Bradford Bulls’ Super League spot secured by RFL funding cut (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

If the club are paying back what they owe fair enough...

But if we dont have the same central money as everybody else next year how is that fair? - Would you play Monopoly with your mates if they all got the initial £1500, and you only got £1000?

And... if the other super league clubs are not happy about the Bulls playing in the competition its up to the RFL to tell them where to go!

In fact I dare the RFL to broadcast which clubs are not happy, so we can all boycott the away game next year! Ha!

2013 bring it on!

I just hope that all these rules that are being applied to the Bulls will befall any other club that has the misfortune to enter Administration.

With the lack of central funding I just hope that is doesn't start the same process of spending more than is coming in, and the Bulls are back where they stated in a few years time.

This could set a precedent that could affect more than just the Bulls in the long term.

But this is old news shouldn't the T & A be trying to find out where the share of Bulls forfeit money is going and it sounds a lot more be taken out than should be, also if it’s for 2 years why just 1 year probationary given?? Too many unanswered questions by lackadaisical reporting. Nothing new in that either! Sack the Editor!

Memo to Hannah Postles: please try and understand what you are reporting. The debts per the statement of affairs were just over £1,3m. Share capital is not "debts". I have flagged this up before.

Don`t remember any such stipulation placed on London or wakefield when they went into admin.
Would be fair for money to have gone to pay creditors, but other clubs!!!!
Nevermind if as predicted other clubs go into admin we will get a share of their forfeit won`t we!!!! Bet we dont.

Just get on with it

The Bulls had £1.3m of debt written off but lose part of £1.2m. They still exist and are still in super league so lets stop playing this victim status seen in skme of the above posts.

Capabull wrote:
Don`t remember any such stipulation placed on London or wakefield when they went into admin.
Would be fair for money to have gone to pay creditors, but other clubs!!!!
Nevermind if as predicted other clubs go into admin we will get a share of their forfeit won`t we!!!! Bet we dont.

Correct. There was not.

Note also that the blame is being pinned squarely on those nice other SL clubs - "we want them in SL, in our own interest, but we want them hamstrung so they will be the whipping boys" - might be one interpretation of what has been said?

Aww bless! The RFL have bent over backwards to keep a failed business in Super League and now the peasants are revolting. Unbelievable!
Anyone blaming Hetherington yet?

I`ve noticed Mr reasonable voice only appears when the topic is bad news for the Bulls. I said (even if you don`t like to have said you read it) that it would have been fair to have the money docked if it went to the creditors.
It is as tho the other SL clubs had said you cant be in our club unless you bribe us, Wakefield and London did not have to bribe their way in. So the creditors lose out and clubs not involved in the downfall gain, that is not REASONABLE.

Don't know all the 'ins and outs' of share ownership, but if Mr Khan offered the fans the chance purchase shares
in the club at a nominal market fee, then revenue could be raised to eliminate this years deficit in RFL funding is this feasable?

jozieme wrote:
Don't know all the 'ins and outs' of share ownership, but if Mr Khan offered the fans the chance purchase shares
in the club at a nominal market fee, then revenue could be raised to eliminate this years deficit in RFL funding is this feasable?

I don't either but I've been thinking along those lines and came up with maybe a chance for season ticket holders to give the club a season long loan of £100 for those who wish to. This could then give the potential of maybe half a million extra money when it is most needed and could then be put towards a 2014 season ticket with a £10 discount. I know it may push finance issues a year down the line but this is a critical year ahead of us and it gives an opportunity to build funds to cope with this over the next year. It is better than a pledge as I for one am still not sure whether what we pledged saved the club or it just meant that the negotiations were protracted because of it. However we need ideas to help out as it is clear that as fans we appear to be wanted. Unfortunately I can't make tonight as I am working away but hopefully the messages will be good

As Blotto correctly states, this is old news. This confirmation does however give rise to a couple of points. To those Bulls fans who were uncomfortable at 'moral debts' not been paid by New co (understandable) then worry no more, the powers that be have effectively absolved these sins by granting 'greed rights' to member Clubs. To others that post on here -the Pious Clan- who saw what unfolded as unbending support from the RFL, do you still feel the same way? The Bulls previous management regime should be blindfolded and shot at dawn. The RFL and a number of Club Chairmen should hang their heads in shame. Good on you Omar and Gerry, the only ones untarnished in this sorry mess. COYBs!

All them club chairmen who were giving you handouts you mean sheffield

jozieme wrote:
Don't know all the 'ins and outs' of share ownership, but if Mr Khan offered the fans the chance purchase shares
in the club at a nominal market fee, then revenue could be raised to eliminate this years deficit in RFL funding is this feasable?

My thoughts entirely, we have done this before and providing the people buying the shares realise their is no profit to be made we could as you say pay this towards the shortfall. £100 nominal shares would I think raise quite a lot of money. Whilst I realise the fans have already dug deep for the Club.. we will not be beaten

As regards the £241,000 advanced, can anyone tell me was this money due to the Bulls from the Sky TV Deal, as the implication in the word 'advance' would suggest that the money was already due to the Bulls at some time and that the RFL did not bail us out at all.. It is immoral for any other SL Club to suggest that the only way we could be kept in SL was to forego a part of the contractual amount of TV money in return for keeping us in Superlegue. (This is a form of Blackmail)

raisemeup wrote:
As regards the £241,000 advanced, can anyone tell me was this money due to the Bulls from the Sky TV Deal, as the implication in the word 'advance' would suggest that the money was already due to the Bulls at some time and that the RFL did not bail us out at all.. It is immoral for any other SL Club to suggest that the only way we could be kept in SL was to forego a part of the contractual amount of TV money in return for keeping us in Superlegue. (This is a form of Blackmail)

If it was advanced money, and it was taken from next years pot at a stage where your place in super league was unknown then it wasn't really due to the Bulls.

Why not go ask your boss for 3 months pay up front with no guarantee you will be turning into work and tell me what he says.

Bacon Bantam wrote:

raisemeup wrote:
As regards the £241,000 advanced, can anyone tell me was this money due to the Bulls from the Sky TV Deal, as the implication in the word 'advance' would suggest that the money was already due to the Bulls at some time and that the RFL did not bail us out at all.. It is immoral for any other SL Club to suggest that the only way we could be kept in SL was to forego a part of the contractual amount of TV money in return for keeping us in Superlegue. (This is a form of Blackmail)

If it was advanced money, and it was taken from next years pot at a stage where your place in super league was unknown then it wasn't really due to the Bulls.

Why not go ask your boss for 3 months pay up front with no guarantee you will be turning into work and tell me what he says.

Sky TV money is around £105k/month/club, IIRC.

The money stopped when the club went into administration, end June.

The advances were out of the money the club would have received for subsequent months. NOT next year or any of the other nonsense that gets repeated.

The club apparently will get no more Sky money this year.

By my reckoning, that means that for the CURRENT year, we will be nearly £400k DOWN on what we would otherwise have received had administration not been imposed.

Now, does anyone ELSE want to claim we have been bailed out by the RFL and received some unfair advantage?

Well said Adey, it is about time people realised that administation is not a way out that they think. We have a right to know what has attributed to us.
COYB

You still exist so yes

"Mr Sutcliffe insisted the loss of the cash wouldn’t affect its ability to spend up to the Super League salary cap"

Hasn't anyone learn't from what has just happened? The salary cap is a limit and not a target. You aren't required to spend to the cap, only spend what you can afford and don't gamble the future of the club again.

Doesn't take much for the 'Bitter Bantam' types to pour out of the woodwork at the first sign of 'Bulls Blood'. I guess we are lucky that City are enjoying a cracking start to the season or it would have been a whole lot worse.

Nothing has been learned and let's be honest the punishment Bulls received is a joke.In any other sport they would have been rightfully relegated but not the closed shop and shameful set up that Super League has become.If i was Featherstone i would forget about improving their stadium and Sheffield Leigh and Halifax should stop raising fans hopes because SL will never let you in.You are being used as pawns and prized mugs by a backward unimaginative group of people at the RFL and SL who market a sport with the same 14 teams every season and where the regular season is almost pointless as the team that finishes top does not win anything and goes into an 8 team play off.The regular season is basically a sea of friendlies as at least 7 of the 8 due to their squads-Wigan Saints Warrington Hull Leeds Huddersfield and Catalans are as good as guaranteed qualification.Will Bradford's financial punishment and joke 6 point penalty put other clubs off over reaching themselves? Nope!!! Only relegation would do that and as it is a closed shop then no chance.

"If i was Featherstone"

You are deluded if you think you are a small pit village!!

Adeybull wrote:

Bacon Bantam wrote:

raisemeup wrote: As regards the £241,000 advanced, can anyone tell me was this money due to the Bulls from the Sky TV Deal, as the implication in the word 'advance' would suggest that the money was already due to the Bulls at some time and that the RFL did not bail us out at all.. It is immoral for any other SL Club to suggest that the only way we could be kept in SL was to forego a part of the contractual amount of TV money in return for keeping us in Superlegue. (This is a form of Blackmail)

If it was advanced money, and it was taken from next years pot at a stage where your place in super league was unknown then it wasn't really due to the Bulls. Why not go ask your boss for 3 months pay up front with no guarantee you will be turning into work and tell me what he says.

Sky TV money is around £105k/month/club, IIRC. The money stopped when the club went into administration, end June. The advances were out of the money the club would have received for subsequent months. NOT next year or any of the other nonsense that gets repeated. The club apparently will get no more Sky money this year. By my reckoning, that means that for the CURRENT year, we will be nearly £400k DOWN on what we would otherwise have received had administration not been imposed. Now, does anyone ELSE want to claim we have been bailed out by the RFL and received some unfair advantage?

The entire involvment of the RFL in the insolvency should be put under intense scrutiny.The only ones who could do that are the £1.3 miilion creditors.

Insolvent last year the Bulls had the benefit of £750000 advanced (perhaps negotiated as an advance of Sky pot)

Then in Jan Hood announces on radio the ground is transferred to the RFL.

Because of predators,Land deelopers.Some joke therte I think.

So the only realisable asset is trtansferred and we al;l know the value of odsal is much more than the value placed on transfer.

The books showed it at £2.7 million.

As a landfill it must have been worth that.

Will be interesting to see who valued it and on what grounds last january.

If the RFl only sought the ground a collaterall for advances from future sky monies due to the Bulls then all they needed to do was create a legal charge.

Instead they take ownership and effectively seize any value for the creditors in insolvency which imo they were in 2011

It is clear that the money withheld should go to the creditors (some of whom are other SL clubs anyway)

The RFL also need to be transparent as to their involvment the timing of moneys advanced.how much was taken to keep the Bulls going till end of season out of next years dues,and be honest to the creditors.

If the creditors shout loud enough and unite and the administration procedure has not even given them opportunity to get together then the bad publicity arising for both the R%FL and Bradford Bulls may ensure they get paid.

Even if over ten years as I have been continually suggesting.

The Bulls could afford to forgo £100000 a year out of the future dues from central pot to ensure justice for the stuffed creditors.

Do you think that lot at red hall had any confidence in Hood to turn things round aft er a disasterous failure to bring in enough in the failed season ticket offer.

I dont think so.

So they took the only realisable asset.

Firesale prices were offered for the Bulls best players while in admin.
5 grand for one.

The whole thing has been stage managed to suit the best interests of the RFL (the competition finished without disruption) with a future inportant6 Bulls in the comp where other SL clubs realised they could not do without the Bulls support going forward.
(anyone notice Warringtons crown at 7000 for the first play off)

The creditors and OK bulls need to scream loud that this is not fair and certainly if the creditors were to be repaid in a form of unregulated administration with the RFL taking responsibility for them to be paid fairness all round wouyld be a much better outcome.

Remember many of the creditors are probably also fans.
You cannot measure goodwill going forward easily but a deal for the creditors would help.

I am disgusted at the perceived stage managed events of the past 12 months to ensure the Bulls escaped and the Creditors were stuffed.

Calls for Heads on spikes have been muted.
Lets here it from the RFL as to what they intend to do with the withheld money before I clamber to add there names to the growing list of those to be spiked.

Adeybull wrote:
Memo to Hannah Postles: please try and understand what you are reporting. The debts per the statement of affairs were just over £1,3m. Share capital is not "debts". I have flagged this up before.

Adey I know your right but remembr that the SOA only estimated debt in the list of creditors.


Some at time of compilation had not put there figures in and there are a lot of noughts that may turn out to be thousands.

£1.5 may even include money advanced from next ears pot.

One thing if the Bulls were to get the ground back (long lease)at the value taken by the RFL that really would stink of a transaction done in Jan 2011 to defeat the creditors.

But if the RFl put some of their considerable reserves into developing it and using it for their own events (including GB matches and Play off and or another competition say like football has its league cup)with bulls as anchor i would say well done.

We wil see.

The stadium lease was not a "realisable asset". That, no doubt, was why no value was attributed to it in the aduited accounts since 2002, and why the bank could not and did not secure a fixed charge on it.

The club could not assign the head lease to any other party without the Council's consent.

The Head lease contained covenants as to future use of the site - effectively preventing its development into something else.

The head lease would have been voided by the Council on the insolvency of Bradford Bulls Holdings Limited.

Therefore the creditors would not have seen a a penny more, even had the lease not been assigned.

If the other SL clubs had any morals, they would insist that the funds withheld from the new company - which according to earlier reports approximated to the amount owing to creditors - were applied to repaying the creditors. If this was to happen, then alfucham could have no remaining axe to grind? And if it were NOT, surely then alfucham should seek redress against either the other SL clubs or the RFL, or both, for undue enrichment at expense of the creditors?

The stadium lease was not a "realisable asset". That, no doubt, was why no value was attributed to it in the aduited accounts since 2002, and why the bank could not and did not secure a fixed charge on it.

The club could not assign the head lease to any other party without the Council's consent.

The Head lease contained covenants as to future use of the site - effectively preventing its development into something else.

The head lease would have been voided by the Council on the insolvency of Bradford Bulls Holdings Limited.

Therefore the creditors would not have seen a a penny more, even had the lease not been assigned.

If the other SL clubs had any morals, they would insist that the funds withheld from the new company - which according to earlier reports approximated to the amount owing to creditors - were applied to repaying the creditors. If this was to happen, then alfucham could have no remaining axe to grind? And if it were NOT, surely then alfucham should seek redress against either the other SL clubs or the RFL, or both, for undue enrichment at expense of the creditors?

Incidentally, the RFL DID create a "legal" charge on the assets. They took a second floating charge, behind the bank, in January 2011. All on public record. That charge was released when the laon was repaid, and the Council instead took out a floating charge. For some reason, the statement of affairs does not show the council as a secured creditor though.

alfucham wrote:

Adeybull wrote:
Memo to Hannah Postles: please try and understand what you are reporting. The debts per the statement of affairs were just over £1,3m. Share capital is not "debts". I have flagged this up before.

Adey I know your right but remembr that the SOA only estimated debt in the list of creditors.


Some at time of compilation had not put there figures in and there are a lot of noughts that may turn out to be thousands.

£1.5 may even include money advanced from next ears pot.

One thing if the Bulls were to get the ground back (long lease)at the value taken by the RFL that really would stink of a transaction done in Jan 2011 to defeat the creditors.

But if the RFl put some of their considerable reserves into developing it and using it for their own events (including GB matches and Play off and or another competition say like football has its league cup)with bulls as anchor i would say well done.

We wil see.

My own view is indeed that the SOA seems to understate the total creditors, since I can see one big number that surely should be there that is not.

But we can only go on the "official" figures

Quite why the SOA might NOT be complete, when the directors who were legally responsible for drawing it up AND P&A who had supposedly been "investigating the financial position" and who ACTUALLY drew it up had all had six weeks on the case before the Appointment, escapes me. That is another question to be answered IMO.

If I was a creditor, I would certainly be looking for answers about the role of the RFL over the last 18 months or so. But presumably all the aggrieved creditors will have required the administrator to have convened a creditors' meeting, at which proposals for funding and conducting whatever investigations were necessary would have been discussed?

All the creditors received the notice from the administrator saying he did NOT intend to convene a creditors' meeting, unless the required 10% (IIRC?) notified him to the contrary. Did they?

Stop bleating Adey you would not be here if not for the other clubs,

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
The Bulls had £1.3m of debt written off but lose part of £1.2m. They still exist and are still in super league so lets stop playing this victim status seen in skme of the above posts.

I agree ! its not about next season its about the next 10.

Mumby was the best wrote:
You still exist so yes

Existing is not an option in sport?
Competing is the name of the game and preferably on a level playing field.
Take your provocative nonsense, and apply it to some useful purpose. Which like you is totally undefined as yet!!

1 in super league and 9 in championship if they spend up to cap

Adeybull wrote:

alfucham wrote:

Adeybull wrote: Memo to Hannah Postles: please try and understand what you are reporting. The debts per the statement of affairs were just over £1,3m. Share capital is not "debts". I have flagged this up before.

Adey I know your right but remembr that the SOA only estimated debt in the list of creditors. Some at time of compilation had not put there figures in and there are a lot of noughts that may turn out to be thousands. £1.5 may even include money advanced from next ears pot. One thing if the Bulls were to get the ground back (long lease)at the value taken by the RFL that really would stink of a transaction done in Jan 2011 to defeat the creditors. But if the RFl put some of their considerable reserves into developing it and using it for their own events (including GB matches and Play off and or another competition say like football has its league cup)with bulls as anchor i would say well done. We wil see.

My own view is indeed that the SOA seems to understate the total creditors, since I can see one big number that surely should be there that is not. But we can only go on the "official" figures Quite why the SOA might NOT be complete, when the directors who were legally responsible for drawing it up AND P&A who had supposedly been "investigating the financial position" and who ACTUALLY drew it up had all had six weeks on the case before the Appointment, escapes me. That is another question to be answered IMO. If I was a creditor, I would certainly be looking for answers about the role of the RFL over the last 18 months or so. But presumably all the aggrieved creditors will have required the administrator to have convened a creditors' meeting, at which proposals for funding and conducting whatever investigations were necessary would have been discussed? All the creditors received the notice from the administrator saying he did NOT intend to convene a creditors' meeting, unless the required 10% (IIRC?) notified him to the contrary. Did they?

I doubt the creditors have yet had chance without the administrater calling a creditor meet which he did not on cost ground.

I agree one £67k creditor must be living in a dream world still if he thinks that is commercially acceptable figure for web services.

I thought the only embedded restrictiions within the lease were only until 2019.

Not sure how a court would interpret the covenants in insolvency.

In any event I hope noone thinks I would ever have wanted Odsal realised for landfill for the benefit of creditors.

The RFL have the funds to assist (where they use it aswell)in developing Odsal.

I just feel a little miffed for those small creditors that approximate £500k who are probably fns aswell.

I have not been affected (other than as a proud Bradfordian)by events financially.

The morality of continuing to pay players in full throughout also rankles given that now the season is complete many are to jump ship anyway and some already (KOP)have.

We cannot afford them going forward and could not thses past 5 months.

The RFL have got what they want.

WHO could organise the creditors to shout out at the lawfullness of what the RFL have done?

They did not need to take over the ground at a time the Bulls were insolvent.
The Legal charge wshould have been suffice.

That leads me to think to whole affair was managed very well from way before admin to ensure the RFL"s interests were not harmed
What would Sky have thought if the comp was devalued through the Bulls not completing the season?

May they have witheld money?And had good legal entitlement to do so.

Methinks me sees a plot.

Transparency will never happen as they will hide behind the ciommercial sensitivity bull.

The creditors and wider public who stumped up £400k should be able to cut through all that Bull.

But we all know that getting page fulls of creditors to unite is difficult.
Look at the nonsense that spouts up on here.

90 per cent of it childish driv.

Some real pyshco analysis could be researched with the split personality bi polar nut cases that would argu till the cows come home that black is white.
Weirdos.
Bradford seems to have produced its fair share but they call from every quarter

Adeybull wrote:

alfucham wrote:

Adeybull wrote:
Memo to Hannah Postles: please try and understand what you are reporting. The debts per the statement of affairs were just over £1,3m. Share capital is not "debts". I have flagged this up before.

Adey I know your right but remembr that the SOA only estimated debt in the list of creditors.


Some at time of compilation had not put there figures in and there are a lot of noughts that may turn out to be thousands.

£1.5 may even include money advanced from next ears pot.

One thing if the Bulls were to get the ground back (long lease)at the value taken by the RFL that really would stink of a transaction done in Jan 2011 to defeat the creditors.

But if the RFl put some of their considerable reserves into developing it and using it for their own events (including GB matches and Play off and or another competition say like football has its league cup)with bulls as anchor i would say well done.

We wil see.

My own view is indeed that the SOA seems to understate the total creditors, since I can see one big number that surely should be there that is not.

But we can only go on the "official" figures

Quite why the SOA might NOT be complete, when the directors who were legally responsible for drawing it up AND P&A who had supposedly been "investigating the financial position" and who ACTUALLY drew it up had all had six weeks on the case before the Appointment, escapes me. That is another question to be answered IMO.

If I was a creditor, I would certainly be looking for answers about the role of the RFL over the last 18 months or so. But presumably all the aggrieved creditors will have required the administrator to have convened a creditors' meeting, at which proposals for funding and conducting whatever investigations were necessary would have been discussed?

All the creditors received the notice from the administrator saying he did NOT intend to convene a creditors' meeting, unless the required 10% (IIRC?) notified him to the contrary. Did they?

No they didn't' so there endeth the story. As far as I can see, the creditors accepted the situation as is.

The only way they may have been paid is if Bradford Bulls Holdings had been purchased by a buyer for £1 plus debts.
But would that person have applied conditions re the stadium lease, and would the RFL in their ever so moral stance of wishing to pay the creditors have said, of course my son, let's do the moral thing.

Or would Mr BS have said "watch my lips, NO CONDITIONS"

Tune in for more stories about the post mortem, re the 'Bulls'.

Unlike most post mortems, the patient isn't dead though.

The creditors were given the opportunity to, and had it in their hands to convene a Creditors' meeting. If they did not request one of the administrator (the cost would effectively be to the prefs. or to him) they can surely hardly complain that someone should do something about the plight of the creditors? If you are a creditor, did you write requesting a meeting be convened? If you did not, I suggest you are hardly in a position to complain about the creditors not having any opportunity?

The RFL advancing Sky money (that the club would ordinarily have received anyway) for paying the players had no adverse effect whatsoever on the position of the unsecured creditors.

In fact, the effect was strongly FAVOURABLE to them!!! Because had players been sacked or contracts terminated, you would have had additional employee PREFERENTIAL claims crystalising, ranking ahead of the unsecureds, as well as ADDITIONAL unsecured creditors.

And just think about it: if the total player wage bill was say £1.6m, and on average players had a year left on contract, that is another £1.6m to ADD to the list of unsecured creditors, more than halving any eventual dividend that might be declared. And if there is no dividend, what possible issue can the creditors have anyway? And retaining the players meant the club could be sold as a going concern.

Sheffieldbull wrote:
Doesn't take much for the 'Bitter Bantam' types to pour out of the woodwork at the first sign of 'Bulls Blood'. I guess we are lucky that City are enjoying a cracking start to the season or it would have been a whole lot worse.

Spend to cap, go bust again and see that where it takes you.

If you have a £20k limit on your credit card it doesn't mean you have to spend it. City have been in admin twice and are only just showing a sign of recovery. Some people expect next season to be a roaring success and the cap as the minimum spent on wages. With that kind of mentality it won't be long before the begging bowl comes back out.

Whats wrong with asking for keeping the club going and becoming profitable first before chasing glory? Has nothing been learned from past mistakes or are you happy to see them repeated.

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:
Doesn't take much for the 'Bitter Bantam' types to pour out of the woodwork at the first sign of 'Bulls Blood'. I guess we are lucky that City are enjoying a cracking start to the season or it would have been a whole lot worse.

Spend to cap, go bust again and see that where it takes you.

If you have a £20k limit on your credit card it doesn't mean you have to spend it. City have been in admin twice and are only just showing a sign of recovery. Some people expect next season to be a roaring success and the cap as the minimum spent on wages. With that kind of mentality it won't be long before the begging bowl comes back out.

Whats wrong with asking for keeping the club going and becoming profitable first before chasing glory? Has nothing been learned from past mistakes or are you happy to see them repeated.

A man who speaks sense, its wasted on some though. Same mistakes going forward spending more than they can afford and back in this position down the line.

The instant success of the modern sports fan.

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:
Doesn't take much for the 'Bitter Bantam' types to pour out of the woodwork at the first sign of 'Bulls Blood'. I guess we are lucky that City are enjoying a cracking start to the season or it would have been a whole lot worse.

Spend to cap, go bust again and see that where it takes you.

If you have a £20k limit on your credit card it doesn't mean you have to spend it. City have been in admin twice and are only just showing a sign of recovery. Some people expect next season to be a roaring success and the cap as the minimum spent on wages. With that kind of mentality it won't be long before the begging bowl comes back out.

Whats wrong with asking for keeping the club going and becoming profitable first before chasing glory? Has nothing been learned from past mistakes or are you happy to see them repeated.

Firstly WHO says the Bulls WILL spend full cap and IF they did, how do YOU know that the new Company would be overstretched if they did?
Who are these people that expect next season to be a roaring success? Thats not the impression I get from the vast majority of Bulls fans I come across, almost the opposite BUT there is hope and optimism - maybe thats what you mean.
I think you enjoy having an opinion about everything and are not prepared to let factual details halt you.

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote: Doesn't take much for the 'Bitter Bantam' types to pour out of the woodwork at the first sign of 'Bulls Blood'. I guess we are lucky that City are enjoying a cracking start to the season or it would have been a whole lot worse.

Spend to cap, go bust again and see that where it takes you. If you have a £20k limit on your credit card it doesn't mean you have to spend it. City have been in admin twice and are only just showing a sign of recovery. Some people expect next season to be a roaring success and the cap as the minimum spent on wages. With that kind of mentality it won't be long before the begging bowl comes back out. Whats wrong with asking for keeping the club going and becoming profitable first before chasing glory? Has nothing been learned from past mistakes or are you happy to see them repeated.

Firstly WHO says the Bulls WILL spend full cap and IF they did, how do YOU know that the new Company would be overstretched if they did? Who are these people that expect next season to be a roaring success? Thats not the impression I get from the vast majority of Bulls fans I come across, almost the opposite BUT there is hope and optimism - maybe thats what you mean. I think you enjoy having an opinion about everything and are not prepared to let factual details halt you.

Mr Sutcliffe insisted the loss of the cash wouldn’t affect its ability to spend up to the Super League salary cap.

Don't you read the story.

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:
Doesn't take much for the 'Bitter Bantam' types to pour out of the woodwork at the first sign of 'Bulls Blood'. I guess we are lucky that City are enjoying a cracking start to the season or it would have been a whole lot worse.

Spend to cap, go bust again and see that where it takes you.

If you have a £20k limit on your credit card it doesn't mean you have to spend it. City have been in admin twice and are only just showing a sign of recovery. Some people expect next season to be a roaring success and the cap as the minimum spent on wages. With that kind of mentality it won't be long before the begging bowl comes back out.

Whats wrong with asking for keeping the club going and becoming profitable first before chasing glory? Has nothing been learned from past mistakes or are you happy to see them repeated.

You don't really get it do you?

If you don't have Bums on seats, you don't have the finances, if you don't have the finances you don't have the success, if you don't have the success, you don't get bums on seats.
Tell me what generates sporting success? Is it what you say is the right way? Or is it entertaining your audience with the best Players possible, whilst giving them a match day experience second to none?

Allow people who know what they have to do to achieve the objectives in extremely difficult, manufactured circumstances brought about by a reduction in revenue before the season starts.
Allow them the intelligence and knowledge to know what they can afford to do, and for crying out loud, spare us your negativity.

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote: Doesn't take much for the 'Bitter Bantam' types to pour out of the woodwork at the first sign of 'Bulls Blood'. I guess we are lucky that City are enjoying a cracking start to the season or it would have been a whole lot worse.

Spend to cap, go bust again and see that where it takes you. If you have a £20k limit on your credit card it doesn't mean you have to spend it. City have been in admin twice and are only just showing a sign of recovery. Some people expect next season to be a roaring success and the cap as the minimum spent on wages. With that kind of mentality it won't be long before the begging bowl comes back out. Whats wrong with asking for keeping the club going and becoming profitable first before chasing glory? Has nothing been learned from past mistakes or are you happy to see them repeated.

Firstly WHO says the Bulls WILL spend full cap and IF they did, how do YOU know that the new Company would be overstretched if they did? Who are these people that expect next season to be a roaring success? Thats not the impression I get from the vast majority of Bulls fans I come across, almost the opposite BUT there is hope and optimism - maybe thats what you mean. I think you enjoy having an opinion about everything and are not prepared to let factual details halt you.

Mr Sutcliffe insisted the loss of the cash wouldn’t affect its ability to spend up to the Super League salary cap.

Don't you read the story.

No it's you that read into it that the full cap will be spent. He clearly states that the loss of funding wouldn't affect its ABILITY to spend up to the Super League salary cap. Cannot see the words 'they will'. However you chose to ignore my question regarding your obvious 'inside knowledge' of OK Bulls financial situation and that in doing so (if they did spend full cap) would lead to ruination. Care to expand of just 'sound off' as usual?

raisemeup wrote:
As regards the £241,000 advanced, can anyone tell me was this money due to the Bulls from the Sky TV Deal, as the implication in the word 'advance' would suggest that the money was already due to the Bulls at some time and that the RFL did not bail us out at all.. It is immoral for any other SL Club to suggest that the only way we could be kept in SL was to forego a part of the contractual amount of TV money in return for keeping us in Superlegue. (This is a form of Blackmail)

That is in the administraters report.

remember the RFL said they would advance the net wages and pay direct to HMRC the income tax and NIC and presumably the Employers NIC.

So the advances are more (considerably) than the journalist plucking snippets of info.

Blake Solly has estimated creditors at £1.5 m.

several SL clubs are on the list as owed
Leeds warrington and widnes certainly were generous to the Bulls in Admin.

But we all know they cant do without the Bulls fan base and good for the game generally if run right.

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote: Doesn't take much for the 'Bitter Bantam' types to pour out of the woodwork at the first sign of 'Bulls Blood'. I guess we are lucky that City are enjoying a cracking start to the season or it would have been a whole lot worse.

Spend to cap, go bust again and see that where it takes you. If you have a £20k limit on your credit card it doesn't mean you have to spend it. City have been in admin twice and are only just showing a sign of recovery. Some people expect next season to be a roaring success and the cap as the minimum spent on wages. With that kind of mentality it won't be long before the begging bowl comes back out. Whats wrong with asking for keeping the club going and becoming profitable first before chasing glory? Has nothing been learned from past mistakes or are you happy to see them repeated.

Firstly WHO says the Bulls WILL spend full cap and IF they did, how do YOU know that the new Company would be overstretched if they did? Who are these people that expect next season to be a roaring success? Thats not the impression I get from the vast majority of Bulls fans I come across, almost the opposite BUT there is hope and optimism - maybe thats what you mean. I think you enjoy having an opinion about everything and are not prepared to let factual details halt you.

Mr Sutcliffe insisted the loss of the cash wouldn’t affect its ability to spend up to the Super League salary cap. Don't you read the story.

No it's you that read into it that the full cap will be spent. He clearly states that the loss of funding wouldn't affect its ABILITY to spend up to the Super League salary cap. Cannot see the words 'they will'. However you chose to ignore my question regarding your obvious 'inside knowledge' of OK Bulls financial situation and that in doing so (if they did spend full cap) would lead to ruination. Care to expand of just 'sound off' as usual?

The club doesn't know what it's income is for next season so how on earth can it comment on it's ability to spend to the cap. He shouldn't have said such a thing but then again with Labours financial record it's not a suprise, maybe he got his mate Mr Brown to look over the books.

Only when the club see's how much money it gets from season ticket sales and which sponsors are still willing to stand beside the club can he start making quote about the ability of spending upto the salary cap, to do so before is foolish.

Adeybull wrote:
The creditors were given the opportunity to, and had it in their hands to convene a Creditors' meeting. If they did not request one of the administrator (the cost would effectively be to the prefs. or to him) they can surely hardly complain that someone should do something about the plight of the creditors? If you are a creditor, did you write requesting a meeting be convened? If you did not, I suggest you are hardly in a position to complain about the creditors not having any opportunity? The RFL advancing Sky money (that the club would ordinarily have received anyway) for paying the players had no adverse effect whatsoever on the position of the unsecured creditors. In fact, the effect was strongly FAVOURABLE to them!!! Because had players been sacked or contracts terminated, you would have had additional employee PREFERENTIAL claims crystalising, ranking ahead of the unsecureds, as well as ADDITIONAL unsecured creditors. And just think about it: if the total player wage bill was say £1.6m, and on average players had a year left on contract, that is another £1.6m to ADD to the list of unsecured creditors, more than halving any eventual dividend that might be declared. And if there is no dividend, what possible issue can the creditors have anyway? And retaining the players meant the club could be sold as a going concern.

Not sure I agree that the creditors have had the time to act.

By their nature thereare several pages in a long list.

And the administater gave them 10 days to act and some did not even receive the paperwork?

As I have said it has been well stage managed.

incidentally if the audited accounts put no value on the long lease how come the administraters report puts a value of £2.7 million on the Land and Buildings.

Perhaps thats the cost or NRV of the Coral stand purchased with the money that ws given by Bradford Council 10 years ago to cover maintenance of the ground until 2019.

there seems to be some gloating that the small creditors cannot afford to fund the tens of thousands it would cost to pursue others.

At least the Bulls are hopefully safe and out of the future squabbles.

But gerry had best be carefull when HMRC are such a major creditor.
Could be political capital for the nasties in that.

Incidentally who is the major creditor ommited from the SOA.

If this list is so innacurate it beggars belief at the size of fee BG acheived when the Bulls unpaid staff contuinued to run the place whilst they were collating all the statutory information.

As i Have already said I am owed nothing.

friends are.

But it would have taken over £140k of creditors to convene to authorise a meet.

Where were the HMRC in that process?Probably still opening their letter and then taking 3 months to reply as usual.When they had 10 days.

When their owed half a million.

representing all our interests with their usual efficency eh.

Adey if the Head lease could not ne transferred without kicking in the penaties etc how did Mr Hood extract the million pound plus from the RFL for its transfer.

Or Am I missing something and to date have the council just turned a blind eye.

They have offered OK and anyone who took over a 5 pc £400k loan.

So they clearly value the Bulls ans so they should

Adeybull wrote:
The creditors were given the opportunity to, and had it in their hands to convene a Creditors' meeting. If they did not request one of the administrator (the cost would effectively be to the prefs. or to him) they can surely hardly complain that someone should do something about the plight of the creditors? If you are a creditor, did you write requesting a meeting be convened? If you did not, I suggest you are hardly in a position to complain about the creditors not having any opportunity? The RFL advancing Sky money (that the club would ordinarily have received anyway) for paying the players had no adverse effect whatsoever on the position of the unsecured creditors. In fact, the effect was strongly FAVOURABLE to them!!! Because had players been sacked or contracts terminated, you would have had additional employee PREFERENTIAL claims crystalising, ranking ahead of the unsecureds, as well as ADDITIONAL unsecured creditors. And just think about it: if the total player wage bill was say £1.6m, and on average players had a year left on contract, that is another £1.6m to ADD to the list of unsecured creditors, more than halving any eventual dividend that might be declared. And if there is no dividend, what possible issue can the creditors have anyway? And retaining the players meant the club could be sold as a going concern.

Adey i admire your analyses to an extent but do you really think that players with a year left on contracts would have remained.

Could players not have been sold or offloaded to other clubs in admin?

Could contracts not have been renegotiated then?

Could some who would have been leaving now not have been made to leave then with the kids that will be in next year blooded now?

everyone still hoped for playoff success.

Only to blow it at the end.
I truly believe the players were told to blow it in order that the unfair advantage ar5gument and the long term start of reorganisation could commence (as it has) without any more delay.

Would kids have had 70 points put past them?

We will know next year unless 10000 season tickets are sold at an average of say £160.

I had heard that only half the sky money would be witheld in eaxh of the next 2 years.

So the Bulls will still hopefully have £600000 coming in.

The rest the Bradford public is yet again down to you.

Sheffield a no nowt idiot.

Given that the Bulls couldn't make a go of it when they had all the monies due from the RFL to take money away now seems a bit counter productive. If the RFL wanted to punish them, but not damage them financially, wouldn't they have been better off lowering the salary cap for the Bulls?

The RFL are going to withhold funds from the Bulls and use the money to repay the Bulls creditors.

Aren't they?

I can't believe these scurilus rumours that the RFL are going to share out thye dosh amongst the other clubs. That would be a dishonourable thing to do, and I feel sure the RFL family would never do anything so outrageous.

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote: Doesn't take much for the 'Bitter Bantam' types to pour out of the woodwork at the first sign of 'Bulls Blood'. I guess we are lucky that City are enjoying a cracking start to the season or it would have been a whole lot worse.

Spend to cap, go bust again and see that where it takes you. If you have a £20k limit on your credit card it doesn't mean you have to spend it. City have been in admin twice and are only just showing a sign of recovery. Some people expect next season to be a roaring success and the cap as the minimum spent on wages. With that kind of mentality it won't be long before the begging bowl comes back out. Whats wrong with asking for keeping the club going and becoming profitable first before chasing glory? Has nothing been learned from past mistakes or are you happy to see them repeated.

Firstly WHO says the Bulls WILL spend full cap and IF they did, how do YOU know that the new Company would be overstretched if they did? Who are these people that expect next season to be a roaring success? Thats not the impression I get from the vast majority of Bulls fans I come across, almost the opposite BUT there is hope and optimism - maybe thats what you mean. I think you enjoy having an opinion about everything and are not prepared to let factual details halt you.

Mr Sutcliffe insisted the loss of the cash wouldn’t affect its ability to spend up to the Super League salary cap. Don't you read the story.

No it's you that read into it that the full cap will be spent. He clearly states that the loss of funding wouldn't affect its ABILITY to spend up to the Super League salary cap. Cannot see the words 'they will'. However you chose to ignore my question regarding your obvious 'inside knowledge' of OK Bulls financial situation and that in doing so (if they did spend full cap) would lead to ruination. Care to expand of just 'sound off' as usual?

The club doesn't know what it's income is for next season so how on earth can it comment on it's ability to spend to the cap. He shouldn't have said such a thing but then again with Labours financial record it's not a suprise, maybe he got his mate Mr Brown to look over the books. Only when the club see's how much money it gets from season ticket sales and which sponsors are still willing to stand beside the club can he start making quote about the ability of spending upto the salary cap, to do so before is foolish.

Your absolutely spiot on there kid even if the level headed point will be jumped on by some cos yer a city fan.

At last City run a ship where wages and associated contracts are given on the basis of what they get in in discounted season ticket revenues.

they have learnt sense through painfull experience.

it does worry me that Gerry sat at the top table with a man many regard as been responsible for not only Britains but the wider wertsern worlds economic woes in letting our financial institutions(that had sphere of influence in all the worlds economies)off with such light touch regulation that they imploded.

Still I bet none of his colleagues in cabinet had much control over that control freak.

We are all poorer because of New Labours disaterous legacy.

in Bradford were poorer than most

Alfucham, and the rest, ie painful city types. It has been known for at least two weeks, that the bulls were going to lose money from central funding. So to the majority of us who read other RL forums and official sites have gone over this already. The fact that the t n a are a poor excuse for newspaper, have only just decided to print it, is disgusting. The subject of creditors, RL monies, is old hat. Whilst I feel for those creditors who are owed money. This is now a story that should be put to bed. Oh, we owe other RL clubs, please state names, how much and why we owe them.

The RFL have staged managed the Administration from the beginning. They had to ensure the Bulls fulfilled the fixtures to comply with the Sky contract but were not allowed to directly pay the staff and players. They bought the lease at a knockdown price and advanced monies that would have been due anyway but at a later date. Now the revenue from Sky is reduced for the next 2years so they can recover the cost of the lease and the associated cost of maintenance that they cannot pass the Bulls.
If I were OK I wouldn't pay a penny for redevelopment until RFL come clean on their objectives on how they intend to use the lease. Me thinks a lot of mileage yet before us fans get to hear the truth behind the scenes.

Political soapbox now for people with big chips on shoulders,stick to rugby league if you know anything about it.

alfucham wrote:

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote: Doesn't take much for the 'Bitter Bantam' types to pour out of the woodwork at the first sign of 'Bulls Blood'. I guess we are lucky that City are enjoying a cracking start to the season or it would have been a whole lot worse.

Spend to cap, go bust again and see that where it takes you. If you have a £20k limit on your credit card it doesn't mean you have to spend it. City have been in admin twice and are only just showing a sign of recovery. Some people expect next season to be a roaring success and the cap as the minimum spent on wages. With that kind of mentality it won't be long before the begging bowl comes back out. Whats wrong with asking for keeping the club going and becoming profitable first before chasing glory? Has nothing been learned from past mistakes or are you happy to see them repeated.

Firstly WHO says the Bulls WILL spend full cap and IF they did, how do YOU know that the new Company would be overstretched if they did? Who are these people that expect next season to be a roaring success? Thats not the impression I get from the vast majority of Bulls fans I come across, almost the opposite BUT there is hope and optimism - maybe thats what you mean. I think you enjoy having an opinion about everything and are not prepared to let factual details halt you.

Mr Sutcliffe insisted the loss of the cash wouldn’t affect its ability to spend up to the Super League salary cap. Don't you read the story.

No it's you that read into it that the full cap will be spent. He clearly states that the loss of funding wouldn't affect its ABILITY to spend up to the Super League salary cap. Cannot see the words 'they will'. However you chose to ignore my question regarding your obvious 'inside knowledge' of OK Bulls financial situation and that in doing so (if they did spend full cap) would lead to ruination. Care to expand of just 'sound off' as usual?

The club doesn't know what it's income is for next season so how on earth can it comment on it's ability to spend to the cap. He shouldn't have said such a thing but then again with Labours financial record it's not a suprise, maybe he got his mate Mr Brown to look over the books. Only when the club see's how much money it gets from season ticket sales and which sponsors are still willing to stand beside the club can he start making quote about the ability of spending upto the salary cap, to do so before is foolish.

Your absolutely spiot on there kid even if the level headed point will be jumped on by some cos yer a city fan.

At last City run a ship where wages and associated contracts are given on the basis of what they get in in discounted season ticket revenues.

they have learnt sense through painfull experience.

it does worry me that Gerry sat at the top table with a man many regard as been responsible for not only Britains but the wider wertsern worlds economic woes in letting our financial institutions(that had sphere of influence in all the worlds economies)off with such light touch regulation that they imploded.

Still I bet none of his colleagues in cabinet had much control over that control freak.

We are all poorer because of New Labours disaterous legacy.

in Bradford were poorer than most

Have you got your grubby little hand in Omar's pocket alfucham?, or do you just make a point of speaking on behalf of others. Not a fan. Not a Creditor ... but a lot to say as always! What public role do you/ever occupy? yeah, thought so, you're a demolisher not a builder

.... PS, please use the spel chek, it already takes a lot of time to enjoy your posts...

mr Casey ,Hood and all past directors shoud be ivestigated by the league and banned from any involvement in the sport. Guilfoyle treated staff,players and creditors with contempt While he made sure he got his Fee. It will take years, if ever, for the club to recover,so get real. Players like Fans have been taken for fools.

theviking62 wrote:
Alfucham, and the rest, ie painful city types. It has been known for at least two weeks, that the bulls were going to lose money from central funding. So to the majority of us who read other RL forums and official sites have gone over this already. The fact that the t n a are a poor excuse for newspaper, have only just decided to print it, is disgusting. The subject of creditors, RL monies, is old hat. Whilst I feel for those creditors who are owed money. This is now a story that should be put to bed. Oh, we owe other RL clubs, please state names, how much and why we owe them.

I will dig the list of vreditors out and report back Viking.

i dont think this story is going away when many local people have been shafted.

I totally agree that this rag is always last to know and inaccurate in reporting too.

One guy who did the catering was stuffed through City"s two periods of admin too.

i see the T & A being finished or at best a weekly within two years.

Nobody much except those that are old buy it anymore anyway.

Most read it for free on here.

Would you pay £175 a year to buy this rag?

Another Bradford institution gione to the dogs

Alfucham, you are a known doom merchant on t n a forums, having a go at Bulls, the council for the state of the Odeon, City because their City. It's funny you only show on ALL sites when MONEY is mentioned. Get a life my friend, leave those that know what their talking about to it. Reality50, another who only comes out when money is mentioned, advice to you, stay on city site, leave the Bulls to those who know and care about them. FAKE Mumby in your case just go.

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote:

Bacon Bantam wrote:

Sheffieldbull wrote: Doesn't take much for the 'Bitter Bantam' types to pour out of the woodwork at the first sign of 'Bulls Blood'. I guess we are lucky that City are enjoying a cracking start to the season or it would have been a whole lot worse.

Spend to cap, go bust again and see that where it takes you. If you have a £20k limit on your credit card it doesn't mean you have to spend it. City have been in admin twice and are only just showing a sign of recovery. Some people expect next season to be a roaring success and the cap as the minimum spent on wages. With that kind of mentality it won't be long before the begging bowl comes back out. Whats wrong with asking for keeping the club going and becoming profitable first before chasing glory? Has nothing been learned from past mistakes or are you happy to see them repeated.

Firstly WHO says the Bulls WILL spend full cap and IF they did, how do YOU know that the new Company would be overstretched if they did? Who are these people that expect next season to be a roaring success? Thats not the impression I get from the vast majority of Bulls fans I come across, almost the opposite BUT there is hope and optimism - maybe thats what you mean. I think you enjoy having an opinion about everything and are not prepared to let factual details halt you.

Mr Sutcliffe insisted the loss of the cash wouldn’t affect its ability to spend up to the Super League salary cap. Don't you read the story.

No it's you that read into it that the full cap will be spent. He clearly states that the loss of funding wouldn't affect its ABILITY to spend up to the Super League salary cap. Cannot see the words 'they will'. However you chose to ignore my question regarding your obvious 'inside knowledge' of OK Bulls financial situation and that in doing so (if they did spend full cap) would lead to ruination. Care to expand of just 'sound off' as usual?

The club doesn't know what it's income is for next season so how on earth can it comment on it's ability to spend to the cap. He shouldn't have said such a thing but then again with Labours financial record it's not a suprise, maybe he got his mate Mr Brown to look over the books.

Only when the club see's how much money it gets from season ticket sales and which sponsors are still willing to stand beside the club can he start making quote about the ability of spending upto the salary cap, to do so before is foolish.

This actually made me laugh out loud!"
"The club doesn't know what it's income is for next season so how on earth can it comment on it's ability to spend to the cap." ..... probably the very same way as it was expected to put several business plans together to buy the dam n thing, I would imagine!
Who are you to say what he (Gerry) should or shouldn't say - god, you got a high opinion of your opinions, haven't you eh?.

Your reply to myself is the only sensible thing you have ever said on this or any other forum. The creditors, unfortunately are not really the problem of OK Bulls. But those who went before. There are those who take the moral high ground and say that OK should pay the debts, as a matter of course. I ask why?

Your reply to myself is the only sensible thing you have ever said on this or any other forum. The creditors, unfortunately are not really the problem of OK Bulls. But those who went before. There are those who take the moral high ground and say that OK should pay the debts, as a matter of course. I ask why?

Me & my 3 friends have just been and bought our season tickets ( 3 off us are over 80 and i am 73)Even though it cost us £180 each we think it will be worth it So come on you Bull fans and go and get your season tickets

Is that at concession price for stand.

The Creditors may not be OK Bulls problem but how many of them who were owed money will want to supply services or give Credit??? Good will is hard to come by in business. Wish them luck.

We have a club to watch. If OK paid the debts we wouldn't have a club to watch. So, bbibby, what do you want? Stop taking the moral high ground and start thinking what you're posting.

bbibby wrote:
The Creditors may not be OK Bulls problem but how many of them who were owed money will want to supply services or give Credit??? Good will is hard to come by in business. Wish them luck.

So are new business opportunities. Will you be making those decisions too once you've finished all your contract negotiations?, you dreamer, dream on!

Adeybull wrote:
Incidentally, the RFL DID create a "legal" charge on the assets. They took a second floating charge, behind the bank, in January 2011. All on public record. That charge was released when the laon was repaid, and the Council instead took out a floating charge. For some reason, the statement of affairs does not show the council as a secured creditor though.

That is very interesting news indeed that Bradford Council took out a floating charge.

The ONLY floating charge that the administaters report publishes is reference to one created in 2000.

Any floating charges created after 2003 under new legislation then property realisations are affected for the benefit of unsecured creditors.

Perhaps the councils legal department have overlooked to register it.

Would that suprise anyone after 90 compulsory purchase orders publically funded 10 years ago and a whole raft of failures that give us a BIG hole to rival Odsal in the centre.

wondered why they are very quiet.

And tinkering still by offering (without public consultation )the Bulls £400000 at 5 pc.

Looks like we have a fair bit to investigate here.

Bradford Council is shown as owed £45000 in business rates.
Until next year they only collect that on behalf of central government.
£45000 would go a long way to funding his parliamentary expenses.

I doubt this is a cover up.

the councillors on average take forever to catch up with themselves.

The administraters correspondence is probably still in the internal mail qeaue in the town hall

Adeybull wrote:
The creditors were given the opportunity to, and had it in their hands to convene a Creditors' meeting. If they did not request one of the administrator (the cost would effectively be to the prefs. or to him) they can surely hardly complain that someone should do something about the plight of the creditors? If you are a creditor, did you write requesting a meeting be convened? If you did not, I suggest you are hardly in a position to complain about the creditors not having any opportunity? The RFL advancing Sky money (that the club would ordinarily have received anyway) for paying the players had no adverse effect whatsoever on the position of the unsecured creditors. In fact, the effect was strongly FAVOURABLE to them!!! Because had players been sacked or contracts terminated, you would have had additional employee PREFERENTIAL claims crystalising, ranking ahead of the unsecureds, as well as ADDITIONAL unsecured creditors. And just think about it: if the total player wage bill was say £1.6m, and on average players had a year left on contract, that is another £1.6m to ADD to the list of unsecured creditors, more than halving any eventual dividend that might be declared. And if there is no dividend, what possible issue can the creditors have anyway? And retaining the players meant the club could be sold as a going concern.

Retaining the players allowed the club to be sold as a going concern.

Sorry Adey there was no going concern.
the report details that and that the only real value in what was left was its membership of SL.

When OK purchased player registrations and associated contracts and a few other sticks and bits super league status was not even assured.

Many of the players are now on there way anyway.

The creditors first communication in the matter as to position was sent out on 28.8.2012.

A couple of days before BG threatened to liquidate knowing and giving the creditors an extremely short time frame to convene any meeting.
some have not even received the notice which does not suprise me given the overall sloppiness in his dealing.
No voicemail facility on his phone and a secretary who never knew where he was and a complete failure to return reply or acknowledge EMails indicates management failure.


Still he would say he got it over the line though not the way we suspect CC had wanted

We are both clearly (as many)very angry.

I shall just be gratefull that any sort of team is out and you can continue to do the wonderfull things Bullbuilder are all about.

And hopefully pop out another Bateman or two.

I dont think for one minute that a couple of players on 110000 a year continuing to be paid in full (where with negotiation deferral or waiver could have been acheived to ensure others less fortunate were paid)was right.

maybe those netter paid players did support some in hardship you are better placed to know.

insolvency is like war.
There are no winners ultimately and the bulls saving is at others who have done no wrongs expense.

Talk sense, alfucham, where did you get the news that the council loaning £400k @ 5%. Was that a dream. Boy do talk tripe. Compulsory purchase orders are a regular thing in local government. Years ago they bought houses both sides of Manchester Road, so they could widen it. With public money. What you say £45k to use as parliamentary expenses, borders on libel.

Talk sense, alfucham, where did you get the news that the council loaning £400k @ 5%. Was that a dream. Boy do talk tripe. Compulsory purchase orders are a regular thing in local government. Years ago they bought houses both sides of Manchester Road, so they could widen it. With public money. What you say £45k to use as parliamentary expenses, borders on libel.

theviking62 wrote:
Alfucham, and the rest, ie painful city types. It has been known for at least two weeks, that the bulls were going to lose money from central funding. So to the majority of us who read other RL forums and official sites have gone over this already. The fact that the t n a are a poor excuse for newspaper, have only just decided to print it, is disgusting. The subject of creditors, RL monies, is old hat. Whilst I feel for those creditors who are owed money. This is now a story that should be put to bed. Oh, we owe other RL clubs, please state names, how much and why we owe them.

Hi Viking checked out the list as to why the Bulls owe it I do not know but here goes they owe

1.Cas 2448
2.Hull 1516
3.HKR 5215
4.London 20000
5.Salford 4221
6 St Helens 4157

Not enormous perhaps on account of selling tickets at odsal or something.
Approaching £40000

portugalbull wrote:
The RFL have staged managed the Administration from the beginning. They had to ensure the Bulls fulfilled the fixtures to comply with the Sky contract but were not allowed to directly pay the staff and players. They bought the lease at a knockdown price and advanced monies that would have been due anyway but at a later date. Now the revenue from Sky is reduced for the next 2years so they can recover the cost of the lease and the associated cost of maintenance that they cannot pass the Bulls. If I were OK I wouldn't pay a penny for redevelopment until RFL come clean on their objectives on how they intend to use the lease. Me thinks a lot of mileage yet before us fans get to hear the truth behind the scenes.

Endorsed.
Clearly we are not stupid.
Whats the economy like in Portugal and the weather as I am not sure I"m up for much more of this as I see my home vity brought to its depairing knees

Respoinding to various technical points raised by "alfucham" above:

"Any floating charges created after 2003 under new legislation then property realisations are affected for the benefit of unsecured creditors."

In fact, what you are referring to is that, following the effective date under the Enterprise Act 2002, a holder of a floating charge created after that date cannot appoint a receiver. He can still apply for an administrator to be appointed, and his debt still ranks ahead of the unsecured creditors.

The failure to refer to this charge in the Administrators' report or the SOA was one of a number of (to me) inexplicable ommissions in that report.

I see the Administrators have now filed a statement of Deemed Approval of their proposals. Seems the creditors must have been happy with no creditors' meeting then.

The creditors' list shows that we still owe London £20k which is in respect of the signing of Luke Gale, as I understand it. There are also several small amounts owing to other RL clubs.

Players could not be sold, because the other clubs had agreed collectively not to sign any. That has been stated now any number of times.

Your comment about "would players with a year left on their contracts have remained" went past me rather too fast on that last bend? Had the administrator made them redundant, as you seem to think he should, then - apart from turning a going-concern sale into an asset realisation, the amounts payable to those players under their contracts would immediately rank as undercured creditors, to the extent that theri claims (or those of HMG standing in their place) would not rank as preferential.

Hood secured the £1.25m from the RFL in exchange for paying the RFL a rent of £72k pa on their new investment. And the council sanctioned the lease assignment, as they had to do for the transaction to be able to proceed. The head lease did and does not void on assignment; only on insolvency. Commercial property currently yields 6-7% as an investment, so the rent looks reasonably commercial. That is how he secured the money from the RFL.

The big creditor that looks to me to be missing is HMRC, funnily enough. If the reported "PAYE" creditor £251k is for the image rights tax (and tghe amount seems close) then where is the unpaid PAYE on the payroll paid 14 June, payable 22 July? or on the payroll paid 14 May, due 22 June? Or maybe the payroll paid 14 April? Surely those liabilities will not have been paid by the Board of Evictors in preference to other creditors? Especially since failure to pay PAYE etc can have personal consequences for directors?

And if those together ARE the "PAYE" creditor, then where the hell is the creditor for the image rightS tax?

I really cannot understand why no-one seems to have picked up on this and asked it before?

The administrators' report does not place any value on the land an buildings. The Statement of Affairs places a BOOK value of £2.174m on long leasehold land and buildings, primarily the Coral Stand, with "uncertain" under "estimated to realise".

The business WAS sold as a going concern.

In my opinion, the conduct of the administration was a scandal, from start to finish. But I never expected anything different. I know how it works, and what goes on, so unlike so many others, I was not surprised.

At least this was not a prepack, where the administrator sold the bsuiness and/or assets a few nanoseconds after his appointment, leaving the creditors no opportunity whatsoever to take ANY action, even if they were so-minded.

Go ask the cfeditors of JJB sports, in a few days, what THEY think about adinistrations in general and prepacks in particular? When the assets are likely to be sold off immediately after appointment, and, in the words of the BBC no less: "By effecting the sale through a "pre-pack" - or fully pre-arranged - administration, JJB will be able to write off any of its debts that the buyer is unwilling to assume, and that cannot be repaid from the sale proceeds." So don't anyone go thinking what happened at Bradford was anything unusual or (in insolveny terms) wrong.

portugalbull wrote:
The RFL have staged managed the Administration from the beginning. They had to ensure the Bulls fulfilled the fixtures to comply with the Sky contract but were not allowed to directly pay the staff and players. They bought the lease at a knockdown price and advanced monies that would have been due anyway but at a later date. Now the revenue from Sky is reduced for the next 2years so they can recover the cost of the lease and the associated cost of maintenance that they cannot pass the Bulls.
If I were OK I wouldn't pay a penny for redevelopment until RFL come clean on their objectives on how they intend to use the lease. Me thinks a lot of mileage yet before us fans get to hear the truth behind the scenes.

OK made it clear at the forum tonight that the objective would be to get the lease back from the RFL, in due course, before they do anything.

It would appear that several of the Bulls fans on here now take the view that now "were allright jack stuff everyone else with not an ounce of remorse or thought of moral responsibility for those that have been duped.

To Sheffield Bull and Viking.

i will continue to stick up for the small creditor who has been conned.

Who else witnessed Mr Hood state in january that the club were now debt free at a fans meet following transfer of the ground?

Your insults are water off a duck back to me.

compulsory purchase orders for 90 open and trading business to ten years after (with all the loss of jobs and revenues to the city)one big hole is worthy of comment to me.

As for City i actually support them so perhaps you mix me with someone else.

if it massages your ego SB i Will endeavour to slow my type speed and not make as many slips.

watch the wider press this will NOT go away.

Bigotry and self servers who take the view were alright now to hell with those that suffer have never being my type.

it has just taken the people of Liverpool 23 years to feel a semblance of hollow justice through the corrupt practice of public servants.
So please do not patronise me SB about public servants.

nice little salaries and pensions at 50.
take it your one of em.

while the rest starve and survive.

theviking62 wrote:
Alfucham, you are a known doom merchant on t n a forums, having a go at Bulls, the council for the state of the Odeon, City because their City. It's funny you only show on ALL sites when MONEY is mentioned. Get a life my friend, leave those that know what their talking about to it. Reality50, another who only comes out when money is mentioned, advice to you, stay on city site, leave the Bulls to those who know and care about them. FAKE Mumby in your case just go.

We are talking about peoples lives my friend.

Sadly money is a neccesary tool for survival and the avoidance of despair.

The Odeon another sad story riddled with corrupt practice.well worth saving like the Bulls

theviking62 wrote:
Your reply to myself is the only sensible thing you have ever said on this or any other forum. The creditors, unfortunately are not really the problem of OK Bulls. But those who went before. There are those who take the moral high ground and say that OK should pay the debts, as a matter of course. I ask why?

Because the only value in what he bought (where he does not even have to pay 100k of it for another 3 years)was in their membership of SL.

Being a member of SL gives his new business £1.2 million a year just for being a member.

And because everyone has bent over backwards to ensure this disaster stayed at the top tabe when it all other circumstances in the business world it would have been put down and condemned.

And because the creditors were effectively conned in Jan when a boyuont Mr hood declared the Bulls debt free and led them to believe as they continued to give of their services and supplies that all was well.

We now find.
1.1.5 million owed to creditors
2.you could add another £400k raised by the fans in April.
3.Mr Ok has to fund sept,oct and Nov wages and employers Nic till the end of Nov estimated at £750k

Not bad eh.

£2.65
million worth of wracked debt and losses in 10 months after the words spoken in jan said selling the lease made everything right.

No I have not got any grubby little hand in anyones pocket.

I guess that your season ticket money is needed very quickly to pay the players left until the end of November.

Because as I said OK does not even have to find the balance of purchase money till 2015.

So I dont think my grubby little hand will dig much deeper.
Its a crime its a scandal and no it is not going away.

you lot go back on the BBC site and listen to Mr Hoods radio interview on selling the ground.
Pathetic no hint of the perilous financial position.it was done to stave off land developing predators.He was having a laugh with you all.

there were no land developing predators.

Adey Bull has pointed out the stringent conditions attaching to the transfer of ownership 10 years ago by bradford council contained within the long lease.And do you seriously believe the daft Mr hood when he said that,that Bradford Council would ever have granted developers permission when 10 years ago they had given the Bulls 5 million (blown)to maintain the ground for rugby league(where the Bulls had to play 90 pc of their home games there)

Methinks the creditors were lulled into a false sense of security.

Methinks Omar is responsible a charitable passionate man who could probably see the sense if from a goodwill perspective only, in sacrificing one £100000 a year player for 10 years to ensure the creditors who were conned are paid.

With a little help from our friends who were also complicit at RFL HQ.

i dont where this we did not cause it we should not pay.

Not when £1.2 million a year is GIVEN yes GIVEN not earned for simply eating at the table.

little sympathy on here from a few die in the woods bullys.were alright jack f*** em.

Well perhaps Alfucham

trueBradfordian wrote:
The RFL are going to withhold funds from the Bulls and use the money to repay the Bulls creditors. Aren't they? I can't believe these scurilus rumours that the RFL are going to share out thye dosh amongst the other clubs. That would be a dishonourable thing to do, and I feel sure the RFL family would never do anything so outrageous.

Dont put anything past them Avenuite.
It would be outrageous but I will do my damndest to stop it and make sure it goes to the creditors.

The RFL seem capable of making and changing the terms of engagement as they go along.

theviking62 wrote:
We have a club to watch. If OK paid the debts we wouldn't have a club to watch. So, bbibby, what do you want? Stop taking the moral high ground and start thinking what you're posting.

Of course he could if it was long term financed selfish man.

If you do not believe me that £400k is on offer at 5pc as a loan from the council
why dont you pick the phone up and ask the leader or councillor Thornton

Very very selfish attitude.

You have a business to properly look after first.

A club to watch second.

Now thats where this muddled confused mess started to go adrift.

Wrong sense of priority.

wont be bringing you a bottle of lucozade if you carry on like this.

theviking62 wrote:
Alfucham, you are a known doom merchant on t n a forums, having a go at Bulls, the council for the state of the Odeon, City because their City. It's funny you only show on ALL sites when MONEY is mentioned. Get a life my friend, leave those that know what their talking about to it. Reality50, another who only comes out when money is mentioned, advice to you, stay on city site, leave the Bulls to those who know and care about them. FAKE Mumby in your case just go.

Where have I had a go at the Bulls?

you if you ever get well enough(and I wish you well)and 10000 others are the Bulls.

I have certainly had a good go at many who have vanished that purported to be Bulls.

Seen caisley at Odsal in 6 years?

Happy that hood who claims to be owed £67000 for Web services shut the Bulls web site down as soon as he was pushed.

Their sought come and go.

you are the Bulls.

the trouble is you come out with plenty aswell.

Get Well Soon xx

Adeybull wrote:
The business WAS sold as a going concern. In my opinion, the conduct of the administration was a scandal, from start to finish. But I never expected anything different. I know how it works, and what goes on, so unlike so many others, I was not surprised. At least this was not a prepack, where the administrator sold the bsuiness and/or assets a few nanoseconds after his appointment, leaving the creditors no opportunity whatsoever to take ANY action, even if they were so-minded. Go ask the cfeditors of JJB sports, in a few days, what THEY think about adinistrations in general and prepacks in particular? When the assets are likely to be sold off immediately after appointment, and, in the words of the BBC no less: "By effecting the sale through a "pre-pack" - or fully pre-arranged - administration, JJB will be able to write off any of its debts that the buyer is unwilling to assume, and that cannot be repaid from the sale proceeds." So don't anyone go thinking what happened at Bradford was anything unusual or (in insolveny terms) wrong.

I have to agree with your sentiments Adey.

Insolvency is legalised theft.

Will Wigan be Ok in all that.missed it due to my current obsession with the Bulls plight.

However I dont agree the Bulls were a going concern and indeed the administaters report states that.

So OK has the players the Coral stand that cost £2,173,805 (gordon Gibb took all BCFC ground holding 250000 from the administrater at £2m)and in return has to fund wages to the end of November estimated at £750000 with the employer NIC.

Were you at the meeting in Jan when Mr hood said the club were now debt free?

Did you believe his radio interview where he stated the ground was transferred to the RFL to stave off predatory developers?

Do you not feel (as always in these cases)the creditors have been treated with utter contempt.

Along with a whole host of others (16 staff )who were duped into believing everything was OK.well lets hope everything is OK now

Adeybull wrote:

portugalbull wrote: The RFL have staged managed the Administration from the beginning. They had to ensure the Bulls fulfilled the fixtures to comply with the Sky contract but were not allowed to directly pay the staff and players. They bought the lease at a knockdown price and advanced monies that would have been due anyway but at a later date. Now the revenue from Sky is reduced for the next 2years so they can recover the cost of the lease and the associated cost of maintenance that they cannot pass the Bulls. If I were OK I wouldn't pay a penny for redevelopment until RFL come clean on their objectives on how they intend to use the lease. Me thinks a lot of mileage yet before us fans get to hear the truth behind the scenes.

OK made it clear at the forum tonight that the objective would be to get the lease back from the RFL, in due course, before they do anything.

Why the hell does he not encourage the to partner the Bulls in its redevelopment and act in a joint venture.

Surely the place has the most potential is strategically sited and has a history of staging the test matches with the Aussies until other grounds came along offering more.

And surely the RFL could attract a major ground sponsor of national or international standing better than our poor little city that finds it difficult in ten years to find anyone totally committed to filling that other big hole

but after Stobart maybe not.

how about the Sky stadium.

now they have some money.

or the Al jeera stadium.

The dream would be much more acheivable with the RFl as partners in the stadium redevelopment.

Whats the point in owning it back.

£72 grand a year looks a pretty reasonable deal to me.

PFI schemes are now going to cost the country 10 times the capital cost over the next twenty years.
An illustration say a school cost 5 million to build the repayments over 20 years will be £50 million.

its all out there and in the public domain.

Its why wards built cannot be staffed and remain closed and the last lot really has left one hell of a mess.

listening Gerry?
Dont make the same mistake again.

A £6 million investment in Odsal (which would not give you much)under PFI funding would cost £60 million over twenty years.

thats at a cost of £3 million a year.

joke schemes.

The sky money gives Bulls £1.2 million a year

These numbers will never add up and the Bulls need the RFl to join them in redeveloping Odsal.

Rugby Union has Twickers and in the last 20 years that has been transformed.

Soccer has Wembley and in the last 10 that has been transformed at £800m

Cricket has Lords and indeed in the last 15 all the test grounds headingley included have been transformed(and yorkshire still get to use it)

The Rugby Football league have now for one million of investment secured the Odsal big hole with all the potential in the world to create a super stadium.

The other sports have done it with the new enriches provided by television rights that are now simply collosall compared to twenty years ago.

If the RFL are truly sat on £25 million in profits annually surely its time to create a national stadium for Rugby league.

the advantages of shared overheads appeal.

I do not see the mileage or advantage to the Bulls in anything other than a partnership with the RFl.

What use is a rugby ground to the Bulls forward balance sheet.

Not much Adey if you state that it had not being given any value at all for ten years since transfer from the council.

Very prudent accounting by my friends at buckles and totally correct given the covenants.

it is a rugby ground and has no development land potential other than the surplus land around the peripherary.

No doom and gloom there viking just positive encouragement to what I hope will promote sensible debate.

Give me answers why the idea is not sensible.I may have overlooked something.

But when a guy who has not even the £100000 grand to pay for his purchase starts talking about spending 6 million over time on the place I worry.

For him more than anyone.
Sounds a super positive chap though.

and lets hope that infectiousness is not tarnished within months through lack of supporter response where it counts.In paying £180 for a season ticket.

good luck to Omar

Well adey should the players not be paying these image right taxes?

great little fraud scams where they take there brass whilst up in the air.

jesus this lot were well looked after and managed were they not.

And off they pop with a kop skip and a jump

Me and you are expected to fund this shambolic mess.

And true Bulls fans who mostly look working class to me.

keep teaching the Batemans of the value of loyalty.heavan will be his reward.

An example to hold up accross the hole,stewart mccall,who would die for Bradford.

another brian Noble despite what Mick potter thinks of him now.

He would not have shipped out burned out on the first plane to Australia having had a bit of stress for a couple of months.

his parting shot towards the most successfull coach in SL history was nothing short of disgracefull.

i have every admiration for all else he sounds like he achieved but at the end of the day he was no prepared for the pay cuts.

nobby I remind you all offered to help too for nowt.without making a big song and dance about it.

And when he realised he was getting up peoples noses by association with cc politely and n a dignified interview withdrew.Ask ross what he said.Mick potter is a mate and I have no intentionof upsetting mates.

ask Ross what he said 6 years ago.

"Some people around the place dont seem to like the sound of my voice anymore" a subtle but lasting memory of his opinion of Hood.

is that Robin Hood.

or Hood by name Hood by nature.

hang him in sherwood.

And off he went to Wigan to help the fallen giant avoid relegation and slowly claw there way bck to the top.

Some old has been indeed.

You getting the cofees in in Bettys Nob if your reading.

I2ve been sticking up for you all summer when the knives have come out by the uninteligentsia.

god bless you my son.a true working class hero not a bondi beach ponce

"I2ve been sticking up for you all summer when the knives have come out by the uninteligentsia."... what a pompous windbag you are sir! Thank the Lord you eventually blew yourself out before 4am...... you know whats coming now don't you alfucham ? ... uninteligentsia is actually spelt 'unintelligentsia' IF the word exsisted that is ;-)

Looks like sheffield, viking and adey have been shown up by this bloke.

Think Alfuchem must have a headache this morning after all he has drunk last night.

Mumby was the best wrote:
Looks like sheffield, viking and adey have been shown up by this bloke.

Doesn't take much to show some up.

I rather think our readers will judge for themselves who has an idea what they are talking about, and who does not?

Adeybull wrote:
I rather think our readers will judge for themselves who has an idea what they are talking about, and who does not?

By eck Adey I bet you are trembling at the thought of those two teaming up with Alfucham. Ought to change his name to Amfuched!

Mumby was the best wrote:
Looks like sheffield, viking and adey have been shown up by this bloke.

Not sure about Adey the masn talks more sense and clearly uis a doer on the bulls behalf.

And to dissapint you Capa I am teetotal.

I have no intention of showing anyone up just like all self respecting Bradfordians wish for a speedy return to health for a very badly run club over the past 10 years.

Bullbuilder excepted,Middle management excepted.

I'm trembling in my boots. Three thickos together. Must be a name for a group like that? Anyway, I've stopped taking any notice of what they say. The persist in insults, re hashing old news, hijacking new news claiming it as their own, then one suffers badly from verbal diarrhoea. No what they is both pointless and rubbish.

alfucham wrote:

Mumby was the best wrote:
Looks like sheffield, viking and adey have been shown up by this bloke.

Not sure about Adey the masn talks more sense and clearly uis a doer on the bulls behalf.

And to dissapint you Capa I am teetotal.

I have no intention of showing anyone up just like all self respecting Bradfordians wish for a speedy return to health for a very badly run club over the past 10 years.

Bullbuilder excepted,Middle management excepted.

you are either -

Chris Caisley
Roland Agar
Stephen Coulby

or one of the oher pri*ks that managed to ruin this club

Now take your rhetoric and stick it where the sun don't shine - your time has been and gone, go join Nobby on the scrap heap of RL

alfucham wrote:

Mumby was the best wrote:
Looks like sheffield, viking and adey have been shown up by this bloke.

Not sure about Adey the masn talks more sense and clearly uis a doer on the bulls behalf.

And to dissapint you Capa I am teetotal.

I have no intention of showing anyone up just like all self respecting Bradfordians wish for a speedy return to health for a very badly run club over the past 10 years.

Bullbuilder excepted,Middle management excepted.

Tell us your views on the Bulls creditors alfuchambyboringemto
death, its been awhile.Or can we just call you Tory Boy?

Well with fans like this Adey not sure what your future is.

1.I despise the Tories
2.i despise what new labour did for rthe country
3.I despise what CC did to the Bulls.
4.i despise supposed fans who cannot rationally debate to progress their club and constantly resort to insult.

Alfucham aka New Hall Nev, you must be one and the same, you use the poor spelling gag. The only person you're showing up is yourself by posting in that fashion. You are obviously clever to a degree, but to belittle yourself like this shocking. Why not post using correct English, both punctuation and spelling people may, then, take more notice of what you say and not ridicule you. As for me, I find your diatribe, somewhat ridiculous, as you go over the same stuff time and time again. I' m sure the Little Man you claim to represent can manage on his/their own. Go back to thinking about your City, the Odeon and the Bomb site that is Forster Square. Leave rugby to us.

Nobody is resorting to insult we would rationally debate with you. But we haven't got a clue what your are actually talking about. Mainly it's your use of English that's the problem. But if you want insults, keep on putting out the garbage you do. Give it some cohesion and rational, that's all.

alfucham wrote:
Well with fans like this Adey not sure what your future is.

1.I despise the Tories
2.i despise what new labour did for rthe country
3.I despise what CC did to the Bulls.
4.i despise supposed fans who cannot rationally debate to progress their club and constantly resort to insult.

Well whether Adey agrees with you is for Adey to decide. A few points aimed at you...
1)Who cares what you think of Tories
2)Ditto re New Labour (was a sports forum last time I checked)
3) Ditto re CC - we all have our views on that topic
4)The fans on here are Bulls Fans in the main - myself, nearly 50 years, Bullbuilder member,SO for Lottery, 100 mile round trip for all home games,etc,etc so I despise you for questioning my pedigree sunbeam - got it? My insults aren't hidden like yours, you sanctimonious git!

Sheffieldbull wrote:

alfucham wrote:
Well with fans like this Adey not sure what your future is.

1.I despise the Tories
2.i despise what new labour did for rthe country
3.I despise what CC did to the Bulls.
4.i despise supposed fans who cannot rationally debate to progress their club and constantly resort to insult.

Well whether Adey agrees with you is for Adey to decide. A few points aimed at you...
1)Who cares what you think of Tories
2)Ditto re New Labour (was a sports forum last time I checked)
3) Ditto re CC - we all have our views on that topic
4)The fans on here are Bulls Fans in the main - myself, nearly 50 years, Bullbuilder member,SO for Lottery, 100 mile round trip for all home games,etc,etc so I despise you for questioning my pedigree sunbeam - got it? My insults aren't hidden like yours, you sanctimonious git!

Well said Sheff.same points from me except I don`t have a 100 mile round trip. I think Alfucham as a problem with the past Board, if he has lost money thru it why doesn`t he go berate them instead of keep pouring it out on here, he`s become tiresome.

Thats just the point if Viking had lost money under old board he would be first to cry.

You all ca\me within 24 hours of losing our club.

There are no fans bigger than another fan.

Frankly given the quality of rationale on here I am not suprised the Bulls were nearly sunk.

People dont like the truth when it hurts.

keep insulting and keep showing the Bradford public what you are worth.

Even when people offer help because those in charge it was beyond them (as did one brian Noble)the bigotry comes forth and drives them away.

sad cases.

Does not look to good for Omar.

With friends like this lot who needs enemies.

i understand why you fail to understand the problems.

Bigotry

alfucham wrote:
You all ca\me within 24 hours of losing our club.

There are no fans bigger than another fan.

Frankly given the quality of rationale on here I am not suprised the Bulls were nearly sunk.

People dont like the truth when it hurts.

keep insulting and keep showing the Bradford public what you are worth.

Even when people offer help because those in charge it was beyond them (as did one brian Noble)the bigotry comes forth and drives them away.

sad cases.

Does not look to good for Omar.

With friends like this lot who needs enemies.

i understand why you fail to understand the problems.

Bigotry

Alfucham, explain bigotry, in terms of people on here. What does not look good for Omar. With friends like theses who needs enemies, explain. You don't like the truth either. You just post unlinked statements on the Bulls. I suggest, to you in all fairness, you've lost the plot. Go see a doctor, you have serious problems. Or go play with the other trolls on the m606. To be truthful you don't fool me or anyone else on here. We all like a good laugh and you are doing that. Thanks.

theviking62 wrote:

alfucham wrote: You all ca\me within 24 hours of losing our club. There are no fans bigger than another fan. Frankly given the quality of rationale on here I am not suprised the Bulls were nearly sunk. People dont like the truth when it hurts. keep insulting and keep showing the Bradford public what you are worth. Even when people offer help because those in charge it was beyond them (as did one brian Noble)the bigotry comes forth and drives them away. sad cases. Does not look to good for Omar. With friends like this lot who needs enemies. i understand why you fail to understand the problems. Bigotry

Alfucham, explain bigotry, in terms of people on here. What does not look good for Omar. With friends like theses who needs enemies, explain. You don't like the truth either. You just post unlinked statements on the Bulls. I suggest, to you in all fairness, you've lost the plot. Go see a doctor, you have serious problems. Or go play with the other trolls on the m606. To be truthful you don't fool me or anyone else on here. We all like a good laugh and you are doing that. Thanks.

I"d better not see your doctor eh

You have no answers to my questions then. At least we are not the only ones to suffer from your vitriolic outbursts.

What is you don't like about Local government, the Council, Central government, etc. things happen, unfortunately, for Bradford, it's demise began in the good old days of Eric " Porky " Pickles, and has steadily gone down hill since. Successive councils appear to have always backed the wrong the horse. Anyway back to rugby who do you fancy to make Old Trafford, then? This is one question I may get an answer to.

Is it any fekking wonder that hardly anyone posts on here any more?

Well leave then know everything but knows bugger all.

Adeybull wrote:
Is it any fekking wonder that hardly anyone posts on here any more?

This is the main reason I wouldnt post on here because through all the hard times over the past few months and viewing these boards it was clear anyone having a different view to "certain" posters was branded a "troll" or attacked on the boards

Anyway said my bit..peace out