Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Dunno, neither do you, speculation pointless. Of course it's unusual - unique even - though the bit about "without reference" is plain wrong - neither the Bulls, nor the RFL, are run by committee, consulting member clubs or consulting shareholders would simply not be the way it works. Well yes, but just be sure you aren't blaming the previous management for that, liabilities and income going forward is in the hands of the incoming management, if they couldn't think of a viable plan then fair enough but starting pretty much from scratch, that's down to them. I tend to think slightly different, I've no doubt that the basic premise (they couldn't figure a way to make the numbers work) is right; but IMHO the numbers could be made to work for a new owner who wasn't looking to make a pile of money, but no investor who wanted to make a reasonable return on investment would invest. In your opinion, but with respect you don't know. You don't have the details of what went on with the RFL or how it worked (no-one does). And the point you miss is that I'll grant the situation is much worse now than then, but teh situation is NOT much worse than the day before we went into administration. It was better, because we had done a deal with the RFL that had helped keep us going. Hood didn't put us into administration. You think we would have gone tits anyway, but I'd have rather taken our chances with the old Board and whatever potential 'investors' they were talking to, than what actually happened. Would that have been any better? We can't ever know. But it couldn't have been worse. I have no idea what the RFL did. For all we know maybe they did this. But any view on the club from accountants is whatever the person briefing and paying them told them they want it to be. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, unless the full details ever emerge we won't ever know (like much of the stuff that has gone on). It would be fascinating to have chapter and verse but in terms of point, I don't think there is one.'" It's not pure speculation. It's the key to the entire story. Fans from a range of clubs are on here and VT saying they weren't lent money by the RFL in similar circumstances. Blake Solly appears to make the precise same point here. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... h_cash___/ He states 'we're not a bank'. And yet they gave Peter Hood 700k? In the normal course of events I take your point about 'without reference' but this is evidently an extraordinary event which later would lead to an extraordinary purchase and a bizarre cover story. Be clear, I am blaming the previous management but you, I and others have done this to death. On the other points I realise we 'don't know'. My position is we don't know because the information has been withheld and what we do know doesn't add up. Given what is a bizarre sequence of events I don't think this sustainable.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Dunno, neither do you, speculation pointless. Of course it's unusual - unique even - though the bit about "without reference" is plain wrong - neither the Bulls, nor the RFL, are run by committee, consulting member clubs or consulting shareholders would simply not be the way it works. Well yes, but just be sure you aren't blaming the previous management for that, liabilities and income going forward is in the hands of the incoming management, if they couldn't think of a viable plan then fair enough but starting pretty much from scratch, that's down to them. I tend to think slightly different, I've no doubt that the basic premise (they couldn't figure a way to make the numbers work) is right; but IMHO the numbers could be made to work for a new owner who wasn't looking to make a pile of money, but no investor who wanted to make a reasonable return on investment would invest. In your opinion, but with respect you don't know. You don't have the details of what went on with the RFL or how it worked (no-one does). And the point you miss is that I'll grant the situation is much worse now than then, but teh situation is NOT much worse than the day before we went into administration. It was better, because we had done a deal with the RFL that had helped keep us going. Hood didn't put us into administration. You think we would have gone tits anyway, but I'd have rather taken our chances with the old Board and whatever potential 'investors' they were talking to, than what actually happened. Would that have been any better? We can't ever know. But it couldn't have been worse. I have no idea what the RFL did. For all we know maybe they did this. But any view on the club from accountants is whatever the person briefing and paying them told them they want it to be. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, unless the full details ever emerge we won't ever know (like much of the stuff that has gone on). It would be fascinating to have chapter and verse but in terms of point, I don't think there is one.'" It's not pure speculation. It's the key to the entire story. Fans from a range of clubs are on here and VT saying they weren't lent money by the RFL in similar circumstances. Blake Solly appears to make the precise same point here. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... h_cash___/ He states 'we're not a bank'. And yet they gave Peter Hood 700k? In the normal course of events I take your point about 'without reference' but this is evidently an extraordinary event which later would lead to an extraordinary purchase and a bizarre cover story. Be clear, I am blaming the previous management but you, I and others have done this to death. On the other points I realise we 'don't know'. My position is we don't know because the information has been withheld and what we do know doesn't add up. Given what is a bizarre sequence of events I don't think this sustainable.

The amazing thing about all this is just how easy a ride the RFL got from the other clubs. Sure, there have been plenty of fans complaining about the apparent unfair treatment given to the Bulls, But very little from the clubs over what, on the face of it, appears to have been a massive breakdown in governance.

Which I suppose probably does mean there's a lot more to it than we've been told.

I am very sure of it. I have long suspected the RFL, and probably the majority of the clubs, of knowing what they were doing regarding the present crisis, and of having objectives for outcomes. But, as they say, time will tell.

Well at last there are voices in the paper shedding a little light onto the matter.. like a bus, nothing for ages, then 2 come at once! www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... on=success www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... lls_sale_/ Maybe now the RFL will have to say something?? They keep going on about conditional offers, but it doesn't even need to be conditional, the RFL can make their mind up NOW whether we will be allowed to continue in SL until the end of the franchise. Except they can't, because they seem to be as inept as they always have been in most aspects. How many clubs will fall by the wayside before they realise? Or do they want to go back to being an even smaller sport than we are now? Other SL clubs are struggling, eventually the big money backers at Hull, Warrington, Wigan, London will either move on or die off and we'll be left with a Super League of just Leeds.

Well at last there are voices in the paper shedding a little light onto the matter.. like a bus, nothing for ages, then 2 come at once! www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... on=success www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... lls_sale_/ Maybe now the RFL will have to say something?? They keep going on about conditional offers, but it doesn't even need to be conditional, the RFL can make their mind up NOW whether we will be allowed to continue in SL until the end of the franchise. Except they can't, because they seem to be as inept as they always have been in most aspects. How many clubs will fall by the wayside before they realise? Or do they want to go back to being an even smaller sport than we are now? Other SL clubs are struggling, eventually the big money backers at Hull, Warrington, Wigan, London will either move on or die off and we'll be left with a Super League of just Leeds.

Quote ="VanGinger"Well at last there are voices in the paper shedding a little light onto the matter.. like a bus, nothing for ages, then 2 come at once! www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... on=success www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... lls_sale_/ Maybe now the RFL will have to say something?? They keep going on about conditional offers, but it doesn't even need to be conditional, the RFL can make their mind up NOW whether we will be allowed to continue in SL until the end of the franchise. Except they can't, because they seem to be as inept as they always have been in most aspects. How many clubs will fall by the wayside before they realise? Or do they want to go back to being an even smaller sport than we are now? Other SL clubs are struggling, eventually the big money backers at Hull, Warrington, Wigan, London will either move on or die off and we'll be left with a Super League of just Leeds.'" One of those reports clearly states that ABC are willing to pay £1.5 million for the ground - which actually gives the RFL a profit. So why on earth don't they grab their hand off? And as the Coulby's question about whether we can stay in SL, well, he's hitting that nail on the head. Just make a decision RFL, you've had three weeks to decide if we can keep the license already granted! This is becoming more and more obvious that that the RFL intend to see us stagger through to the end of the season, then dump us into the Championship

Quote ="VanGinger"Well at last there are voices in the paper shedding a little light onto the matter.. like a bus, nothing for ages, then 2 come at once! www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... on=success www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... lls_sale_/ Maybe now the RFL will have to say something?? They keep going on about conditional offers, but it doesn't even need to be conditional, the RFL can make their mind up NOW whether we will be allowed to continue in SL until the end of the franchise. Except they can't, because they seem to be as inept as they always have been in most aspects. How many clubs will fall by the wayside before they realise? Or do they want to go back to being an even smaller sport than we are now? Other SL clubs are struggling, eventually the big money backers at Hull, Warrington, Wigan, London will either move on or die off and we'll be left with a Super League of just Leeds.'" One of those reports clearly states that ABC are willing to pay £1.5 million for the ground - which actually gives the RFL a profit. So why on earth don't they grab their hand off? And as the Coulby's question about whether we can stay in SL, well, he's hitting that nail on the head. Just make a decision RFL, you've had three weeks to decide if we can keep the license already granted! This is becoming more and more obvious that that the RFL intend to see us stagger through to the end of the season, then dump us into the Championship

I know it's the TandA but this does just not add up anymore. The consortium are offering £1.5million for the lease. More than the RFL paid for it. And they won't accept it? WTF is going on?

£1.25 million + VAT?

After banging on about information at least we have something, and hopefully the RFL will respond saying what they find unacceptable about these conditional offers. I guess they will be period of time to pay £1.5m - if over 20 years not attractive - but if cash - well....., and the period of guarantee for the license. One thing - strange coincidence ABC break their silence and a member of Caisley's team adds to the pressure the same day!

I think Bateman was a valuable asset for a period of about 3 weeks. That period near the start of the season when he came back from injury and proved he was more than just a promising youngster, up until the Bulls financial problems becoming known.

As I understand it the clubs that have been most widely linked with our better players have been Warrington (Bateman) and Leeds (Whitehead & Koppy). By coincidence these are the clubs that very generously donated the ticket proceeds. I find it difficult to believe that Gary Hetherington seriously tried to buy our players, was rebuffed by the Administrator, and responded to that by giving us £50k.

I also believe that, if other SL clubs had been trying to sign our players and were being turned down by Gilfoyle, we would have heard of it.

Is Caisley part of, or associated with ABC?

The conduct of the RFL places them well and truly in the Hood camp. Is this the problem? The RFL have got themselves stuck in the middle of an internecine feud?

Full Coulby statement

I'm sorry what???

Please justify that statement.

I firmly believe that the RFL have taken a decision to NOT announce a decision about our SL status so that we can limp on and complete the season and then demote us. They know full well that if they confirmed the demotion issue now, all bids will be withdrawn and we would go into liquidation, causing all sorts of problems for the RFL during the business end of the season.

It's been discussed at length over the previous pages. The RFL's relationship with the previous board is nothing short of extraordinary.

Their public pronouncements would seem to indicate that, the hope is that privately they are playing a smarter game to protect their 'investment' in the lease by talking to the consortium in saying what would be acceptabl and what wouldn't. Does anyone think that if Richard Lewis was still there, who in general did a good job at Red Hall, we would see a different stance? Never been impressed by Nigel Wood - especially as he was the Chief Exec. at Halifax when they had similar problems!

[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/9848008.Negotiations_over_Bulls_reach_deadlock/deadlock[/url

[iThe ABC source, said the consortium had offered the governing body £1.5 million for the lease to the ground, which it claims is “open market value” and more than the RFL paid for it earlier this year.

“We’re not asking for anything unreasonable. We want to buy the lease because we won’t want to make any investment in the ground if we don’t own it,” he said.

“We gave the RFL until 5pm on Monday to get back to us, but we have not heard anything. It’s very frustrating.” [/i

Taking these and coulbys comments at face value today am I right in thinking that these dreaded all evil "conditions" that the rfl won't even contemplate (although they have already considered them...) are actualy these;

1) Pay the RFL £1.5m, which includes a tidy profit, for the lease.
2) An agreement that we retain (not get a new one) our licence for this franchise period and be reassed along with everyone else at the next round.


If so I really can't see the problem...which I suspect is the real problem, what are we not being told? What decisions have already been made?

It is very difficult to find anything in Coulby's statement with which you can disagree. What he's asking for is clarity from Red Hall on what is required.
I agree with those who doubt Nigel Wood's effectiveness. To be offered a potential profit on the ground seems like a decent business deal to me , unless the payment terms were too long.
But after watching Superleague Backchat and seeing at first hand the sheer ignorance of some of the media( that sneering Rod Studd was the worst) I doubt there is enough sympathy in the game to save us. For example they were rabbitting on about how right the RL is to keep Odsal yet none of them realised it will probably be unused ,with severe restrictions on change of use and if there is a reformed club, no significant rent available from a club with few resources.
They hadn't a clue regarding the consequences of liquidation.
And these so called experts assumed we would be playing in the Championship when it's clear to me if we are not in SL we should be in C1 with Gateshead, Skolars etc. It was summed up when the hallowed Stevo said "I don't know much about this " --hear hear

Maybe ABC isn't offering what they say they are publically? Or there are strings attached we don't know about? It appears that Coulby is trying to get fans on board to back the ABC bid, which, if all above board, looks fair enough. I'm not keen on negotiating via the media though, you don't get all the facts.

The RFL will have their reasons I'm sure. Trouble is I doubt we'll get to hear them. I have my theories...

I accept not a lot of sympathy for our situation (nor should they be, we've self inflicted many of these wounds!), but you would expect the RFL to be making the right decisions for the game in general, and that surely is to strike the best deal they can so they are not left with a pretty worthless asset and receiving no rent! Pragmatism should rule!

We don't know anything about the £1.5m "offer" though - if they are offering £1.5m straight up in cash, fair enough, if they are offering it over 5, 10 or even 20 years then it becomes much less attractive, and carries more of a risk to the RFL.

Similarly it was made clear at licence time that clubs could have their licences revoked at any time, they can't now give a guarantee that Bradford's is safe when others don't have that same security?

Just what I was thinking. I'd be amazed if the £1.5m was being offered in one lump sum.



I suspect some are safer than others though. If the RFL have doubts about the bidders then they'll be more reluctant to guarantee SL status.

Mirfield bull-- I agree entirely --that's what I would expect of the RFL . But I think the last month has revealed their limitations and perhaps their definition of what is reasonable and pragmatic is different than ours.
I don't think there is any alternative at this late stage for any bidder to going public via the media. If what is presented is a bunch of lies or half truths the League can rebut the statements. And it's not only the League which know the contents of at least the first bid-- it was circulated according to Sadler to ALL the clubs. I doubt that some of the leaders of the other franchises would be backward in coming forward to challenge ABC's claims if they are misleading.
It's over to Mr Solly and Mr Wood.

PS I look forward to seeing Rod Studd interviewing one of the current Bulls players after his comment which implied that because they were being paid they had no right to be worried and his sneering dismissal of their chances of reaching the play-offs.

I agree, but we can only go on what we're told, if the 1.5 is paid in stamps over a 100 years then the rfl is right to reject it. I suspect thats not the case, and rightly or wrongly this is now a matter of public record, if its wholely inaccurate to the actual deal on offer the rfl need to say so.

Licences can be removed at any time, I don't think anyone has a problem with that, I suspect the problem is if that decison has already been made already but not announced. If I was ABC I'd be asking for our current licence to be guarenteed until the next licencing round...INCLUDING the clause about removal at any time. So are we out now? If not we will have a licence until the next round by default (which could be interpretated as "guarenteed"icon_wink.gif but subject to the same rules as everyone else [uincluding [/uremoval at any time.

This is a pure red herring. I doubt the bidders have even asked , not only for them to keep the ongoing licence, but additionally some weird requirement that it would not be revoked [iunder any circumstances in the future whatever they do[/i. Nobody would ask for that, nobody would grant that, and if such a ridiculous condition had been put, then even from the ROFL, we would have heard about that.

We've been plainly told they just want to know if they are keeping the SL licence. Which would be "sold as seen". They aren't asking for a better, gold-plated one. Plus, how remote are the prospects of the Bulls newco being given the remainder of the licence, and then the new club doing something so bad that it merited revocation being considered, and the ROFL actually getting round to making a decision on it within the current licence period, and the RFL being prepared to summarily execute a member despite the chaos that would cause in SL? Million to one?