Two bidders for Bradford Bulls (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

This circus will go on till after the final game, bet MP happy.

Amazing , the players and staff doing their utmost to keep the club alive , Fans backing the club home and away, whilst the RFL (&ADMIN) have twiddled thumbs and played with the abacus and dragged on and on , PULL A FINGER OUT AND GET IT SORTED !!
Yes a "right & proper" person is required to take over , but shouldn't we have had that in an administrator as well , instead of someone lining his own (& possibly others ) pockets with the exorbitant fee's he's claiming.?(as quoted on here)
How does it work when a business has no funds and the admin is screwing the business for every penny he can get , is this not a conflict of what he is supposed to be doing (allegedly) ?

taurusthebull wrote:
Amazing , the players and staff doing their utmost to keep the club alive , Fans backing the club home and away, whilst the RFL (&ADMIN) have twiddled thumbs and played with the abacus and dragged on and on , PULL A FINGER OUT AND GET IT SORTED !!
Yes a "right & proper" person is required to take over , but shouldn't we have had that in an administrator as well , instead of someone lining his own (& possibly others ) pockets with the exorbitant fee's he's claiming.?(as quoted on here)
How does it work when a business has no funds and the admin is screwing the business for every penny he can get , is this not a conflict of what he is supposed to be doing (allegedly) ?

Totally agree, who appointed the administrator?
I could have had more faith in him If I felt he was neutral!! Plus not being able to retrieve voicemails is an incredible statement from a man in such a powerful position.It`s like Nelson putting the telescope to his blind eye and saying I see no ships.

Morning mumby, they let you out your room early today.

After listening to Blake Solly on boots n all last night and Eddies closing comment of a lot of talk but not a lot of information is quite correct, why does this have to go on another 7-14 days, if the proof the money is available has been received, which it has, a business plan put in place, which it has, the necessary other checks takes only a couple of minutes eg credit worthyness and fit and proper person etc, surely this should be sorted by the end of the week not the end of the season, I cannot help but feel there is something else going on in the background the prolong this unnecessary situation. However massive praise the all the fans, players and especially Mick Potter and the unpaid staff.

taurusthebull wrote:
Amazing , the players and staff doing their utmost to keep the club alive , Fans backing the club home and away, whilst the RFL (&ADMIN) have twiddled thumbs and played with the abacus and dragged on and on , PULL A FINGER OUT AND GET IT SORTED !!
Yes a "right & proper" person is required to take over , but shouldn't we have had that in an administrator as well , instead of someone lining his own (& possibly others ) pockets with the exorbitant fee's he's claiming.?(as quoted on here)
How does it work when a business has no funds and the admin is screwing the business for every penny he can get , is this not a conflict of what he is supposed to be doing (allegedly) ?

Hang on a minute, your condemnation of the administrator fails to acknowledge a rather important detail - we are still in existence! Plus the remuneration figures bandied about must be pure speculation given that as the guy running the club he has some control over confidentiality in this area you would think. I am not saying the amount is insignificant of course it won't be, but how do we know it will not make up part of the purchase price for the club?

Oh and one last reminder, as has been said on here a number of times by the brighter contributors, the administrator's responsibility is first and foremost to get the best deal possible for the club's creditors; saving the club is, of course, mutually compatible with that aim if the deal to purchase makes sense for creditors as well as going forward. That means a potential clash of cultures: a buyer who wishes to go forward with as little negative financial legacy as possible and an administrator who wishes to see a buyer come up with a good deal for the creditors first.

Compare this report by our beloved T&A and the YP,you would'nt think this was the Bradford local paper/news outlet.
Pull your finger out T&A and get some news worth reporting,or carry on letting others do it for you and then print it days later.

Once again this so called local paper, is late with the news. Scooped yesterday afternoon. Get your act together t n a . You've been about as good as a chocolate fire guard, throughout this whole debacle. As I said get your acr together or loose even more readers. How soon will it be before your a weekly?

Van Bellen's Baby wrote:

taurusthebull wrote:
Amazing , the players and staff doing their utmost to keep the club alive , Fans backing the club home and away, whilst the RFL (&ADMIN) have twiddled thumbs and played with the abacus and dragged on and on , PULL A FINGER OUT AND GET IT SORTED !!
Yes a "right & proper" person is required to take over , but shouldn't we have had that in an administrator as well , instead of someone lining his own (& possibly others ) pockets with the exorbitant fee's he's claiming.?(as quoted on here)
How does it work when a business has no funds and the admin is screwing the business for every penny he can get , is this not a conflict of what he is supposed to be doing (allegedly) ?

Hang on a minute, your condemnation of the administrator fails to acknowledge a rather important detail - we are still in existence! Plus the remuneration figures bandied about must be pure speculation given that as the guy running the club he has some control over confidentiality in this area you would think. I am not saying the amount is insignificant of course it won't be, but how do we know it will not make up part of the purchase price for the club?

Oh and one last reminder, as has been said on here a number of times by the brighter contributors, the administrator's responsibility is first and foremost to get the best deal possible for the club's creditors; saving the club is, of course, mutually compatible with that aim if the deal to purchase makes sense for creditors as well as going forward. That means a potential clash of cultures: a buyer who wishes to go forward with as little negative financial legacy as possible and an administrator who wishes to see a buyer come up with a good deal for the creditors first.

You are quite right but it`s the frustration of the situation that gets to the fans.
But I still believe he is too closely linked with CC

BCFC LAD wrote:
Morning mumby, they let you out your room early today.

He never went back to the hospital last night.

I will reiterate why it will take another few weeks, if the idea is to chuck bulls out it may be hard getting staff and players to fulfill last 2 fixtures.

Well, what surprise, the other 13 SL clubs, want us to remain in the league. ALL gave their consent to keep bulls in the league. For more info, read the Yorkshire Post, who are more aware of what's happening than this comic.

Mumby was the best wrote:

Van Bellen's Baby wrote:

taurusthebull wrote:
Amazing , the players and staff doing their utmost to keep the club alive , Fans backing the club home and away, whilst the RFL (&ADMIN) have twiddled thumbs and played with the abacus and dragged on and on , PULL A FINGER OUT AND GET IT SORTED !!
Yes a "right & proper" person is required to take over , but shouldn't we have had that in an administrator as well , instead of someone lining his own (& possibly others ) pockets with the exorbitant fee's he's claiming.?(as quoted on here)
How does it work when a business has no funds and the admin is screwing the business for every penny he can get , is this not a conflict of what he is supposed to be doing (allegedly) ?

Hang on a minute, your condemnation of the administrator fails to acknowledge a rather important detail - we are still in existence! Plus the remuneration figures bandied about must be pure speculation given that as the guy running the club he has some control over confidentiality in this area you would think. I am not saying the amount is insignificant of course it won't be, but how do we know it will not make up part of the purchase price for the club?

Oh and one last reminder, as has been said on here a number of times by the brighter contributors, the administrator's responsibility is first and foremost to get the best deal possible for the club's creditors; saving the club is, of course, mutually compatible with that aim if the deal to purchase makes sense for creditors as well as going forward. That means a potential clash of cultures: a buyer who wishes to go forward with as little negative financial legacy as possible and an administrator who wishes to see a buyer come up with a good deal for the creditors first.

You are quite right but it`s the frustration of the situation that gets to the fans.
But I still believe he is too closely linked with CC

Yes it is frustrating, not least because if this isn't resolved until the end of the season our chances of remaining in Superleague drop considerably. Had a buyer had the chance to prove stability to the RFL before the end of the season it might have been enough, but now, you fear the worst for next season.

Go to the Yorkshire Post for a much better article. This report was taken from Boots N All last night.
.
It does appear to be getting sorted out and hopefully we will have new owners next week.

Prycey, shows the level of reporting that's the t n a. Very poor. If I was management, I would've seriously worried. Great news though, that ALL the other clubs are behind us.

Dont count on it :-P

All the other Clubs may be behind us but it suits them for the saga to drag on past Sept 1st as it allows them to sign our players. If it had been sorted by now we would have had a chance of keeping some of them but I'm sure Adam Pearson at Hull (for example) would be delighted that Elima doesn't have a contract from Bradford on the table by Sept 1st, so that he can snap him up.

Prycey wrote:
Go to the Yorkshire Post for a much better article. This report was taken from Boots N All last night.
.
It does appear to be getting sorted out and hopefully we will have new owners next week.

Next week!!!! You having a laugh?

The actual quotere new owners, at the meeting was " as early as next week " I suggest the doubters go and read the FULL article on the meeting in the Yorkshire Post. At the meeting were, Maurice Watkins, Nigel Wood et al. Not just Blake Solly. You'll get a better idea as to what ifs happening and what was said.

Like many of you listening to the ubiquitous BS ter. BS. I feel a sense of foreboding that the nit picking will continue until we have to accept anything they dish out to us.
As Eddie Hemmings said a lot of talk and little substance.
One question that should have been answered related to the granting of the licence. Blake Solly wriggled like a wriggly thing. He passed off the situation as being unforeseen expenses and that the forecast for season tickets sales was less than forecasted. That's something that couldn't be refuted as we don't know the forecast and we only have the word of the past regime to tell us how many were pledged and taken up ie 10,483 @ £75 basic cost. If my memory serves me correctly.

He didn't mention the unprecedented purchase of our lease to clawback the £750k we owed them (for what I don't know, maybe it was our contribution/subscri
ption money still owed?) That effectively set the rot into the finances, besides adding a further £250k v.a.t debt to our portfolio.

So if we sold the Lease for £1.25m a figure not in dispute. And of that £750k was clawed back, with a VAT proportion of £250k the Bulls were left with £........Answers on a post card to BS c/o Red Hall.The question then is:

"So this Lease being sold way below the market value, ultimately was instrumental to the domino effect, that brought about a situation with the Bank withdrawing overdraft facilities, whilst asking for repayment of the current overdraft plus the subsequent Bradford Bulls, financial meltdown?"
A hypothetical question for a hypothetical spokesman.!

raisemeup wrote:
Like many of you listening to the ubiquitous BS ter. BS. I feel a sense of foreboding that the nit picking will continue until we have to accept anything they dish out to us. As Eddie Hemmings said a lot of talk and little substance. One question that should have been answered related to the granting of the licence. Blake Solly wriggled like a wriggly thing. He passed off the situation as being unforeseen expenses and that the forecast for season tickets sales was less than forecasted. That's something that couldn't be refuted as we don't know the forecast and we only have the word of the past regime to tell us how many were pledged and taken up ie 10,483 @ £75 basic cost. If my memory serves me correctly. He didn't mention the unprecedented purchase of our lease to clawback the £750k we owed them (for what I don't know, maybe it was our contribution/subscri ption money still owed?) That effectively set the rot into the finances, besides adding a further £250k v.a.t debt to our portfolio. So if we sold the Lease for £1.25m a figure not in dispute. And of that £750k was clawed back, with a VAT proportion of £250k the Bulls were left with £........Answers on a post card to BS c/o Red Hall.The question then is: "So this Lease being sold way below the market value, ultimately was instrumental to the domino effect, that brought about a situation with the Bank withdrawing overdraft facilities, whilst asking for repayment of the current overdraft plus the subsequent Bradford Bulls, financial meltdown?" A hypothetical question for a hypothetical spokesman.!

Season tickets were £85 not £75 btw, I know you like your numbers.

As for the sale of the lease being the start of a Domino effect, you are probably partly right on that as I would expect the overdraft was given based on the club owning the lease, when the lease went the bank got nervous and called in the overdraft, still most of the overdraft was covered by the pledge monies but even after that the club has been way way short of funds to pay it's way which turns the finger back to the RFL, what did they actually do to make sure the figures that accompanied the application for a super league licence. My guess is nothing.

Tatecastre wrote:
Prycey, shows the level of reporting that's the t n a. Very poor. If I was management, I would've seriously worried. Great news though, that ALL the other clubs are behind us.

Well if that report was taken from Boots n all last night. I would seriously question the journo.

BS when asked said the voting procedure would take place at a later date, and wouldn't confirm the number of clubs saying yes or no either way.

Eddie Hemmings also said to the glove puppet sat opposite him, that how could he deny the major clubs who had already voiced their support.
To which we got a negative and stock reply from his puppetness.
Even suggesting that the Bulls were taking support from the competition, to get them tiptoeing into the play offs or even grand final..at least we had the satisfaction of seeing a look from Sean Mc Crae, that suggested we look for his lobotomy scar, or where the sawdust had been added for the stuffing.

Sometimes I think he has a string at the back, and once pulled he begins to spout uncontrollable verbal diarrhoea. (had to look that one up!)

Dont they have a license system and salary cap in RL so this does not happen ?

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

raisemeup wrote:
Like many of you listening to the ubiquitous BS ter. BS. I feel a sense of foreboding that the nit picking will continue until we have to accept anything they dish out to us. As Eddie Hemmings said a lot of talk and little substance. One question that should have been answered related to the granting of the licence. Blake Solly wriggled like a wriggly thing. He passed off the situation as being unforeseen expenses and that the forecast for season tickets sales was less than forecasted. That's something that couldn't be refuted as we don't know the forecast and we only have the word of the past regime to tell us how many were pledged and taken up ie 10,483 @ £75 basic cost. If my memory serves me correctly. He didn't mention the unprecedented purchase of our lease to clawback the £750k we owed them (for what I don't know, maybe it was our contribution/subscri ption money still owed?) That effectively set the rot into the finances, besides adding a further £250k v.a.t debt to our portfolio. So if we sold the Lease for £1.25m a figure not in dispute. And of that £750k was clawed back, with a VAT proportion of £250k the Bulls were left with £........Answers on a post card to BS c/o Red Hall.The question then is: "So this Lease being sold way below the market value, ultimately was instrumental to the domino effect, that brought about a situation with the Bank withdrawing overdraft facilities, whilst asking for repayment of the current overdraft plus the subsequent Bradford Bulls, financial meltdown?" A hypothetical question for a hypothetical spokesman.!

Season tickets were £85 not £75 btw, I know you like your numbers.

As for the sale of the lease being the start of a Domino effect, you are probably partly right on that as I would expect the overdraft was given based on the club owning the lease, when the lease went the bank got nervous and called in the overdraft, still most of the overdraft was covered by the pledge monies but even after that the club has been way way short of funds to pay it's way which turns the finger back to the RFL, what did they actually do to make sure the figures that accompanied the application for a super league licence. My guess is nothing.

No pretty sure it was £75 . if it had been £85 they would have fared a lot better with £891k paid before Xmas last year.

raisemeup wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

raisemeup wrote: Like many of you listening to the ubiquitous BS ter. BS. I feel a sense of foreboding that the nit picking will continue until we have to accept anything they dish out to us. As Eddie Hemmings said a lot of talk and little substance. One question that should have been answered related to the granting of the licence. Blake Solly wriggled like a wriggly thing. He passed off the situation as being unforeseen expenses and that the forecast for season tickets sales was less than forecasted. That's something that couldn't be refuted as we don't know the forecast and we only have the word of the past regime to tell us how many were pledged and taken up ie 10,483 @ £75 basic cost. If my memory serves me correctly. He didn't mention the unprecedented purchase of our lease to clawback the £750k we owed them (for what I don't know, maybe it was our contribution/subscri ption money still owed?) That effectively set the rot into the finances, besides adding a further £250k v.a.t debt to our portfolio. So if we sold the Lease for £1.25m a figure not in dispute. And of that £750k was clawed back, with a VAT proportion of £250k the Bulls were left with £........Answers on a post card to BS c/o Red Hall.The question then is: "So this Lease being sold way below the market value, ultimately was instrumental to the domino effect, that brought about a situation with the Bank withdrawing overdraft facilities, whilst asking for repayment of the current overdraft plus the subsequent Bradford Bulls, financial meltdown?" A hypothetical question for a hypothetical spokesman.!

Season tickets were £85 not £75 btw, I know you like your numbers. As for the sale of the lease being the start of a Domino effect, you are probably partly right on that as I would expect the overdraft was given based on the club owning the lease, when the lease went the bank got nervous and called in the overdraft, still most of the overdraft was covered by the pledge monies but even after that the club has been way way short of funds to pay it's way which turns the finger back to the RFL, what did they actually do to make sure the figures that accompanied the application for a super league licence. My guess is nothing.

No pretty sure it was £75 . if it had been £85 they would have fared a lot better with £891k paid before Xmas last year.

I do get a little tired of proving you wrong but here is the proof.

http://www.thetelegr
aphandargus.co.uk/sp
ort/sportbulls/94825
24.Bradford_Bulls_hi
t_10_000_fans_target
/

raisemeup wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

raisemeup wrote: Like many of you listening to the ubiquitous BS ter. BS. I feel a sense of foreboding that the nit picking will continue until we have to accept anything they dish out to us. As Eddie Hemmings said a lot of talk and little substance. One question that should have been answered related to the granting of the licence. Blake Solly wriggled like a wriggly thing. He passed off the situation as being unforeseen expenses and that the forecast for season tickets sales was less than forecasted. That's something that couldn't be refuted as we don't know the forecast and we only have the word of the past regime to tell us how many were pledged and taken up ie 10,483 @ £75 basic cost. If my memory serves me correctly. He didn't mention the unprecedented purchase of our lease to clawback the £750k we owed them (for what I don't know, maybe it was our contribution/subscri ption money still owed?) That effectively set the rot into the finances, besides adding a further £250k v.a.t debt to our portfolio. So if we sold the Lease for £1.25m a figure not in dispute. And of that £750k was clawed back, with a VAT proportion of £250k the Bulls were left with £........Answers on a post card to BS c/o Red Hall.The question then is: "So this Lease being sold way below the market value, ultimately was instrumental to the domino effect, that brought about a situation with the Bank withdrawing overdraft facilities, whilst asking for repayment of the current overdraft plus the subsequent Bradford Bulls, financial meltdown?" A hypothetical question for a hypothetical spokesman.!

Season tickets were £85 not £75 btw, I know you like your numbers. As for the sale of the lease being the start of a Domino effect, you are probably partly right on that as I would expect the overdraft was given based on the club owning the lease, when the lease went the bank got nervous and called in the overdraft, still most of the overdraft was covered by the pledge monies but even after that the club has been way way short of funds to pay it's way which turns the finger back to the RFL, what did they actually do to make sure the figures that accompanied the application for a super league licence. My guess is nothing.

No pretty sure it was £75 . if it had been £85 they would have fared a lot better with £891k paid before Xmas last year.

was £75 for the first 3k terrace tickets only. terrace tickets after initial 3k were £85. And theres approx 4k sat in stand who paid considerably more than £85 too. saying it was 10,483 at £75 is way too simplistic a view.

mdn wrote:

raisemeup wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

raisemeup wrote: Like many of you listening to the ubiquitous BS ter. BS. I feel a sense of foreboding that the nit picking will continue until we have to accept anything they dish out to us. As Eddie Hemmings said a lot of talk and little substance. One question that should have been answered related to the granting of the licence. Blake Solly wriggled like a wriggly thing. He passed off the situation as being unforeseen expenses and that the forecast for season tickets sales was less than forecasted. That's something that couldn't be refuted as we don't know the forecast and we only have the word of the past regime to tell us how many were pledged and taken up ie 10,483 @ £75 basic cost. If my memory serves me correctly. He didn't mention the unprecedented purchase of our lease to clawback the £750k we owed them (for what I don't know, maybe it was our contribution/subscri ption money still owed?) That effectively set the rot into the finances, besides adding a further £250k v.a.t debt to our portfolio. So if we sold the Lease for £1.25m a figure not in dispute. And of that £750k was clawed back, with a VAT proportion of £250k the Bulls were left with £........Answers on a post card to BS c/o Red Hall.The question then is: "So this Lease being sold way below the market value, ultimately was instrumental to the domino effect, that brought about a situation with the Bank withdrawing overdraft facilities, whilst asking for repayment of the current overdraft plus the subsequent Bradford Bulls, financial meltdown?" A hypothetical question for a hypothetical spokesman.!

Season tickets were £85 not £75 btw, I know you like your numbers. As for the sale of the lease being the start of a Domino effect, you are probably partly right on that as I would expect the overdraft was given based on the club owning the lease, when the lease went the bank got nervous and called in the overdraft, still most of the overdraft was covered by the pledge monies but even after that the club has been way way short of funds to pay it's way which turns the finger back to the RFL, what did they actually do to make sure the figures that accompanied the application for a super league licence. My guess is nothing.

No pretty sure it was £75 . if it had been £85 they would have fared a lot better with £891k paid before Xmas last year.

was £75 for the first 3k terrace tickets only. terrace tickets after initial 3k were £85. And theres approx 4k sat in stand who paid considerably more than £85 too. saying it was 10,483 at £75 is way too simplistic a view.

Don't forget part of that money isn't the clubs, it's the taxmans in VAT so those figures need to be reduced by 20% to pay the VAT bill.

Tatecastre wrote:
The actual quotere new owners, at the meeting was " as early as next week " I suggest the doubters go and read the FULL article on the meeting in the Yorkshire Post. At the meeting were, Maurice Watkins, Nigel Wood et al. Not just Blake Solly. You'll get a better idea as to what ifs happening and what was said.

Nay lad, we stopped taking any notice of 'what was said' months ago. It's not the doubters who are confused it's more like the gullible.

You may have Murphys'law, but then again your like many others on here negative. You believe we're all gullible. Tvor, your one big headed t**t. Always, have to be right and we're wrong. As I said read the Yorkshire post, it's far better than this comic. Reports the FULL facts,not as stated on tv.

Its serves no useful purpose dwelling on the past the inquest in to how we are where we are now is irrelevant , its about where we go from here, all the arguments about how much was raised from ticket sales etc is history , some positive attitude is needed and with new owners around the corner lets look to the future and bury this sorry episode. Hopefully the job gets sorted before the vultures descend and take the best players, already one or two are on their way out like Burgess & Elima but fingers crossed the best of the rest can be retained. COYB

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

raisemeup wrote:
Like many of you listening to the ubiquitous BS ter. BS. I feel a sense of foreboding that the nit picking will continue until we have to accept anything they dish out to us. As Eddie Hemmings said a lot of talk and little substance. One question that should have been answered related to the granting of the licence. Blake Solly wriggled like a wriggly thing. He passed off the situation as being unforeseen expenses and that the forecast for season tickets sales was less than forecasted. That's something that couldn't be refuted as we don't know the forecast and we only have the word of the past regime to tell us how many were pledged and taken up ie 10,483 @ £75 basic cost. If my memory serves me correctly. He didn't mention the unprecedented purchase of our lease to clawback the £750k we owed them (for what I don't know, maybe it was our contribution/subscri ption money still owed?) That effectively set the rot into the finances, besides adding a further £250k v.a.t debt to our portfolio. So if we sold the Lease for £1.25m a figure not in dispute. And of that £750k was clawed back, with a VAT proportion of £250k the Bulls were left with £........Answers on a post card to BS c/o Red Hall.The question then is: "So this Lease being sold way below the market value, ultimately was instrumental to the domino effect, that brought about a situation with the Bank withdrawing overdraft facilities, whilst asking for repayment of the current overdraft plus the subsequent Bradford Bulls, financial meltdown?" A hypothetical question for a hypothetical spokesman.!

Season tickets were £85 not £75 btw, I know you like your numbers.

As for the sale of the lease being the start of a Domino effect, you are probably partly right on that as I would expect the overdraft was given based on the club owning the lease, when the lease went the bank got nervous and called in the overdraft, still most of the overdraft was covered by the pledge monies but even after that the club has been way way short of funds to pay it's way which turns the finger back to the RFL, what did they actually do to make sure the figures that accompanied the application for a super league licence. My guess is nothing.

I paid £75 for my ticket the offer was first 3000 to pledge and pay got it for £75

mdn wrote:

raisemeup wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

raisemeup wrote: Like many of you listening to the ubiquitous BS ter. BS. I feel a sense of foreboding that the nit picking will continue until we have to accept anything they dish out to us. As Eddie Hemmings said a lot of talk and little substance. One question that should have been answered related to the granting of the licence. Blake Solly wriggled like a wriggly thing. He passed off the situation as being unforeseen expenses and that the forecast for season tickets sales was less than forecasted. That's something that couldn't be refuted as we don't know the forecast and we only have the word of the past regime to tell us how many were pledged and taken up ie 10,483 @ £75 basic cost. If my memory serves me correctly. He didn't mention the unprecedented purchase of our lease to clawback the £750k we owed them (for what I don't know, maybe it was our contribution/subscri ption money still owed?) That effectively set the rot into the finances, besides adding a further £250k v.a.t debt to our portfolio. So if we sold the Lease for £1.25m a figure not in dispute. And of that £750k was clawed back, with a VAT proportion of £250k the Bulls were left with £........Answers on a post card to BS c/o Red Hall.The question then is: "So this Lease being sold way below the market value, ultimately was instrumental to the domino effect, that brought about a situation with the Bank withdrawing overdraft facilities, whilst asking for repayment of the current overdraft plus the subsequent Bradford Bulls, financial meltdown?" A hypothetical question for a hypothetical spokesman.!

Season tickets were £85 not £75 btw, I know you like your numbers. As for the sale of the lease being the start of a Domino effect, you are probably partly right on that as I would expect the overdraft was given based on the club owning the lease, when the lease went the bank got nervous and called in the overdraft, still most of the overdraft was covered by the pledge monies but even after that the club has been way way short of funds to pay it's way which turns the finger back to the RFL, what did they actually do to make sure the figures that accompanied the application for a super league licence. My guess is nothing.

No pretty sure it was £75 . if it had been £85 they would have fared a lot better with £891k paid before Xmas last year.

was £75 for the first 3k terrace tickets only. terrace tickets after initial 3k were £85. And theres approx 4k sat in stand who paid considerably more than £85 too. saying it was 10,483 at £75 is way too simplistic a view.

The basic cost was £75 which is what I said. Same as saying from £75...not going into the where and where fors...
I refuse to get into this silliness.

Leave it, it bears no relation to anything that's happening at this moment.

Incidently I know all about the add ons that made the figures even higher depending on what the person who had bought the ticket was prepared to pay...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

raisemeup wrote:

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:

raisemeup wrote: Like many of you listening to the ubiquitous BS ter. BS. I feel a sense of foreboding that the nit picking will continue until we have to accept anything they dish out to us. As Eddie Hemmings said a lot of talk and little substance. One question that should have been answered related to the granting of the licence. Blake Solly wriggled like a wriggly thing. He passed off the situation as being unforeseen expenses and that the forecast for season tickets sales was less than forecasted. That's something that couldn't be refuted as we don't know the forecast and we only have the word of the past regime to tell us how many were pledged and taken up ie 10,483 @ £75 basic cost. If my memory serves me correctly. He didn't mention the unprecedented purchase of our lease to clawback the £750k we owed them (for what I don't know, maybe it was our contribution/subscri ption money still owed?) That effectively set the rot into the finances, besides adding a further £250k v.a.t debt to our portfolio. So if we sold the Lease for £1.25m a figure not in dispute. And of that £750k was clawed back, with a VAT proportion of £250k the Bulls were left with £........Answers on a post card to BS c/o Red Hall.The question then is: "So this Lease being sold way below the market value, ultimately was instrumental to the domino effect, that brought about a situation with the Bank withdrawing overdraft facilities, whilst asking for repayment of the current overdraft plus the subsequent Bradford Bulls, financial meltdown?" A hypothetical question for a hypothetical spokesman.!

Season tickets were £85 not £75 btw, I know you like your numbers. As for the sale of the lease being the start of a Domino effect, you are probably partly right on that as I would expect the overdraft was given based on the club owning the lease, when the lease went the bank got nervous and called in the overdraft, still most of the overdraft was covered by the pledge monies but even after that the club has been way way short of funds to pay it's way which turns the finger back to the RFL, what did they actually do to make sure the figures that accompanied the application for a super league licence. My guess is nothing.

No pretty sure it was £75 . if it had been £85 they would have fared a lot better with £891k paid before Xmas last year.

I do get a little tired of proving you wrong but here is the proof.

http://www.thetelegr

aphandargus.co.uk/sp

ort/sportbulls/94825

24.Bradford_Bulls_hi

t_10_000_fans_target

/

No you don't that's how you think?

Have read two reports from YP. The first was basically what BS said on Boot n all.
But the second seemingly was more insightfull, and looked as if it was a seperate interview with Gary Hetherington, after the meeting.
If it was, our thanks must go to him and the others like Eamonn Mc Manus, for making our lives feel much more positive at this moment...because after the Boots n all interview, I for one felt less than positive, and after hearing the glove puppet spouting on, even less so!
But that info. from the YP if totally correct (and who wouldn't trust the source)pleases me no end, and we now look forward to a better future.

It is now up to us all collectively to get behind our sport from top to bottom, and to make sure we have an adequate "Parachute" fund at the rfl, where all clubs can come together for the sake of our sport.

Parochialism is no alternative to collective voices having the same aims and objectives.

(after all that let's hope it's right???)

RL what a joke sport,

BCFC LAD well git thissen on t'city site. Tha's nowt baht an addle brained balmpot.

Oh look at me I can speak proper yorkshire. As I said joke sport ( top 8 out of 14 playoff ) and joke fans.

The moderator culled a few idiots on here lately but all of a sudden BCFC LAD appears. Deary me. Do these people have a life at all appart from coming on here as different names showing us all how stupid they are? Not one sensible comment from BCFC LAD - just drivel like some of the others that have disappeared. It will just be time before he goes then reapears as a new name again. Now lets all ignore them.

What you on about ?

pjbull wrote:
All the other Clubs may be behind us but it suits them for the saga to drag on past Sept 1st as it allows them to sign our players. If it had been sorted by now we would have had a chance of keeping some of them but I'm sure Adam Pearson at Hull (for example) would be delighted that Elima doesn't have a contract from Bradford on the table by Sept 1st, so that he can snap him up.

The 17 players out of contract can sign for other clubs, but the rest can only leave if we are out of SL (which according to a proper paper the YP seems remote). Many will have signed pre-contracts with other clubs just in case. I thought Elima was reported as returning home to France to play at Catalans.
Keep the faith COYB still alive and snorting.

You're snorting something.

bully4us wrote:
The moderator culled a few idiots on here lately but all of a sudden BCFC LAD appears. Deary me. Do these people have a life at all appart from coming on here as different names showing us all how stupid they are? Not one sensible comment from BCFC LAD - just drivel like some of the others that have disappeared. It will just be time before he goes then reapears as a new name again. Now lets all ignore them.

bcfc lad, don't waste your breath.
if you do not agree 100% with bulls fans you must be either a troll or antibulls!
they do not comprehend you could support both clubs.

or just be giving an opinion!!

At last a sensible fella.

Thanks

bateman at leeds u20 v hull u20 on tueday night with Ethrington. lol

As stated on the BBC News, the SL clubs have voted to guarantee SL rugby at Odsal next year. This means that one of the pre-conditions the RFL would not entertain has been met (and to the benefit of the RFL who own the lease - paradoxical I know but then...) and so the SLE is now superfluous. However, and correct me if I am wrong, this could bring in further bids other than the two on the table and so the roller-coaster ride will continue. I hope the out-of-contract players and redundant staff are being kept abreast of developments as it would be ironic to save the club a week after the players and staff have found alternative employment. It be nice to think all will be resolved soon but I doubt if it will.

Trolls, what a set of ****. Get booted off, come back under a different name, but still write the same way. Your as easy to spot as a pigeon. If your gonna change your name, change your style of prose. If you supported a team, if you had a brain cell, you've posting on your teams site. Not slagging of others. To ALL of you go out, get a job, get a life.

Tatecastre wrote:
Trolls, what a set of ****. Get booted off, come back under a different name, but still write the same way. Your as easy to spot as a pigeon. If your gonna change your name, change your style of prose. If you supported a team, if you had a brain cell, you've posting on your teams site. Not slagging of others. To ALL of you go out, get a job, get a life.

Just IGNORE

Tatecastre wrote:
Trolls, what a set of ****. Get booted off, come back under a different name, but still write the same way. Your as easy to spot as a pigeon. If your gonna change your name, change your style of prose. If you supported a team, if you had a brain cell, you've posting on your teams site. Not slagging of others. To ALL of you go out, get a job, get a life.

iv never been booted off..

Mumby was the best wrote:

Tatecastre wrote:
Trolls, what a set of ****. Get booted off, come back under a different name, but still write the same way. Your as easy to spot as a pigeon. If your gonna change your name, change your style of prose. If you supported a team, if you had a brain cell, you've posting on your teams site. Not slagging of others. To ALL of you go out, get a job, get a life.

Just IGNORE

what like when you said i was from remploy

Me neither, think some of these egg chasers paranoid.

BCFC LAD wrote:
Me neither, think some of these egg chasers paranoid.

im a rugby fan just told them about leeds u20 crowd and bateman there it s on the net about it

Tricky Dicky wrote:
As stated on the BBC News, the SL clubs have voted to guarantee SL rugby at Odsal next year. This means that one of the pre-conditions the RFL would not entertain has been met (and to the benefit of the RFL who own the lease - paradoxical I know but then...) and so the SLE is now superfluous. However, and correct me if I am wrong, this could bring in further bids other than the two on the table and so the roller-coaster ride will continue. I hope the out-of-contract players and redundant staff are being kept abreast of developments as it would be ironic to save the club a week after the players and staff have found alternative employment. It be nice to think all will be resolved soon but I doubt if it will.

Come on this is the best day in all this saga there has been. News coming out from various quarters (T&A excepted) of positive advances in our position. Lets be positive and look forward to a SL future which a while back did not seem to be the case. Also won`t it pi** the trolls off!!

Mumby was the best wrote:

Tricky Dicky wrote:
As stated on the BBC News, the SL clubs have voted to guarantee SL rugby at Odsal next year. This means that one of the pre-conditions the RFL would not entertain has been met (and to the benefit of the RFL who own the lease - paradoxical I know but then...) and so the SLE is now superfluous. However, and correct me if I am wrong, this could bring in further bids other than the two on the table and so the roller-coaster ride will continue. I hope the out-of-contract players and redundant staff are being kept abreast of developments as it would be ironic to save the club a week after the players and staff have found alternative employment. It be nice to think all will be resolved soon but I doubt if it will.

Come on this is the best day in all this saga there has been. News coming out from various quarters (T&A excepted) of positive advances in our position. Lets be positive and look forward to a SL future which a while back did not seem to be the case. Also won`t it pi** the trolls off!!

nowt to say about remploy comment then