It would seem that there will be ramifications, for whoever takes over, if sufficient isn't repaid though. It already appears that there will be some financial impediment imposed, reduced Sky money being mentioned as a starter. I guess we'll know more, as and when the details become available, but it's pretty certain that there will be 'consequences' if repayments aren't made.

I think that particular "ramification" relates to our rather unusual relationship with our landlord. With the RFL being both our landlord at Odsal and controlling the central funds that gives them a way of "recovering" part of their debt. I am sure the lawyers who contribute to the forum could give an opinion on whether this could be deemed to be unfair preference but I think it would be safe to say if this is the case creditors who aren't in the same position as the RFL - HMRC for instance - will not be best pleased even if it is legal.

The letter is neither leaked nor confidential. It will have been sent to at least 1200 people (shareholders and creditors, albeit I suspect the postman will have had difficulty delivering a significant number of those to the former). The document is therefore effectively in the public domain. As are all such letters issued as standard practice in such circumstances. I have received any number of them over the years in respect of insolvent customers.

Since I am not a named recipient of the letter, I would suggest that the publication of any specific content of the letter and its attachments (which include the Statement of Affairs and the Creditors List) should be left to someone who was a named recipient. There is indeed much to discuss.

No.

The creditors are entitled to vote on the joint administrators' PROPOSALS, as opposed to specific deals which are wholly within the province of the joint administrators, if more than 10% by value request, by 6 September, that a meeting be convened.

The joint administrators make it clear that they do not expect there to be any prospect of a dividend for the unsecured creditors, and so are effectively telegraphing to them that convening a meeting would be futile. I would expect that the extent to which asset realisations will be applied to paying the joint administrators' fees accrued to date and still to be incurred could have had a significant bearing on the joint administrators' conclusions.

Much could depend on HMRC's view of life. Take the Rangers FC case as an example - HMRC rejected their proposed CVA even though it was a financially better deal than liquidation. They did so because they considered that accepting a CVA would weaken their ability to pursue the directors individually for what they perceived as being illegal actions in respect of tax and disposing of assets. I'm not suggesting that any Bulls directors have done anything wrong but HMRC are getting much tougher and they may wish to look at the transfer of the Bulls' major asset (Odsal lease) shortly before going into administration (as an example). Its all speculation of course but where HMRC is involved then anything is possible.

But
a) how exactly could they do this and
b) unless the lease was transferred at an undervalue, (and I see no reason at all to suspect that), what difference would it make? If we had not sold the lease, then equally we wouldn't have received the purchase price either. We either have a lease, or the sale proceeds of the lease, surely?

a) We don't know what the creditors ratio is - what is being proposed is basically a CVA and you need >75% of total creditors by value to agree to it. If HMRC are owed more than 25% of the total creditor value then they can reject it. The creditors do not have to agree to the administrators proposals - he is there to get the best deal for them as ultimately its they who pay him, not the business involved. Usually in these cases the company's bank and/or HMRC make up the vast majority of the creditors and so smaller creditors get no say. Its difficult to say in this case as we have not seen the creditors list.

b) As I said, I don't know the details of the Odsal deal and it may all be perfectly fine. But if HMRC suspect that any directors have acted illegally then, using the Rangers case as a recent example, they will wish to retain the right to pursue them individually.

I do not beleive any CVA will be on offer, so there will be nothing for HMRC to reject.

The only thing they can object to is the joint administrators' general proposals, which would require them to request a ceditors meeting be convened. If they DID require a meeting to be convened, and a creditors' committee formed, they would have to fund the administrator (or subsequent liquidator) to pursue such investigations. It would seem unlikley they would at the same time seek to stop or delay the sale of the club - what the hell would be in it for them? The net result would most likley be LESS assets proceeds available to meet creditor claims, I would suggest.

HMRC not objecting to the present proposals would not prevent the liquidator - and you will hardly be surprised who is proposing himself for that role - from pursuing any action against directors or former directors - or the RFL, maybe under the auspices of an action for fraudulent preference - if there seemed any realistic prospect of success and the creditors (or maybe at least one shareholder...) were prepared to fund the liquidator to do so.

HMRC is easily the largest named creditor, and well over 25% of the total.

The Joint Administrators propose that the assets are sold and company is wound up. They do NOT propose a CVA.

Why would there be a CVA if there is no money? Are you confusing the proposals as a whole, with the deal to sell the Bulls? They are two different things. The proposals relate to the old company, which will be wound up. But before that, the Bulls business will (hopefully!) have been sold off.

The administrator can, in the course of his duties, do whatever he wants. Including making staff redundant, and including selling some or all of the assets. Those individual deals are not something the creditors get a say in. That's my understanding of it anyway.


I have no idea about that, though see no reason at all for saying or even suggesting illegal activity, all I am saying is I don't see any connection between any such matters, which may or may not arise in the future, and any proposed sale. If a given bidder buys the business, why would they care if HMRC, or anyone, pursued former directors individually?

The Rangers case certainly has made HMRC adopt a harder line on sports clubs, but remember there are actual criminal investigations going on in that case and the amounts involved dwarf the ones at Odsal.

The lease deal would never be questioned in this context- it is a documented transaction which would have involved both lawyers and the council as the site's owner. It is much more likely that behind the scenes more questions would have been asked of the RFL and the commecial sense of the transction to them.

I would suspect that with the benefit of hindsight the actions of the various directors will be judged to have been inept but would be very surprised if any formal action would be taken - and as has been mentioned in several posts even if there was potentially a case to answer there is no point in spending money when there is no hope of actually recovering anything.

Ah but the people that bought the lease have put a bid in to buy the club so the lease would technically be back with the Bulls......naughty naughty rfl

Do enlighten us as to how that might be so, and why anyone would have been naughty? Being mindful of the AUP.

Does that mean we also get all the cash from the sale of TV rights?

Or is it more likely that just because an organisation owns two distinct things that those things do not then automatically get ownership of each other?

The lease is with the RFL

The bid - which is not currently one of the two preferred bids - was from SLE.

Two separate legal entities

The point made earlier about despising of assets prior to admin/liquidation is valid i think in this case.

As for AUP don't worry I'm gone. If you think its fine to rip off hardworking businesses that's fine. Personally i think its despicable. Hey a top SL team and associated business sold for £150k. Sick of the whole business and how you feel you have a god given right to SL.

don't bang the door on your way out

And stop despising our assets!

Do you know what I'm sick of matey?

I'm sick of self righteous goody goodies coming on here and telling us that we, the fans of this club, have no right to discuss what the hell is actually going on, or may be going on(even though we have less influence on proceedings than a piece of paper blowing in the wind);have no right to ponder the endless legal possibilities and probabilities, and even worse we have no right to hope that things turn out for the best for our club.

It's nothing but self righteous, pompous claptrap and for the millionth time IT'S NOWT TO DO WITH US, we're just fans hoping for the best. I don't care if you wish us well or ill, I just wish these people would go forth and multiply.

Some of your fans have used the "we have a 10000 fanbase SL needs us"

I do appreciate the bid however was a SL bid and my assumptions are wrong. As for my opinions, they are mine and I am entitled to have them. Widnes were knocked back from SL because they had been in administration the year before and that was given as a reason. Why should you or anyone else be different. While I feel sorry for the fans, they wanted the clubs to be run more as businesses, yours failed, however you have been given help over and above what is acceptable and I hope that if Salford or Cas or any other team has to protect itself from creditors the RFL will pay the players wages etc. Incidentally why are they not paying the coaching staff.

The Lister Hotel ‏@listerhotel

Last minute deal saves club from closing at midnight tonight #BradfordBulls

The Lister Hotel The Lister Hotel ‏@listerhotel

Omar khan & Gerry Sutcliffe are officially the new owners of the Bradford bulls #BradfordBulls

The Lister Hotel The Lister Hotel ‏@listerhotel

Bulls announcement expected today #bradfordbulls


Not sure why this hotel has any info, but some recent tweets from their account regarding the takeover. Interesting that one mentions the club was due to close at midnight tonight? Or am I just reading that wrong?

We will run out tomorrow under new management. Sadly, nobody would take my bet

Run with the Bulls, we're OK

Looks like its owned by Omar Khan [url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/business/4741500.Sisters_delighted_to_be_back_home_/[Link[/url

So would suggest the tweets may have some spin to them