I apologised to the guy at the time - as you surely saw - because he came across to me initially as one of those (most seem to be from Wakefield, mind) seeking to lecture us from outside. He promptly demonstrated why he had every right to make his point. Had he have made that clear before then there is no way I would have reacted as I did.

Just like (unlike the fans of some clubs) Bulls fans generally have never sought to portray Hull FC fans in a bad light (any going back a few years may recall I personally was very supportive) because of the actions of a small minority, I would ask you not to judge all Bulls fans by an isolated mistake made by a single Bulls fan, subsequently apologised for! Come on now!

If you read through these threads, you would see universal appreciation from Bulls fans for the pretty staggering degree of support received from outside.

And If you scroll back a bit through your own forum, you will see a post from me specifically thanking Hull FC fans for their support and good wishes. In fact [url=http://viewtopic.php?f=34&t=523677&start=10=#800000Here it is[/url

I fear you will hate me for saying THIS though: in my haste, I read "East Hull..." and stopped there. I assumed he must be a Robin...

FWIW, from what I've read, I think the answer to that is no.

My understanding is that the bank cleared our debt (the presumably up to then, agreed overdraft) by taking funds from the cheque we received from the RFL for the sale of the lease, whilst at the time they reducing/ending the overdraft facility. As the RFL had already taken some due payments from the amount before they sent the cheque, it left the club in the position of being unable to pay various tax bills.

I'm sure I'll soon be corrected it that's not, at least basically, the case...

Whats that based on them perception or evidence, FWIW the Wakey fans I know me included are very sympathetic to the Bulls plight having gone through a similar process last year. If you do want some home truths as an outsider looking in the constant moving of deadlines is not good, what revenue BTW would the 21000 crowd bring in if 11,000 were ticket holders and did not pay and 2000 on top were kids with free tickets, then that leaves about 8K paying supporters minimum at £20 each that makes about £160K to me the pledge prior to the game was approaching 400K I'll let others work this maths out if you are 20K short and extending deadlines the maths doesnt add up unless they have accounted for a percentage of pledges that will not be paid.

Its not a £160K profit in that example though is it, so deduct VAT and other costs and it'll come closer to adding up.

...and breathe.

My reference was to the various Wakey fans, on here but especially on the VT, who have been lecturing us not to support the pledge but instead sit tight and wait for administration. I agree not every Wakey fan, but a number nevertheless.

Incidentally. I have checked with East Hull FC fan, and he was quite happy with my apology straight after he clarified, so there wasn't really any need for Rugby Raider to take issue. (In fact he was rather more generous that that, and much more so than I deserved).

As already said previously, only the attendance over 16,000 counted. Taking into account kids, family, students oap's tickets etc and the tax, extra stewards etc you are looking at a minimum of around £12 return on 4,800 people which is £57,600!

Season ticket holders were asked not to pay in and to buy a virtual ticket inside or before the game if they wanted to pay in. I would say fitting in another 5,000 would have been an achievement as whilst we had a few gaps, I wouldn't have said it was enough for 5,000 people!

I genuinely hope that Bradford Bulls remain a Super League team.
On the outside looking in, I chose not to comment upon the merits of the pledge plea. I felt that it was none of my business what the loyal supporters of the Bulls wanted to do however, I like lots of other supporters were under the impression that Friday was D Day. You can waffle on for page after page and argue about the minutiae of the detail however, my impression now is that its clear that the loyal fans are being taken for a ride. Chemical Hoody is still fiddling, figuratively and literally and will continue to do so until the very end.

The issue I have with the pledge is the unknown. Yes getting the first 500 but no idea where the next 500 is coming from and worried that the pledge has been made for nothing. The PR from your club has been dreadful not handled well at all. Also worried they will take my pledge money then go into admin anyway. (we have made a pledge incidentally. Yes we are Leeds fans but unfortunately have bulls fans in our house as well!)

I think it's easy for supporters from outside to say you are throwing bad money after bad money and that you should go into administration. But if it was happening to my club (Leeds) then I would probably be doing the same thing. Didn't attend on Friday chose to work double time instead as my brother not old enough to work, and my double time went on his pledge.

Hope you survive and hopefully the result will go Leeds way next time we meet!!!

If you read what Hood is quoted as saying in the Grauniad, it seems quite clear to me that they will only call the pledges in when they are sure that the future is secured. I took that as meaning that they want to be very sure about future funding requirements once they had the certainty of the £500k, to be honest, and if that means a day or two more to be sure, that makes perfect sense to me.

I cannot conceive that they would take the pledge money if there remained any risk of administration - the personal exposure, especially with the legal vulture waiting in the wings, would be too great. So when they DO call it in, I'll not be worrying. And I'm one of the most cautious sods you could meet.

That's what I would imagine, however I too am probably far too cautious, particulary when it comes to my money!!

What are the thoughts on off loading players for the second 500k. Personally wouldn't see to much problem in it as at least you would have a team to watch. But would like to see the homegrown good young tallent kept and try and offload some of the Aussies if you have to. Sadly if it comes to selling players to survive those players (Bateman,koppy, etc) are probably the ones in demand.

So, after receiving pledges/cash for 480K out of 500K you would have just said, "Sorry, that's it, let's all go home"? Seriously? With the banks not open until the end of the Easter break that would have been sheer lunacy, imo. With money still coming in, a couple of extra days may be just what is needed. Sheer common sense from the club.

There's the problem isn't it? The players that clubs would want are Bateman, Whitehead, Crookes and a couple of others. Few, if any, will be queuing up to buy out Kearney's or Purtell's contract. And, of course, nobody is going to want the likes of Platt, Sibbitt, Pryce etc.

If we get our best four or five players 'cherry picked' then the club is going to be in pretty serious long term trouble. We've watched a lot of dross in recent years, bolstered by the promise of 'youngsters coming through'. Now that they actually have come through, it would be incredibly dispiriting to see those players go, leaving us with the dross.

I could see a lot of people simply losing interesting in the Bulls if that happened, which would have big knock on effects on future income, next years season ticket sales etc. It's all very well saying that we should be glad just to have a team to support, but having to start over with developing young players - and there doesn't seem to be a lot coming through the U20s at the moment - could really cripple us in the medium term

If we have to sell our young players to stay afloat then it looks like the game is up long term. The only way to survive is to bring through young players from the academy. If we can't hold onto them we're admitting we're not a sustainable business as not enough people will come to watch a team that's made up of average to poor players to make the business survive.

It reminds me of the 80s in some ways when we were living hand to mouth and lost players simply because we couldn't afford to keep them.

Why was the deadline not Tuesday or Wednesday then. I think deep down we all know the answer.

Do we?

Or is it more to the point that Caisley's intervention on Thursday, timed to perfection if you were looking to try to sabotage the campaign, means they have to be even more sure about the future before calling in the pledges than they already knew they had to be?

Incidentally, just which clubs do we think all these players supposedly to be offloaded cold sign for? Given that the only ones they would be likely to want to move to an could pay a fee will be up to the cap?

The risk in the delay was always that people would start ruminating on the "what-ifs", and, maybe get cold feet. Encouraged of course by those whose agenda that suits perfectly.

Lets all be careful we don't talk ourselves out of saving the club?

I imagine any deals of substance would be on a buy now and loan back for the rest of the season.

Can't affod 'em thanks to the pledge.

Good point.

The obvious effect of Caisley's intervention at that precise moment was to sabotage the Pledge, regardless of his reasons for doing it and irrespective of his actual intentions.

If his intervention put off 200 of the remaining thousands of season ticket holders from pledging then that's your shortfall right there.

I would like to think that of those, many were at Odsal on Friday and were convinced to pledge. We have a lot of unpledged to go at. If that didn't persuade any waverers then nothing would.

we lost the likes of Skerrett because other clubs with rich benefactors wanted to offer them more.
And who came along and took us out of that? Christopher Caisley! Ultimately after a 20 year journey from the point of Skerrett leaving for Wigan, we are left in a very similar situation. Rebranding, followed by massive success followed by a realisation that it wasn't sustainable.

Our initial success in the SL era was down to selling our best player in Newlove, as that enabled us to build a squad. Nickle, Dwyer, loughlin, lowes, McNamara and spruce all came in on the back of that deal! So perhaps being a selling club can work? What we need is a scouting system that identifies the best players for the budget we have available.

What is clear is that as a club there is a finite amount of fans willing to follow the club thru thick and thin. And that budgeting for success on the field can and will lead to massive problems if you don't get that success. Even Wigan have struggled with this.

Getting through to may is crucial, but planning for the future is more so!

Having said all this, would we swap financial stability for any if our titles won?

Sorry but there's no evidence to suggest Caisley's intervention 'was timed to perfection if you were looking to sabotage the pledge'.

Depends what you mean by "sustainable".

If you mean that the success was not sustainable - it never is. A team can have a short time, or an extended time, in the top echelons but sooner or later it will fall from those heights. 'Twas ever thus and always will be.

If you mean financially sustainable. I have said many times that in my view, if we had not spent millions on buying Harris, signing on fees, agent's fees, lawyers fees and compensation to Leeds, then we would be in a reasonable enough financial situation. I have seen nothing to contradict this view, and nor has a single person argued against it.

I mean, just the compo itself. Of course, nobody knows how much it is, but the £600,000 was paid in cold hard cash (a pure guess on my part that figure) and if we instead had it in the bank now, would you think we would have a problem? What if you add back in all the legal costs too?





Trading Newlove didn't in any way shape or form make us a selling club! He had taken his bat home and was never going to play a decent game for us again so it made perfect sense to cash in. However we did not cash in, which is what "selling clubs" do. Because they need the money. We did not cash in. We used the money to - as you rightly point out - build a cracking squad with some very shrewd acquisitions and a couple of top class ones.

Ultimately, we'd have spent the extra cash on players wouldn't we? Wod that have given us success under McNamara? Who knows.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that we can look back at ifs and buts all the wy back to 1907, but what is important is getting on the right track now. Any thoughts of success on the pitch in the short term need to be replaced with how we make the club financially viable. This may not be in its current form, at it's current home or in its current division. What we need to do is ensure that if we do survive the next weeks and months, we have a proper long term plan that is realistic.

I've read on here that someone thinks that if season ticket prices go to £200 w wil still sell 10,000! Dream on! We need to get real and make sure whatever we have is built on solid foundations, not guesswork or projections!

Ultimately, we'd have spent the extra cash on players wouldn't we? Wod that have given us success under McNamara? Who knows.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that we can look back at ifs and buts all the wy back to 1907, but what is important is getting on the right track now. Any thoughts of success on the pitch in the short term need to be replaced with how we make the club financially viable. This may not be in its current form, at it's current home or in its current division. What we need to do is ensure that if we do survive the next weeks and months, we have a proper long term plan that is realistic.

I've read on here that someone thinks that if season ticket prices go to £200 w wil still sell 10,000! Dream on! We need to get real and make sure whatever we have is built on solid foundations, not guesswork or projections!