Heheh, you were the man who would have saved the Bulls, all hunky dory if only "they" had listened to you. Riiight. You had a team of rich business experts just waiting to ride in and make the club wealthy, if only.

Neither you nor anyone without the inside track on the Bulls' internal finances would have had any clue whether the management were "up to the job", so stop trying to big yourself up as if you were some sort of Oracle. You knew nothing.

Or if you really did know, then I blame YOU, for not spilling the beans, and forcing the issue.

That obvious point aside, calls for the board to resign seem to be endemic across all sports. What is rare as rocking horse shiit is the provision of better alternatives. Or indeed ANY alternatives. And of course our board DID, eventually, stand down. Much good [ithat's[/i done us.

Lots I agree with their but as you say yourself, much of the iceberg Hood had us sailing towards was concealed. How were those with a 'Hood's all we've got' mentality, of which I was one, supposed to know all that was going on behind the scenes?

Not bothered at this time of how we got to where we are (although as and when the final act is known I do want to know the real situation), I'm more bothered to know what I've got to support in the future, preferably in SL but if not a team built of home grown young talent in the lower leagues. At this moment I have significant doubts I'll be watching anything apart from following the sport on Sky as I can't see a path to a positive outcome for Bradford.

I said on another post that [iif[/i we are to go bust then the sooner it happens the better, the more time available to prepare the easier it would be. Finishing the season is far less important then still being here next season to me. Problem of course is the [iif[/i bit.

You often post rational, considered reactions. This isn't one of them.

Nobody is "taking the p!ss" from what I see. The problem that I observe is a banal expectation from some fans for the consortiums and RFL to be exact and revealing of the current state of play (including details of all bids and rebuttals) along with details of the RFL's exact support, or otherwise.

Quite simply, this isn't going to happen and wouldn't in any reasonable, prudent business or governing body. It is quite farcical for some fans to be demanding "answers" when their are no answers to give and more critically, why would any savvy business person reveal details of a confidential nature. There needs to be a huge level of realism by some elements that this is a process which has covert elements by definition. You don't write down your chess moves for the opposition.

As for folding, why? Wakefield aren't doing too badly and well done to them. Holding your nerve in these situations is paramount and unfortunately some people are able to do so and others unable.

More importantly, taking a lowest common denominator approach of "we're doomed" will do absolutely nothing to energise anybody or any element of this lengthy, necessary process.

Fingers crossed everything will be fine and possibly, be revealed when it's relevant. I'm not sure that is now.

There seems to be a view that a good deal of your problems are down to RFL, but the powers that be will have asked for the loans and it is up to them to manage the club finances and not the RFL. I know this hurts but from an outsiders point of view I think the deal the RFL are giving you is very good.

If the various bids are on the basis of give you superleague and the ground back and we will give you (RFL) a small amount of money and the actual amount of the value of the bid is just to keep the club afloat e.g. £500,000 debt and two years running the club at a loss equals £1,000,000 per year so that is the £2,500,000 million investment then you can't expect the RFL to accept. People seem the think that turning bids down makes the RFL the devil incarnate but I can't see how the RFL are the problem here.

Having the Bulls in Super League is a good thing but it has proved a great embarrasment. The administrator view that SL need to pay the wages is wrong. The only way this should happen is an advance of sky payments due. The way how he is dealing with this is terrible. Sell Whitehead pay the wages! He has extended the deadline by another month and has sacked the staff. Does he expect them to keep working on goodwill? That is totally unfair and taking the out of respected people.

I really hope this is sorted out and soon but Bradford have over invested beyong their means player wise and no doubt as with all club the full financial picture given to the RFL was somewhat hazy. But don't for one minute think that the RFL are the issues here or they owe you in some way. Remeber you lent big money off them agreed to pay it back and didn't and that isn't good for SL.

The devil is in the detail which is unknown to us, that is the problem! No one of sound mind would say that the RFL has not to get a fair deal, but the RFL are saying buy the club with no certainty - which no one will sign upto. Hopefully the reality is different from the rhetoric and discussions are going on around how much they will sell the lease back for and what gurantees will be given about the current license as one would expect in a normal business arrangement with someone looking to rescue a company - but if they aren't prepared to discuss it (no pre conditions statements), they are allowing the club to die!!! Maybe previous Director's/management teams have deserved this treatment, but the fans, coaching staff and current players haven't.

I wrote to Peter Hood but mainly I like, many others on here, allowed myself to be shouted down by a coalition of morons and agents of the club who were being fed disinformation in order to silence criticism.

I didn't belittle the efforts of anyone organsing a meeting.

Hood [iwas[/i all we had. With him removed, nobody else has stepped forward. There's the proof.

Unless of course you have the view, which I would consider deluded, that there [iwould[/i have been some all-knowing, financial genius with pots of cash that [iwould[/i have stepped in a year or two ago, but didn't, and won't now - even though from the point of view of an investor, stepping in now, free of debts and more to the point free of the tangled boardroom web which went before, must surely be a prospect ten times more appealing..

And of course nobody knows what goes on behind the scenes in [iany [/ibusiness, apart from those running it and those closest to them, nor ever will. FFS, apart from being in the crapper, we even now have no real clue what went on, or how it came to April 2012.

We don't even know that much about what has happened [isince[/i the old Board was forced out and we went into admin. They and the temporary new incumbents issued wildly contrasting claims and counterclaims, and there it rests.

Now then boys and girls. Those of you that have wondered if GB is Mr Caisley should take great comfort from this post. The tone of it is don't throw yourself under a bus, we might yet be saved.

Personally, I knew for sure that we were in a REALLY bad way when even Bullseye was suicidal. In my experience if Sam thinks things are bad, then they must be VERY bad.

You wrote to Peter Hood to tell him how much a bad job he was doing

Do you think he gave your advice credence or do you think he took your letter and binned it?



Surely you would of been better writing to the Shareholding if thats how passionately you felt - Hood was never going to sack himself was he......

Never said you did belittle anyone, I stated another poster

Tinkering will not be enough to sustain the viability of this lame duck. Cut the crap and let's have some serious investment from those reputed to care.As previously said,this is terrible PR for SL and the Bulls.As for CC,absolutely disgusting and deplorable that we still await some explanation as to the progress of his intent or otherwise ,of his involvement.ALL parties should remember the massive effort of fans,players and Clubs to raise the original £500,000 and consequentially, have obligations to show expediency and communicate with the supporters (Part of the Family which is the RFL).

Sam might need to speak to Duffy - he's the welfare officer at the club (State of Mind). Oh, wait..

You've actually been talking some sense lately. Been ill?

Two points
1, I don't have an inside track. I saw everything that you saw and concluded correctly. However, one group of people did have an inside track. The RFL audited the club as part of its SL license and then Peter Hood came and asked them for 700k (presuming the RFL didn't make an unsolicited offer). This should have given them grounds for seeking further information/input. Surely you must see this as a serious failing or at least a point in this story where something 'different' might have happened.

2, There were alternatives. Martyn Sadler knew of at least three consortium who were interested in buying the Bulls who (according to Guilfoyle) withdrew when they saw the books.
Your points about the nature of 'conditions' in these negotiations are well made but both parties are still using the term 'condition' with the regards to the purchase/sale of the lease.

The points stands, had their been intervention sooner when the RFL had grounds there is a reasonable chance the situation could have been brought to light sooner and the scale of the disaster would almost certainly not be as great as it now is

Well he certainly didn't act on it or we wouldn't be where we are now.

Brilliant

Are you 100% sure of that? Are you saying that Caisley or AN Other would have sailed the good ship Bulls better through this fiscally turbulent sea?

T'either way - who cares, history is just that, history, its shaping the future that is important in the present, thats if the Bulls have a future.

Two points

That much is clear.


Tosh. This "claim" means nothing. I say I "concluded correctly" too. Equally meaningless.


I am no accountant but I do not believe that the RFL carries out any sort of "audit" in the sense you mean. And my problem with this claim is that the answer to your implicit question would be that the RFL knew the Bulls were effectively trading whilst insolvent but loaned them money. I don't buy it.

I don't see any serious failing on the part of the RFL. We know so little about the smallprint of the deals but what little has emerged seems to only indicate a governing body trying to help keep afloat a club with cashflow issues. Not for the first time, not for the last.

Of course "something different" might have happened. The RFL might have refused to do anything and the club might have gone rapidly down the pan, for one thing. Would you have been happy then?


That is a contradiction in terms. Someone who is not interested in buying is no sort of "alternative" that I recognise! Anyway, who were these consortia? Were they even worth tuppence? Or just pie-in-the-sky merchants?

"The books". What "books"? If you mean they saw the size of the debts, then that doesn't wash, as whatever deal they advanced, they buy from the administrator free from debts. So what else do you mean? (Genuine question - if you mean it wasn't being managed properly pre-admin -that would surely be irrelevant to any new purchaser who would surely be putting in their own team)


if they want to continue to cause needless confusion, what can anyone do? Presumably it suits the RFL (who have already pretty much admitted that they don't feel at liberty to give anything like the whole story) to nuttily blame "conditions" rather than have to make decisions and give simple answers to simple questions.


WHAT INTERVENTION though? Who would have intervened? How would they have done it? If there was anyone able to, why did they not do it?

What is the scale of the disaster? Can you give me a link to the figures? All I've seen is two wildly contrasting scenarios advanced via the press through Hood, and Caisley's appointees, seasoned by yet more disinformation from the bank. What was the scale of the disaster then, and how is it worse now? What money have we spent since, that we could have avoided spending?

Bottom line is your view seems to me to be just a bowl of wishful thinking, sprinkled with hindsight. In reality, it was up to the (what we now know to have been) warring factions within the club to bring the situation to a head and they all failed to act. The majority of the blame is on those who were running the club, a very substantial share of the blame is with the others who were not only seemingly washing their hands of it all, but allegedly not even prepared to meet and talk.

And to me, (not that there is now any point to this navel-gazing) therein lies the answer to your claims; at that time the Board and shareholders were hopelessly and irreconcileably divided, poles apart, and seemingly remain so. Given that paralyzing situation, I don't see ANYTHING that could have been done, unless that lot had done it. Between them, they owned the club, and without their agreement, nobody else had any way of getting in.

It does seem fairly mystifying as to what happened to the loan, particularly since it appears we defaulted almost straight away. Clearly the RFL wouldnt have carried out a conventional "audit" but they would surely have carried out some basic checks before advancing the loan. Why had the Bulls reached the stage where they needed such a large sum, far more than could reasonably be put down to normal cashfow fluctuations? What did the club intend to do with the money? How did they propose to raise the money to pay it back? What were the club's short term cashflow projections and how realistic did they seem?.

It would seem that either: 1) the club was effectively bust when the RFL advanced the money; or 2) the club somehow managed to deceive the RFL into making the loan; or 3) the club would have been able to pay back the loan but for some unforseen event(s) occuring immediately after the loan was advanced. If the answer is 3) then it would be reasonable for the club and RFL to explain what happened. If the answer is 1) or 2) then surely the RFL has some serious questions to answer?

Everyone can guess at this regarding the loan, if your mate asks you for a loan you know he is a bit skint but he says he can pay it back, you don't go askig for a full bank statement off him and a list of all his out goings. The Bull were a highly trusted club and these assurances would have been enough. Your mate then says I can't pay you so you can have my car you would say ok.

If you wants to look at guessing what could have happened but didn't how about this.........The RFL and Bradford knew there was a big iceburg coming it's way. The only asset they had that would be sold for peanuts was the stadium. Bradford and the SL knew that you can't just give assets away so they came up with a cunning plan, let's pretend there was an outstanding debt so we can give it to you to hold and when we are out of admin we still have a home!! While we get a buyer the ground can't be sold to pay creditors......Brilliant...although totally untrue!

Having not followed the Bulls situation as closely as you guys, what were the unacceptable conditions of the initial offers?

In very simplistic terms:

Consortium "Ok here's our offer to buy the club, but we need to know if the club can carry on with the last 2 years of our Superleague licence"

RFL "How dare you make an offer with such conditions attached.."

Nobody knows apart from the RFL and those that made the offer!

Oh, and the other SL clubs that were apparently copied in.

We fans are in the dark and can only speculate. I suspect they wanted the SL status confirmed for at least the current license period. I suspect they made some kind of offer for the Odsal lease that didn't go down well (probably not enough cash). One would hope that any offer would be more than just a derisory amount as that would obviously have a negative effect on negotiations.