold]alfucham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bradfordbronco[/bold] wrote: Is it only me or does anyone else think the Bulls can break even & still compete in SL.. All our problems have been caused by bad management not because we don't have revenue streams coming in. We dont have a Sugar Daddy to prop us up but we should be able to manage without one We have crowds of over 10,000, good junior development links and good sponsorship deals. If the new owners can bring in a bit of business sense we should have a solid future. If we are saying no club can make a profit (despite the salary cap) then whats the point. We might as well just pack up now or apply for membership of the RFU[/p][/quote]yes I do. Selling season tickets 8 to 10 thousand at a reasonable price and only paying salaries that can be afforded would be a start. You dont want a sugar daddy.They get fed up and go leaving behind an unsustainable model. build the club again through Bullbuilder. Dont join the rest in the mad chase for glory whuilst commitinf financial suicide.. Break even is ok. That could be acheived with fine tuning.starting with any player on more than a thousand a week[/p][/quote]This club ran at cash break-even, overall, for severall years after they slashged the cost base post the Caisley years. . The problem with being a club with no sugar daddy, when all your principal compeitors have one (or had one when it mattered) is that you will unlikely ever be able to compete with them on level terms. That means you risk being consigned to ongoing mediocrtity. And sponsors and fans will only stomach that for so long. . Why do people think Bennett came up with the original Pledge in the first place? They must have realised that after two awful seasons on the park, the chances of securing the required minimum 10k attendances were somewehere south of nil. And with collapsing attendances, sposnsorship would likewise wither away. . And, sadly, too many of the donkeys on the park frittered away ALL the momentum and efforts by their dire performances again in 2011. If anyone is to blame for where we ended up, start by looking there (and the circumstances behind it). . I really struggle to see how a club, especially in a city in such dire straits as Bradford, can survive in SL long term when the majority of other clubs are bankrolled by wealthy owners - some, like nearby Huddersfield, by massive amounts. . Watch this space. We will not be the last. The RFL has got a tiger by the that is bigger and nastier by an order of magnitude than anything we have let loose. . One thing Hood said that I DID agree with him about was the game being built on foundations of sand. . Too right. . And the sands are shifting. Adeybull

2:11am Mon 10 Sep 12

alfucham says...

Adeybull wrote:
OK, a few more comments picking up on some points raised (and what a refreshing change to see a serious and informed debate on here, not as yet derailed by the usual pond life). . And, before I start, can I just express a wish that if the RFL DOES withold some or all of future sky monies (if we are allowed to stay in SL) as has been strongly mooted, then they use that windfall to repay creditors, especially the smaller creditors? That, after all, is the only justification I could see (if indeed I could see any at all) for punishing yet again those who have been blameless. . Regardless of what the report says, I would not ever expect to find paid employee Ryan Duckett gave any kind of personal guarantee. Someone else might have (I'll not name names), but not him. Note the the report says "three personal guarantees" from "directors", NOT "guarantees from three directors". Happy to be proved wrong, but will be beyond gobsmacked if I was to be. . Here's an interesting one for the creditors to ponder on: normally, personal guarantees to the bank are given by the owners of a business. Right? So where were the personal guarantees of Caisley, Agar, Bates et al? That lot of absentee owners owned half the business. Up until not that many months ago, when Colin Tordoff sold his shares to Hood and Stephen Coulby sold most of his shares to Bennett, the directors between them held 7% of the shares. Even at the end, they only held between them 25%. Has anyone on here ever, ever seen a business where the principal owners took no personal laibility whatsoever for the borrowings, but expected only the executive directors to? Regardless of circumstances? No, me neither. Whatever led up to that situation, it is yet another aspect that to me made no sense. . If there IS a "forensic examination" underway (and I would be happy if one IS, provided it is impartial and has not already decided what the answer needs to be), who is funding it? We already know this is an unfunded administration - Lord knows they made that clear enough by sacking all the key non-playing staff (imagine how much they would have added to the creditors had they sacked the playing staff...) - so how are they getting paid for the work? I know how much these things cost - and it all comes out of any recovery for the creditors!!! , In a normal insolvency (and for a whole raft of reasons I do not regard this one as "normal") a creditors committee is formed, if there seems to be action that can be taken, and the creditors decide on and fund any investigative action. I believe no such committee has yet been formed (although they propose that one be), and indeed the joint administrators do not even propose to convene a meeting of creditors, so I wonder how the creditors will get to vote on the composition of such a committee? Instead, they propose the compoany goes straight to liquidation - with themselves being appointed as liquidators... . So if the creditors are not funding any investigation (and if any are, surely this would have had to have been made clear?) then who IS? And what is his motive? And is it to secure redress for the creditors, if redress is indeed required? Or is it for some other reason? I feel sure Herman Melville would have been able to provide a suggestion or two? . I recall the charge in favour of Natwest being a floating charge only, buit will need to double-check. If it WAS also a fixed charge, it cannot have been on anything other than the book debts, because at the time it was created the club had no property or other assets to charge. And as Hood said, had the interest in the long leasehold been specifically charged to the bank, they could no more have sold it than you could sell a house subject to a mortgage. And indeed, there is no suggestion in the report that such might have happened. . Equally, the report does not dwell on the circumstances behind the bank abruptly withdrawing the facility, nor does it appear to pillory the then-directors over their communmication - or lack of - with the bank. This surprised me, since a load of noise was made at the time about thbe reasons whyt the bank pulled the facility at short notoice, precipitating an immediate as opposed to future crisis. It is also very quiet about the role of the shareholders, although my understanding is that they were far from satisfied with answers they were receiving months before the crisis came to a head. . I see the report refers to "fixed and floating charges" in section 2, but there is no mention thereafter of any fixed charge. Academic anyway since Natwest were repaid before admimistration. By the by, did I ever tell people on here of a very interesting discussion I had with a senior chap from Natwest several years ago, a serious RL fan to boot? And how he told me their bank had lost appetite for funding RL clubs, and was looking to exit the sector whenever posible? And this before the Great Crash? . The payroll for the three months to end November will not be as high as £750k, even if all the sacked staff happened to be re-instated. That said, it will still be a hell of a lot for the new owner to find, since indeed he will have sod all income over the next three months. One wonders, dreads, what monies the RFL will resume paying? My best guess would be to start at nil and work down from there. . Agree totally that there are people who still do not realise just how serious this all is, both for the club (although I think most responsible Bulls fans do) and for the game (and all those from Wakefield, Keighley, Halifax and Huddersfield in particular who re currently revelling in schadenfreude may well come to learn). . People may recall how violently opposed to administration I was, in the face of those (often presumed toi be in the Caisley camp as I recall?) whose seductive siren song to sort the shareholders by going into administration so it would all be fine again found far more traction than it deserved? Can you recall how some of them patronised me with their assurances that it would be for the best? And when I pointed out the effect on the suppliers, did they give a stuff? Do they now? Where are they now? . All I can say is I tried to warn people, to be very careful what they wished for, but some refused to listen. I warned people to beware of unexpected consequences, but was ridiculed. I guess they never read Julius Caesar? Brutus could have told them. . And instead some maybe found that, when the deed was done, far from the docile **** cat they had assumed, they instead had a tiger by the tail.
You may well be right that the current forensic work ging on at P & A is being investigated not on behalf of the creditors (though the administrater has a duty to report to the Insolvency service)but by former directors and leading shareholders asfter their pound of flesh.

That said the creditors have the right (eventually and expect a lull where administration investigation drags on before liquidation)to appoint who they want to liquidate.
There is a problem for the small creditor.
They are about £500k.

The main creditors at HMRC £500k,Tong School landlords (some PFI scheme)£200k,Centra
l Govt £45k business rates,and NAK £67k hold the majority votes.

Why did CC resign his directorship but not sell his shareholding in something he knew was not profitable?

Were there other directors who did the same at the time PH seemed to become the main man?

I quite agree it is going to be very difficult given the depths to which the City Of Bradford has fallen economically.

i was through Leeds last night and the difference in appearance of ealth is so marked today whereas 20 years ago was nothing like the gap of today.

Bradford has fallen so far in this time wheras Leeds has improved no end.

What they have acheived with Headingley is amazing and that includes the cricket ground and campus.

The Bulls fortunes reflect that of a badly failing city.

Anyway think its time tommorow to arrange to inspect Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd Statutory books.

They are open to anyone and should reveal the charges and securities the company held.

Wonder if they will be written up.
I am told that the expected funding opf player and other wages (peerhaps with is it 12 pc employers NIC will amount to £750k that OK Bulls will have to find between now and 30.11.

After paying £250k to buy the assets and having no assurance as to distribution from central funds or even if they will be in SL next year.

Sounds a massive risk to me.

Did not look to be bursting at the Rafters in OK"s Bradford restaurant last night.

Hope he will be OK our OK but I have to worry for him and he needs incredible support to turn it round.
Does not strike me as the man with bottomless pockets more a commited Bradfordian.
The administrater did not call a creditors meet on cost grounds as where things stand as they are there is nowt for em.

So to dig deep into the records is going to need a herculean effort to get the creditors together.
perhaps the press can play a part.
[quote][p][bold]Adeybull[/bold] wrote: OK, a few more comments picking up on some points raised (and what a refreshing change to see a serious and informed debate on here, not as yet derailed by the usual pond life). . And, before I start, can I just express a wish that if the RFL DOES withold some or all of future sky monies (if we are allowed to stay in SL) as has been strongly mooted, then they use that windfall to repay creditors, especially the smaller creditors? That, after all, is the only justification I could see (if indeed I could see any at all) for punishing yet again those who have been blameless. . Regardless of what the report says, I would not ever expect to find paid employee Ryan Duckett gave any kind of personal guarantee. Someone else might have (I'll not name names), but not him. Note the the report says "three personal guarantees" from "directors", NOT "guarantees from three directors". Happy to be proved wrong, but will be beyond gobsmacked if I was to be. . Here's an interesting one for the creditors to ponder on: normally, personal guarantees to the bank are given by the owners of a business. Right? So where were the personal guarantees of Caisley, Agar, Bates et al? That lot of absentee owners owned half the business. Up until not that many months ago, when Colin Tordoff sold his shares to Hood and Stephen Coulby sold most of his shares to Bennett, the directors between them held 7% of the shares. Even at the end, they only held between them 25%. Has anyone on here ever, ever seen a business where the principal owners took no personal laibility whatsoever for the borrowings, but expected only the executive directors to? Regardless of circumstances? No, me neither. Whatever led up to that situation, it is yet another aspect that to me made no sense. . If there IS a "forensic examination" underway (and I would be happy if one IS, provided it is impartial and has not already decided what the answer needs to be), who is funding it? We already know this is an unfunded administration - Lord knows they made that clear enough by sacking all the key non-playing staff (imagine how much they would have added to the creditors had they sacked the playing staff...) - so how are they getting paid for the work? I know how much these things cost - and it all comes out of any recovery for the creditors!!! , In a normal insolvency (and for a whole raft of reasons I do not regard this one as "normal") a creditors committee is formed, if there seems to be action that can be taken, and the creditors decide on and fund any investigative action. I believe no such committee has yet been formed (although they propose that one be), and indeed the joint administrators do not even propose to convene a meeting of creditors, so I wonder how the creditors will get to vote on the composition of such a committee? Instead, they propose the compoany goes straight to liquidation - with themselves being appointed as liquidators... . So if the creditors are not funding any investigation (and if any are, surely this would have had to have been made clear?) then who IS? And what is his motive? And is it to secure redress for the creditors, if redress is indeed required? Or is it for some other reason? I feel sure Herman Melville would have been able to provide a suggestion or two? . I recall the charge in favour of Natwest being a floating charge only, buit will need to double-check. If it WAS also a fixed charge, it cannot have been on anything other than the book debts, because at the time it was created the club had no property or other assets to charge. And as Hood said, had the interest in the long leasehold been specifically charged to the bank, they could no more have sold it than you could sell a house subject to a mortgage. And indeed, there is no suggestion in the report that such might have happened. . Equally, the report does not dwell on the circumstances behind the bank abruptly withdrawing the facility, nor does it appear to pillory the then-directors over their communmication - or lack of - with the bank. This surprised me, since a load of noise was made at the time about thbe reasons whyt the bank pulled the facility at short notoice, precipitating an immediate as opposed to future crisis. It is also very quiet about the role of the shareholders, although my understanding is that they were far from satisfied with answers they were receiving months before the crisis came to a head. . I see the report refers to "fixed and floating charges" in section 2, but there is no mention thereafter of any fixed charge. Academic anyway since Natwest were repaid before admimistration. By the by, did I ever tell people on here of a very interesting discussion I had with a senior chap from Natwest several years ago, a serious RL fan to boot? And how he told me their bank had lost appetite for funding RL clubs, and was looking to exit the sector whenever posible? And this before the Great Crash? . The payroll for the three months to end November will not be as high as £750k, even if all the sacked staff happened to be re-instated. That said, it will still be a hell of a lot for the new owner to find, since indeed he will have sod all income over the next three months. One wonders, dreads, what monies the RFL will resume paying? My best guess would be to start at nil and work down from there. . Agree totally that there are people who still do not realise just how serious this all is, both for the club (although I think most responsible Bulls fans do) and for the game (and all those from Wakefield, Keighley, Halifax and Huddersfield in particular who re currently revelling in schadenfreude may well come to learn). . People may recall how violently opposed to administration I was, in the face of those (often presumed toi be in the Caisley camp as I recall?) whose seductive siren song to sort the shareholders by going into administration so it would all be fine again found far more traction than it deserved? Can you recall how some of them patronised me with their assurances that it would be for the best? And when I pointed out the effect on the suppliers, did they give a stuff? Do they now? Where are they now? . All I can say is I tried to warn people, to be very careful what they wished for, but some refused to listen. I warned people to beware of unexpected consequences, but was ridiculed. I guess they never read Julius Caesar? Brutus could have told them. . And instead some maybe found that, when the deed was done, far from the docile **** cat they had assumed, they instead had a tiger by the tail.[/p][/quote]You may well be right that the current forensic work ging on at P & A is being investigated not on behalf of the creditors (though the administrater has a duty to report to the Insolvency service)but by former directors and leading shareholders asfter their pound of flesh. That said the creditors have the right (eventually and expect a lull where administration investigation drags on before liquidation)to appoint who they want to liquidate. There is a problem for the small creditor. They are about £500k. The main creditors at HMRC £500k,Tong School landlords (some PFI scheme)£200k,Centra l Govt £45k business rates,and NAK £67k hold the majority votes. Why did CC resign his directorship but not sell his shareholding in something he knew was not profitable? Were there other directors who did the same at the time PH seemed to become the main man? I quite agree it is going to be very difficult given the depths to which the City Of Bradford has fallen economically. i was through Leeds last night and the difference in appearance of ealth is so marked today whereas 20 years ago was nothing like the gap of today. Bradford has fallen so far in this time wheras Leeds has improved no end. What they have acheived with Headingley is amazing and that includes the cricket ground and campus. The Bulls fortunes reflect that of a badly failing city. Anyway think its time tommorow to arrange to inspect Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd Statutory books. They are open to anyone and should reveal the charges and securities the company held. Wonder if they will be written up. I am told that the expected funding opf player and other wages (peerhaps with is it 12 pc employers NIC will amount to £750k that OK Bulls will have to find between now and 30.11. After paying £250k to buy the assets and having no assurance as to distribution from central funds or even if they will be in SL next year. Sounds a massive risk to me. Did not look to be bursting at the Rafters in OK"s Bradford restaurant last night. Hope he will be OK our OK but I have to worry for him and he needs incredible support to turn it round. Does not strike me as the man with bottomless pockets more a commited Bradfordian. The administrater did not call a creditors meet on cost grounds as where things stand as they are there is nowt for em. So to dig deep into the records is going to need a herculean effort to get the creditors together. perhaps the press can play a part. alfucham

2:33am Mon 10 Sep 12

alfucham says...

oh dear tiger by the tail another big insolvency looming perhaps,giants funder saying there is no more,other funders perhaps pulling out.

This could be just what the game needs to get back to basics and pay sustainable wages throughout the game.

Lets hope that the Leveson report does not see Murdoch running for the hills and turning his back on funding British sport.Could that be Armeggeddon.

Wonder what the viewing figures are.
The RFL may find there reserves of 25m quickly dissapear in propping up all the clubs in due course
oh dear tiger by the tail another big insolvency looming perhaps,giants funder saying there is no more,other funders perhaps pulling out. This could be just what the game needs to get back to basics and pay sustainable wages throughout the game. Lets hope that the Leveson report does not see Murdoch running for the hills and turning his back on funding British sport.Could that be Armeggeddon. Wonder what the viewing figures are. The RFL may find there reserves of 25m quickly dissapear in propping up all the clubs in due course alfucham

10:23am Mon 10 Sep 12

theviking62 says...

Reality 50, a lot of trouble at SL, for bringing game into disrepute, that's why 12 of the remaining 13 clubs, voted to keep BULLS IN SL, only dissenters, the Giants. Trouble with SKY, where did you read this. The RFL, have a lot to answer for, Blake Solly, they/he awarded theBulls their licence, obviously not enough work done on their part re finances at Odsal. I will ask you, again, prove all you said.
Reality 50, a lot of trouble at SL, for bringing game into disrepute, that's why 12 of the remaining 13 clubs, voted to keep BULLS IN SL, only dissenters, the Giants. Trouble with SKY, where did you read this. The RFL, have a lot to answer for, Blake Solly, they/he awarded theBulls their licence, obviously not enough work done on their part re finances at Odsal. I will ask you, again, prove all you said. theviking62

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