Thing is the way London are playing, Bradford may still beat them.


I would say, hope for a big crowd on Sunday, bringing in as much money as possible to stop as many players as possible being have to let go to balance the books so that when CC does come in, if he does come in? There will still be something of a shell to work with.

Harsh as it may seam hours after your coach has the dirty done on him.

But anything else from the fans would be suicide for the club. It maybe a case of better the devil you know at this stage. If there was a millionaire out there waiting to put money in, the surely we would have seen it by now, or had rumour of it. But CC seams to be the only card on the table.


Anyone got the number for Dragons den, there is a pitch that could be made???

To whom???

Clubs are at the salary cap or not at the cap as they can't afford it. If it was the off-season then there maybe a chance, but unless some clubs have purposely held a reserve for the possibility of a mid-season player, there will be little chance of offloading players now, for a fee.

The T&A report from BG says he was approaching the RFL for help with the players wages - but (obviously) not the staff wages.

"Mr Guilfoyle said: “This is about survival. We have no cash and no funds have been offered. It is with great regret that we have had to make these redundancies but there are no alternatives."

Wonder why Caisley and Agar and Coulby could not bring themselves to put their hands in their pockets to offer some funds? Just for this last week? After all, they were the parties responsible for the appointment of the administrator, whoever was responsible for the financial situation?

Go figure.

Oh, and don't forget: the red knight will be likely now be able to pick up any of the former staff now free of any accrued employment rights, redundancy and PILON entitlements and whatever. The employes will, in the main, see those entitlements paid out by the taxpayer instead, who will then stand in their place as a creditor. So that's even more that the taxpayer is up for, and the red knight avoids employees being TUPEd across.

I thought Mick Potter did a magnificent job at a club in a transitional period and was not appreciated at Saints.
I know he proved to be a good and true friend to David Woods when he lost his job and if Dave was in a similar position would do everything possible to assist Mick Potter,at this dreadful time for him and his family.
The 'Fit and Proper' person check for people running rugby league clubs obviously isn't stringent enough.
No surprise parents push their children towards other sports.
I'm just surprised Australians still want to come over here after recent examples at Wakefield,Wrexham and now Bradford.

Yes he could.

He has stated that the club only had to the end of this week to find a buyer.

Why did he not ask the staff if they would work for free for this last week, instead of being made redundant now? On the basis that there was no assurance any future buyer would pay them, but at least they would still have their jobs and there would be a going concern to sell, which there no longer is.

I feel sure most of the staff would have so volunteered, if they had been asked. Indeed, I am hearing that already.

So, yes he could. But he chose not to. Why?

As has been stated redundancy removes a position, not a person.

(At this point) they couldn't say they have no need for RL players, and if they did the remaining ones would no doubt be on strike immediately in support.

Leeds are well known for keeping Cap space available for mid season additions. I doubt we are alone either. That said, and recognising how utterly terrible we have been this season, I don't think there are that many of the Bulls players that we would realistically be interested in. We have problems at hooker so maybe Diskin back or L'estrange. Whitehead and Bateman are obvious candidates, but I suspect that neither would like to play for Leeds and they will both be in Caisley's plans or it would have made more sense to sell when more money was on the table. I wonder if the Bulls situation is linked to the Andy Wilson comment about Leeds signing a player that will really excite the fans? Bateman would be the only option there.

There is of course another possibility. Players may be offered deals on very low terms for the remainder of this season and then significant increases for the remainder of their new contracts at whichever clubs are interested.

I guess we will all know more tomorrow, but in the meantime I hope all the Bulls fans at least have a club to support this time next week.

Asim, you really excel yourself with talking bollox.

In insolvency, you can get rid of who you want.

Anyone who thinks that you don't need any staff other than players at a club is clearly bonkers or has an agenda. Go up to the club and see just how many staff are left there running it?

Fair enough, could have got rid of Sykes though.

Its not Mike. You made a fair point.

Its more likely to relate to if you get rid of players, you become liable for most of their remaining contractual entitlements. the state will only pay so much, and the players will get sod all of the rest becaus etheir entitlements are well above the statutory maxima.

For the rest of the staff, they will probably (I hope) get most of their accrued entitlements paid out by the Redundancy Payments office - us.

A big thank you to Mr.Potter and his staff along with every other member of staff who was unfortunate to be in the pathway of Brendan Guilfoyle's axe, they have worked wonders for the team, the spirit and the pride has reappeared, I've been able to take a hell of a lot more pride in supporting the Bulls than in recent years.

Once again thank you to all staff .

Whereas you've excelled yourself with being taken in by someone who made you feel special and played to your sense of self-importance.

I specifically referred to a post about making people redundant by saying exactly what would happen if the administrators made players redundant to "save money" rather than the coach (as had been suggested).

Of course you need more than players to run a club, who suggested otherwise? If by some way some funds are found to enable the game to be put on this Sunday it certainly wouldn't be possible if a player has been made redundant as the group, and if not, the players union will make sure the rest wouldn't think about going to work.

Well I can only assume that the why, is because they are not wanted by someone else. My point is more about BG. He could have held onto them unpaid like you say, but then that someone else would maybe step back rather than step in and let the club liquidate.

BG needs the money, he may be a foil to do the dirty work of others, but then so would any administrator, but in the end last week, this week or on the last day of administration he needs money. If there is only one person with the cash, he needs to do what he needs to do, to get his hands on that cash. As would any other person in his position.

CC may have planned this, but there seams little sign that anyone else has a challenge to offer. If there were other investors, then if they could better CC, then surely the administrator is creditor bound to take that offer. CC maybe the only man to stop the liquidation?

I admit I'm out of my depth on the whole in's and out's of this process, but what I do think I understand is that if there was an offer or a better offer on the table then it could not be ignored.

Isn't there something in the rules about that?

Might be imagining it but I thought you couldn't pay them more year on year?

I'd be pretty annoyed as a player if the rules prevented me getting a salary increase YoY....

Which is really strange, since I think I have actually spoken to Hood about four times in the last few years, two of which have been this year, and he has certainly done nothing of what you suggest in those few limited conversations. Like I said, you don't half talk a load of bollox.

You, by contrast, have consistently pedalled a line to undermine pretty well anything the club did that was in any way positive, and have forever sided with those who would be critical of the club.

I'll say no more on it - it would be even more of an insult to those who have lost their jobs today.

For salary cap purposes, a player's total earning are averaged out over the term of his contract. He can have yearly increases, but they will count for the cap over his total contract.

This means that players would only sign until the end of the year, on low wages, with a nod and a winked at an extended, improved contract for next year. I remember the Rhinos doing this for Smith when he came back.

Full of perils for both sides.

For salary cap purposes, a player's total earning are averaged out over the term of his contract. He can have yearly increases, but they will count for the cap over his total contract.

This means that players would only sign until the end of the year, on low wages, with a nod and a winked at an extended, improved contract for next year. I remember the Rhinos doing this for Smith when he came back.

Full of perils for both sides.

Basically mate, it cl;ears the decks of employment liabilities. That means that a buyer can take over what is left of the going concern free of any inherited employment liabilities.

But the thing is...if you buy a business and inherit staff who are TUPEd over, you invariably reflect those accrued liabilities in the (lower, as a result) purchase price anyway.

So it generally tends not to cost you any more whichever way you do it.

The difference is that, done this way, the administrator is the bad guy, not the subsequent buyer. And the buyer can then re-recruit any of the people he wants, instead of getting rid of those he does not want through a redundancy process fraught with pitfalls and exposures for the employer.

In other words, is it about saving money? Or is it about presenting a clean sheet to a buyer?

In all of this, of course, it is pretty crap if you are one of the affected employees and are referred to by all the money men as a "liability". One reason I got the hell out of corporate insolvency when I did, years ago, was because I could not reconcile myself to people, with families and livelihoods, being treated as just numbered liabilities.

Yes, what a fool I feel for being critical of a regime that has led the club to the verge of being liquidated.

I said the club. Not the regime. You have regularly been critical of things that have been nothing to do do with the regime, and have taken the side of those criticising the club - it seemed almost as if you had to take issue on principle. But enough, as I said.

As an outsider watching with interest as an RL fan what has happened at the Bulls over the last few months, I can't help but feel that the two choices the Adminstrator may have are between a well meaning but incompetent Hood, and a malevolent Caisley.

Not an ideal choice.

Potter's interview on Sky;


IMO, the impression he was giving was that he had spoke to people who admitted they were interested in taking over the Bulls, but they were having trouble getting in touch with the administrator.......

Can't help thinking that Potter is being conveniently removed because Hood appointed him. The fact that Potter's becoming something of a success at Bradford must irk Caisley even more...