Speaking of grounds, have you lot sorted one out for next season yet? Or are you playing on the local rec like the Catalans match again?

Local rec at present....
We may take all 13 home games OTR in 2014, with venues bidding for us to stay away



Have to say, as it stands, the Bulls players will all have comfy beds to sleep in, a nice car stereo and maybe some cheap beer in a couple of local pubs in 2014....as well as access to a very successful debt collector if their wages are not forthcoming.

And a ground to actual play rugby in. And have a full team around them.

Pretty good! They're on a better deal than me. All my work is done for nothing. I am a volunteer and proud of it too!

Plus I can't really argue with the magistrates court can I?

wonder who raised the charge???

I think you will find creditors raise charges: banks, debenture holders, lease companies. If you do a search on most companies you will find registered charges, and with interest rates so low it would be sensible for a company to have a degree of leverage.
Also it was the annual return due on the 27th September not the accounts. As the company was only incorporated in August 2012 the first accounts are not due to be filed until next year.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

Was just going to say this I'm sick of people who dont know what they are talking about saying the accounts are overdue because they quite simply are not. Unless I've been in a coma and it's June 2014

Its even longer than most people think.
Following incorporation on 30/8/2013 the OK Bulls Ltd year end was given as 31/8/2013: so the accounts would be needed to be filed on or before 31/5/2014.
However all SL clubs have to have the same year end (31st October). To comply with this requirement, on 10/5/2013, the company filed a change of year end date to 31/10/2013.
This means that the accounts are due on or before 31/7/2014.

Trolls should make a note in their diaries- 1st August 2014 for the accounts to be overdue!

Nah, for any company their first set can only be a maximum of 21 months after incorporation. Which is why our accounts are due on 30/5/14 after the company was incorporated on 30/8/12.

I stand corrected.

apology accepted

Yeah, I'm sorry your club still haven't actually announced any players or where they're going to be playing or that you'll even be in a position to complete any of your fixtures.

I'm also sorry that you were wrong that having Mr Whitcut as a director would be detrimental to the Bulls new owners being ratified by the RFL.

But....but....but.....



You defended the guy with all you had and you were 100% wrong.......but you'll never admit it. Instead you'll deflect, deflect, deflect.

By the way, we have 22 players signed and if the RFL bought us a ground, we'd have somewhere to play too

100% wrong? That Mr Whitcut being involved with the club would mean the new owners wouldn't be ratified by the RFL? I don't think I was, was I? After all, the new owners HAVE been ratified, haven't they? Which would mean I'm not wrong.

No, what I did was deflect your constant character assassination which you were basically using to deflect any attention away from your club and the complete toilet they find themselves in. But you didn't need to do that as, apart from 200 or so people, no one cares about the London club and tbh, if you're an example of their fan base, it's not really a big surprise that no one cares, is it?



Oh, and the RFL haven't bought us a ground. They bought our ground off us. It's a little point, but completely in keeping with how you operate, ie ignore facts that don't back up your argument or just plain make stuff up

No....you defended this guy. I never said the new owners wouldn't be ratified...I simply questioned his track record.


Why would I deflect away from London Broncos position in a thread about Bradford's new part owner on the Bradford forum

I simply pointed out that Ryan wasn't the knight in shining armour you held him to be....you brought up the irrelevance that is London's current plight




The RFL bought the lease before you lost it....ergo, they bought it "for you".....argue semantics all you like, the great train robbers could make up your BOD....the RFL would kick Biggs out but let the rest stay to ensure they aren't left with a massive white elephant....

I was 100% spot on about Whitcut and your defence of him was shown to be misguided at best....amn up and admit you were wrong!

No, you never said they wouldn't. You did however constantly suggest it.

I never said he was a knight in shining armour. But again, that's YOU making stuff up AGAIN like ALWAYS. But I'm glad you see London's current plight being irrelevant, as that's the attitude of the majority, which seems to include the people running London.

You insisted that Whitcut was a detriment to the Bulls continued existence. I said that he wasn't. Mr Whitcut is gone, the Bulls new board and their ownership of the club has been ratified by the RFL. What was I wrong about?

You're the one arguing semantics over the RFL buying the lease for Odsal and then you go back to your character assassinating ways by suggesting that the current board at Bradford are criminals. As for Odsal being a white elephant? A large expanse of land right on the entrance to the motorway? Gee, who'd be able to shift something like that if they were forced to sell it? No, you're completely right, if the RFL hadn't let the Bulls stay there they'd have been stuck with a prime piece of real estate that they'd not be able to get rid of.

I said Ryan Whitcut was dodgy
you decried my opinion and defended him to the hilt
I have been shown to be right.
you refuse to accept you were wrong......

Yes you did.

I said he wasn't a detriment to the future of the club.

You said he was.

The new owners have been ratified ergo the club continues

So yes, as you so desperately need me to validate your opinion, you were right. Ryan Whitcut failed the fit and proper persons test. But hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.



However, was he a detriment to the future of the Bulls as you also contested that he was? It would seem that as he's got a new set of owners in place and they seem to have a idea of how to move the club forward it so it would seem that the answer is NO he was not a detriment to the future of the club.

I notice you've shied away from referring the Bulls new owners as criminals again. Well done on avoiding any further libelous comments.

no.....I simply said he was dodgy and you said he deserved the benefit of the doubt....the RFL would seem to agree with me. I don't recall calling anyone a criminal.

Your comparison of the Bradford BOD to the great train robbers. Some could argue that's defamation of character.
But that's been your agenda all along. Character assassination and defamation of character along with invention of facts and ignoring of anything that does not correspond with the argument you're putting forward.

Ah, can't refute the argument. Can't risk making up another fact as I'll clearly call you on it. So what do you do? You put up stupid pictures and reduce everything to a sad and childish state. Sad, sad, sad little troll

I said Ryan Whitcut was dodgy...you disagreed, you were wrong.

You have spent the last couple of hours wriggling and dancing around this fact, unable to bring yourself to admit you were wrong......all you had to do was admit your error, but instead, you prefer to try and cloud the issue with other accusations......the guy is dodgy, simple as and regardless of your continued failure to accept and admit this, nothing is going to change that!

And again you ignore anything that doesn't match up with your argument. I've already conceded the point that Ryan Whitcutt failed the fit and proper person test. But that wasn't my point. My point was that you said he was detrimental to the Bulls going forward and as of yet, he hasn't been.

Dear oh dear, and you have the gall to say I'M grasping at straws.

no....again.

I said he was dodgy......when I started saying he was dodgy, he was part of the dynamic duo......without the cavalry arriving, then bedman moore would have been on his lonesome and that would have been detrimental...but that's an aside.
I repeatedly questioned Whitcut's suitability, you repeatedly defended him....you were wrong...everything else is a smokescreen designed to cover your .....you were wrong, pure and simple!