It would appear they can if both parties agree. Which, apparently, they have

Stand by for the sanitised version then!

This is a very poor message (and read the full article for detail). Creditors are being shafted and Bulls expect to keep their club as it is (players etc), and walk away debt free!

Cut your cloth accordingly, lower your wage bill and pay off what you can. Then maybe the "RL community", may just have some goodwill left for you.

Otherwise, Bulls should be out of SL and maybe even liquidated.

thanks, hard copy I assume rather than web article. what else is on there? Image rights?

I am pleasantly surprised that it is only £200k as top estimates would be £800K which would be a black hole.

The bounders. Personally, I am of the view that signing Harris made us millions. If only we had done ten such deals.

VAT - £250k
Image rights - £250k
PAYE approx - £200k
Monthly wage bill approx - £260k
Potential VAT on season tickets - £200k

I did wonder if Caisley can see the irony in Gerry Sutcliffe now publically saying the Club must survive seeing as the MP would not publically support any Odsal redevelopment

I think the reason will be because too many people believe that all our troubles stem from that, and both Hetherington and Caisley are concerned not to be painted as the bad guys.

I hope it DOES come out. Because then I expect people will see that indeed it was not just Harrisgate that caused it. Indeed, I suspect the settlement with Leeds will have been far smaller than many assume (and may help explain why Hood chose to settle). But it still will have contributed badly - but then so did the rubbish performances on the park and the Great Recession and Scumbag Orford & Mimmis - a veritable cocktail of adverse factors cumulating in where we are now.

But I also hope that they disclose the total legal and other related costs, and the likely legal etc costs had we carried on, so we see the whole picture. Bet we don't see that, since it would not be in either party's interest - just that of the previous board, of which of course Coulby and Brutus Agarius were then members, with together far more shares than Hood, so were jointly responsible for the decision to settle.

And I remain very interested to hear from both parties regarding what information about Harris' contractual arrangements was actually provided before he was signed, since that remains for me the key issue, and the only reason I can deduce that could have undermined the "Mainstream Developments" defence that I felt was so strong for us. But I am very certain we'll never hear anything about that.

Some more explanation maybe could have done with being given there, I think.

The image rights of course go back a lot of years. My understanding is that the exposure does not relate to the last couple of years anyway.

The PAYE seems to be growing in the telling, since the figures previously quoted (as well as being told to me) were running at just over £80k a a month. And so far the club will be behind on the payments due 22/5 and now 22/6.

And the monthly payroll bill will be gross, including PAYE/NIC. The numbers I heard before were £140k/month net payroll and just over £80k/month PAYE, totalling £220/month. There may be non-payroll costs in the £260k such as pensions and insurances?

The "VAT on Season Tickets" is a very interesting one. GB would have had people believe there was a large, assessed liability there. BBM would have had people believe there was no assessed liability. The above suggests strictly BBM was right, but that both were being highly disingenuous (shock horror...). The key is in the word "potential", IMO. That reads as code for "in dispute with HMRC" to me. So nothing assessed yet, but it might well result in such - and I cannot see how any scheme to claim VAT was not payable would stand up, tbh. HMRC will still want to seek to crystalise any liability, since that would then rank as an unsecured creditor subject to proof of debt.

For once, I agree.

In saying that, the finite contractual details we won't be privy to, and possibly, rightly so. Its a little too car crash tv and more importantly such situations are rarely played out in a media headlight. Samsung and iPhone don't discuss the miniscuke details of their patent battles, merely the effect of the action. It's not how business works or should work.

In saying that no business should have an obsessive 6 years ago indecent based theorem of cause and effect, since we should be looking at other factors in addition as you say, not least that of significantly increasing revenues, since as you advocate, cost cutting only does what it says on the tin and does not categorically create an upsurge in revenues.

I doubt legal costs will be revealed by many sporting organisations or effective businesses (yes we're not right now

) since it is a necessary 'evil' and nor am I too concerned. I'm more concerned as to potential interesting detail that may be revealed to us regarding what we have been led to believe has been the sole and determining factor in our plight. We shall see.

As for your last point re VAT on season tickets, you rightly use the word potential. Incredibull aka, previous BoD, was categorical that this didn't exist at all. Well, as I suggested, it clearly does. It's not about "I told you so" it's about, look at this bloody mess and who on earth wants to take on mass historic debt that shouldn't be there. Hey go, it's done now, let's get to point Z and to a positive starting point.

What's to clap?

Or is it that you hope your former esteemed chairman Nigel Wood who took you to the brink of liquidity, and is thus qualified to run the governing body, will provide you a place in SL?

Zero chance sunshine. Nor should you be revelling in the demise of a club that has done more for the game than your shambolic offering of a club has ever done or will do.

Stay in the shadows, it's where you shine brightest.

Agree as you know Adey totally with you there, likewise the wage costs. the VAT potential liability points to a weasel scheme at the edge rather than for the whole ticket sales for both years, which was why I asked GB for further and better particulars, for example was it on the lifetime members contributions. Not with you tho on the relevance of Mainstream Developments where the accused had been very careful to ask the parties in breach if there was the possibility of a breach and they categoricaly assured him not. So he could not have deliberately induced them. On the other hand we knew there were first-option clauses in the contracts, so it was not careless or negligent inducement to breach contract (though I know what you are going to say Adey, someone was careless and negligent!). Therefore Hood settled.

GB, a genuine open question, what are your thoughts on ways of generating more income other than the obvious?

Would it be possible to have the late, great and unsurpassed Peter Deakin cloned?

From the Twitter pages

martyn Sadler on 5 live says backer in place admin is means of cheaper price for him this makes sense otherwise Bateman offer

Well this would seam to indicate that as a sporting team nothing changes. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18609190 With this kinda of upside to liquidation, the fund raising seams to have been a waste of everyone's time. They could have liquidated months ago, the fans could have kept their cash (which could have been invested in the new company to keep or buy players), Bradford would have held onto their points and renegotiatied everyone's contracts to a better level. In a way there will be little long lasting impact of this on the bulls as a sporting club as they will just start again. Panic over it seams. You may lose some players, but it's not going to be the end of the Bulls after all. Happy days unless you gave the Bulls money!!

Well this would seam to indicate that as a sporting team nothing changes. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18609190 With this kinda of upside to liquidation, the fund raising seams to have been a waste of everyone's time. They could have liquidated months ago, the fans could have kept their cash (which could have been invested in the new company to keep or buy players), Bradford would have held onto their points and renegotiatied everyone's contracts to a better level. In a way there will be little long lasting impact of this on the bulls as a sporting club as they will just start again. Panic over it seams. You may lose some players, but it's not going to be the end of the Bulls after all. Happy days unless you gave the Bulls money!!

Not sure on this think HMRC will want their money. That's a big chunk of what's owed so not that cheap. If for some reason the debt is written off you still have a wage bill that needs trimming by a lot. Will players take a new lower contract or look elsewhere for a better deal or same as what they are on now.

I'm afraid I can only see liquidation. Then any new Bradford would have to pick over the players that didn't get deals elsewhere. Even then that could go down the pan if the RFL/clubs voted the new club out of SL at the end of 2012.

What do you consider to be the "obvious?"

Increasing the cost of season tickets.

That would work on an assumption of

1)that those who took up the tickets this year and last actively renew at the new increased figure (and what figure do you initially suggest as not being significantly price elastic)

2) that after this apocalyptic mess, fans still hold vast faith in the club

3) that new fans would be attracted to subsidise revenues even further

4) that we are doing the right things as a club to swap the armchair sports fan to an active sports fan. Sky is as much as our demon as our saviour given we are unable to convert most fans from home chair to stadium chair; and that as a sport is our greatest challenge.

Our biggest contention as a sport should be the abominable SKY broadcast deal the RFL 'negotiated' with Eddie Stobart. It is possible to live with an armchair fan philosophy only if the club divided monies from said headline deal some way significantly mitigate the major loss in spectator numbers. That is what we should have addressed as a collective and not being grateful for seeing a random picture of Jon Wilkin on a 18 wheel wagon going past Coventry.

It was going past Wakefield on the M1 a couple of weeks ago. I nearly crashed due to a double take. I am now going to buy another season ticket.

Agree with GB, the Stobbart deal is commercially ridiculous.

I think that a buyer will be found, if it has not already, to save the club. The noises pre and post Admin are setting us up for a fire sale buyer.

Quote ="bewareshadows"Well this would seam to indicate that as a sporting team nothing changes. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18609190 With this kinda of upside to liquidation, the fund raising seams to have been a waste of everyone's time. They could have liquidated months ago, the fans could have kept their cash (which could have been invested in the new company to keep or buy players), Bradford would have held onto their points and renegotiatied everyone's contracts to a better level. In a way there will be little long lasting impact of this on the bulls as a sporting club as they will just start again. Panic over it seams. You may lose some players, but it's not going to be the end of the Bulls after all. Happy days unless you gave the Bulls money!!'" Still begs a lot of questions, just off of the top of my head: 1) How would Newco be funded for the rest of the season? How would it fund its start up costs and working capital? 2) Presumably season tickets would be void and it would be £20 on the gate to watch predominably juniors being hammered? 3) How long would it take to set up Newco? What would happen during the inevitable void between the existing club folding and Newco starting up? Could Newco actually field a team against London, Leeds, Warry & Widnes? 4) Could a hastily cobbled together supporters trust ensure that it can immediately meet basic obligations such as having adequate insurance, medical cover and support for the players, and the hundreds of things that have to be attended to before a game could be staged? 5) Would the RFL still charge the same rent? 6) When would the decision over the where Newco would be playing next year be taken? 7) How would Newco fund itself during the close season? Dont expect many season tickets to be sold during Oct-Dec, fans will wait as long as possible to see if the club will be around in February 2013. To be honest this, if true, seems like desparation on the part of the RFL. Desparation to allow the Bulls to complete this season regardless of what happens afterwards, regardless of how weak a team we have to put out. Regardless of how much of a shambles it could turn into. Just to ensure that they do not have to expunge our results from the records and deal with the quirk of Leeds' Magic Weekend fixture.

Quote ="bewareshadows"Well this would seam to indicate that as a sporting team nothing changes. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18609190 With this kinda of upside to liquidation, the fund raising seams to have been a waste of everyone's time. They could have liquidated months ago, the fans could have kept their cash (which could have been invested in the new company to keep or buy players), Bradford would have held onto their points and renegotiatied everyone's contracts to a better level. In a way there will be little long lasting impact of this on the bulls as a sporting club as they will just start again. Panic over it seams. You may lose some players, but it's not going to be the end of the Bulls after all. Happy days unless you gave the Bulls money!!'" Still begs a lot of questions, just off of the top of my head: 1) How would Newco be funded for the rest of the season? How would it fund its start up costs and working capital? 2) Presumably season tickets would be void and it would be £20 on the gate to watch predominably juniors being hammered? 3) How long would it take to set up Newco? What would happen during the inevitable void between the existing club folding and Newco starting up? Could Newco actually field a team against London, Leeds, Warry & Widnes? 4) Could a hastily cobbled together supporters trust ensure that it can immediately meet basic obligations such as having adequate insurance, medical cover and support for the players, and the hundreds of things that have to be attended to before a game could be staged? 5) Would the RFL still charge the same rent? 6) When would the decision over the where Newco would be playing next year be taken? 7) How would Newco fund itself during the close season? Dont expect many season tickets to be sold during Oct-Dec, fans will wait as long as possible to see if the club will be around in February 2013. To be honest this, if true, seems like desparation on the part of the RFL. Desparation to allow the Bulls to complete this season regardless of what happens afterwards, regardless of how weak a team we have to put out. Regardless of how much of a shambles it could turn into. Just to ensure that they do not have to expunge our results from the records and deal with the quirk of Leeds' Magic Weekend fixture.