[u"The 2 Bidders"[/u

Why worry which bid will win ? ..... We all know bulls are "TOO BIG TO FAIL", and the RL will pick the best bid for a bad job.

If you don't believe me just keep watching this space !

Having said that!. You have not be the first, second, nor will be the last to go into financial meltdown, and be in this position.

[uOther Clubs no doubt are close to the financial tipping edge too.[/u


Will they get the same amount of time, and help from RL clubs to sort the mess out ? I doubt it !
( We all, just got to keep watching this space I guess! )

Congratulations you win the "Best Formatted Post Ever" award.

Just a shame the content was so poor.

Wakefield, Cas, Salford, Widnes would never vote to have bradford outside of SL. If Bulls go to NL1 they would win everything going, build up a strong support and make a good case to come back in to SL at the expense of an existing SL club. If Bradford are allowed to stay in SL they will be weaker on the pitch, lose games and not build support as History shows that Bradford public will only watch a side that wins easily each week. Therefore Bradford will not be seen as a threat to other SL club chairmen. This is what is so wrong with SL, chairmen given a vote on RL issues vote based on what is good for their club and not for the good of the game. Club Chairmen should not be given a say, the game needs people from outside to come in and run it making decisions on what is best for RL not what is best for ` my club `.

Jockabull !, Pity you could not say it was untrue . ! " ,.

(BUT never mind), that is RL for you .

No, completely the opposite. You are conflating the old company (the one in administration) with the business which that company runs (the Bradford Bulls) but they are not one and the same thing. The buyer would 100% definitely be a newco, whoever it was. I would bet my house that NO buyer will "take on the existing debt". Why would anybody do that? They wouldn't! Would you?

Any buyer will make the administrator an offer for the business and he'll accept or reject it. If a deal is done, the buyer buys the business, the old company (in administration) gets the dosh, what's left after fees gets divvied. Essentially, the business is sold as a going concern, which is what Guilfoyle has said all along he was aiming to do.

I'm watching! I'm watching! It's very exciting, though not much has happened yet.

Great idea. Who are these people? How are we going to pay them? It's certainly worked in other sports - football & yawnion for example are in rude health. Would you be willing to pour money into a black hole & have no say in the game? Do you think Glover should just shut his gob & have no say?

Just to clarify my own comments to Adey, I wasn't having a pop at you mate, purely that it's frustrating to see little cryptic comments about things rather than dishing the dirt.

So let me get this straight.Obviously the administrator is fettered by the League as if they are unwilling to accept any particular owner there can be no deal . But after that , as it's a newco it is purely the administrator's decision whether to accept-- the creditors of the oldco have no say in whether say, 10p in the £ is acceptable. They just have to accept the distribution by the administrator after he's taken his fees.

Not Wibsey sodding Warriors again? The b.astards!

Yep.



I don't think it harms the administrator's case that we have been on the market for such a long time, yet only these couple of bids remain 'on the table'. HMRC aren't like your normal creditor, but so far as creditors are concerned, the alternative to taking any offer that produces at least something, must be better than a liquidation and getting nothing.

I don't [iknow [/ihow it works, and I've been asking, but nobody else seems to either, so here is my speculation.
a) I feel very confident that whatever deal he does, the administrator would not be so stupid as to leave himself exposed to claims by creditors that the deal was no good. I'd bet the house on that.
b) [iIf[/i a deal is imminent then by definition there would be no time to arrange a meeting of creditors.
c) The creditors plainly must have a say, they don't just have to do what they are told. Unless of course they are a the minority of creditors in which case they have to like it or lump it.

Is there a way to reconcile those things? Well, I can think of one - if the administrator had for example already got the nod from the creditors, or should I say the majority of them. I have no idea if he has, or if he hasn't, but nothing else immediately springs to mind.

Shareholders have recently received a letter (dated 24th of August) from the administrators as follows:-

“The Joint Administrators anticipate realisations from the disposal of the Company’s assets will be insufficient for a distribution to be made to the unsecured creditors and on this basis it is their intention not to convene an initial creditors meeting, unless the creditors so wish. This is to minimize the cost of the Administration. The Joint Administrators will, however summon an initial meeting if creditors with claims exceeding 10% of the total indebtedness to the Company request them to do so. If the Joint Administrators have not been requested to convene a meeting within eight business days of the Proposals being issued then the Proposals will be deemed to have been approved.”

It looks like the earliest an agreement with creditors can be reached is eight business days from the 24th of August but longer if any of those with claims of 10% or greater request a meeting.

I don't know a huge amount about this kind of thing but I just popped what you've posted into google in the hope of finder a more complete text. I was unsuccessful but I found a lot of very similar letters. Assuming what you've posted is accurate, it's just annoyed me as it's standard fair, mail merge accountancy lip service that no doubt will have been charged by the hour to produce.

I'd imagine it pretty much has to be worded like that from a legal point of view to be valid.

Is that any single creditor with a 10% claim or greater or can it be individual creditors whose claims added together addup to 10%?

If the former then its possible that only creditors with greater than a 10% claim could be hmrc and RFL (odsal rent). IF they (and any other creditors with a 10% or more claim) told administrator they didnt object then does he still have to wait the 8 days?

Otherwise looks like next weds/thursday (depending on whether 8 days includes 24th). Which ties in with week mentioned in todays T&A article

I'm sure you're righT and to be fair, I'd guess it's a case of paying for what someone knows rather than what they do. Doesnt make it any less gauling though.

Perhaps I'm just sore having been bent over by accountants and solcitors in the past

Can't be d explaining what this is about, why this process is being followed, and especially the significance in the wording of the administrator's letter regarding there being no prospect of a dividend for the unsecured creditors. Or, for that matter, anything else in the comprehensive and pretty enlightening report that I now have a copy of. No intention of putting up with more shìt like I read on here after my previous update.

I could explain it too, but I am currently picking my toys up that I have thrown out of my pram. Sorry everyone

This is a likely scenario thats happening between the OK/GS bid and Red Hall www.youtube.com/watch?v=EET6lYJqnro (keep the sound off)

This is a likely scenario thats happening between the OK/GS bid and Red Hall www.youtube.com/watch?v=EET6lYJqnro (keep the sound off)

Is anybody offering odds on us having a new owner in time for Saturday's game? I want a bet.

While it would be good to see a bit more certainty on the future ownership it did strike me as a touch ironic that looking at our recent results we have probably had our best run for several seasons when everyone's favourite administrator has been in charge of the club?

So perhaps they could annouce the new deal after we have beaten FC by a 100 to boost up our scoring difference? Uncertainty and superstition go hand in hand.

T&A reports RFL Board meeting today... decision could be tonight!!!!

Doesn't the deal even if the RFL are happy with it, have to be agreed with the Creditors as has been mentioned and that could be after the Catalans match??

Well it has to be agreed by the administrator, so I guess it's his job to sort out how it impacts the creditors - after all it's his job is to get the best deal he can for the them. Maybe he's had meetings with them, or at least the big ones....maybe.

From my own recollections of being an unsecured creditor many years ago, my votes, and even attendance at meetings, weren't worth the bus fare so from my pov I reckon it's largely down to the Administrator.

That's pretty much how I see it, and anyway as the leaked letter simply states that there'll be NO dividend to unsecured creditors, you could say, what difference would ANY deal make? I.e. if whatever happens, they receive Nil, then what could be a worse deal for them than that? If that's the best offer, how could the administrator get a better deal? By definition, he can't.