Quote ="andycapp"Sutcliffe has just been interviewed on Boots n All. Seems his and khans bid is the one likely to be proceeded with.'" There's a decent summary here www.skysports.com/tv_show/story/ ... 87,00.html

Quote ="andycapp"Sutcliffe has just been interviewed on Boots n All. Seems his and khans bid is the one likely to be proceeded with.'" There's a decent summary here www.skysports.com/tv_show/story/ ... 87,00.html

Shareholders and creditors have received a letter from the Joint Administrators, inviting them to download a report on the administration from their website.

I would strongly urge those who can to do so. Lots of interesting stuff in there, and a few puzzling ommissions. Will raise a number of questions, (one issue in particular made my blood boil) but will also give the lie to a whole load of speculation, guesswork or ill-informed bollox that has been posted about the numbers.

Care to give more info rather than leave little bits about something that none of us will probably ever be able to read?

No he won't.

Wow Adey, you answered that without even having to type anything.

Quote ="paulwalker71"There's a decent summary here www.skysports.com/tv_show/story/ ... 87,00.html'" Whatever happens; good luck. SL needs the Bulls and it's excellent fans just as much as the other way round.

Quote ="paulwalker71"There's a decent summary here www.skysports.com/tv_show/story/ ... 87,00.html'" Whatever happens; good luck. SL needs the Bulls and it's excellent fans just as much as the other way round.

Why would Adey disclose anything? He needs to come across as all seeing and all knowing! Why let all and sundry know what he knows when he can keep it all secret? Pathetic

Tell you what sunshine, why don't you go and find yourself a friendly shareholder or creditor like I did? After all, I am neither a creditor nor a shareholder, thankfully, and so would not have any personal access to it would I? Nor have I been appraised of its contents through any other means. And has it ever occurred to you it is always possible I had only very quick sight of something, enough to form a very quick first impression enough to be able to urge those who CAN get official access to it to do so and study it at leisure? Or were you too busy trying to be a total smartass insulting me again?

Oh, and while I am at it: my record speaks for itself. I have probably shared more than anyone on here about the financials, recently and over the years. Certainly as much as I could or dared, including a hell of a lot of deduction, sometimes proved correct; sometimes not so, especially where I listened to and trusted directors to be telling the truth and, like more than a few, was suckered. Anyone care to deny that? So grow up you fool.

Calm down Adey, zone out and wait till you see what the report says, then let your Blood Boil, as I suspect there will be a few WFT moments when reading it!

It's not down to Adey to provide this information. I've disagreed with some of his arguments and he's disagreed with some of my speculation .We've both been wrong sometimes but that's probably because FACTS are so rarely put in the public domain and we have to rely on a measure of guesswork.
Any journalist worth their salt SHOULD be banging down doors to be the first to reveal the ins and outs of the administrators report. Some or all of the shareholders will be reluctant to expose the details but I'm sure an aggrieved creditor would be prepared to either go public or let the press know what the report contains.
We've lost a lot of sleep since Easter as well as the donations we've all made-- some of the creditors have lost a lot of money and the sleep they've lost might have been caused by the threat to their livelihoods. So they have an interest in exposing what's gone on.
So come on T & A and YP-- do some digging.

Has anyone else noticed how Adeybull is almost an anagram of Chris Caisely? Spooky or what?

Now I know your lysdexic! It's an anagram of Caisleys Dad!

Personally I got sick to death of people gratuitously launching in here with purely [iad hominem[/i flames, that add nothing whatsoever to any discussion, and just badmouth a poster. It has been thankfully relatively rare of late, although I suspect sadly only due to a rearguard action against administration trolls. Are we really back to this? No need for it at all. Some people seriously need to grow up.

Apparently Wakey voted against us.



creditors offered 10p/£, shareholders £0.00
Khan/Sutcliffe need to provide proof of funding still.
It's quite useful that Twitter thingy.

Really? Who posted this then?

'So some guy asks fans on the Bradford forum where to go and you get some assholes saying "Don't go, go to Leeds". What a set of losers! Why are these people even on here? Even if you can't find anything to suit your delicate tastes, why tell someone who specifically said they are stopping here, about a city in which they are not, er, stopping? Morons'

Why you would try to compare that I have no clue. But essentially if someone comes clumping in, derailing a perfectly reasonable request for information by insulting Bradford gratuitously, then I see no problem in remonstrating with them and sticking up for the old place. Or do you think the poster who said "Go to Leeds" was just innocently trying to be helpful, and not on the insulting wind-up? I don't.

Responses to insulting windups, and [iad hominem[/i attacks for no reason other than to disparage a poster are not imho in any way comparable.

Oh come on, I was only having a laugh. I've actually come to enjoy your arguments with those who come on and 'have a go' and I never thought I'd say that.

As for ad hominem, for better or worse Adey puts himself out there and is well able to get the Doc Martens on when he needs to.

Soz, I obviously missed that. And I was in no way sticking up for Adey - even if that is the effect - just -as usual -sticking in my twopenn'orth.

So, just a "quick look", that "made your blood boil", also had "lots of interesting stuff" and "puzzling omissions". Doesn't sound like a quick look to me! If you have seen ANYTHING why not share it? Oh, the irony, normally you can type chapter and verse on any speculation, but when you actually know something, you just suggest things............

Riiiiight, can we get back on topic now please.

Any further sniping will be deleted.

If Trinity voted against us , so be it.
I was under the impression that proof of funding had been requested and supplied before the business plan went in.
What worries me is if the 10p in the £ is true. Forgive my ignorance but I thought that a percentage of the creditors would have to agree or is it different for a newco?

Closet Rhino. Does that count?

Don't think it is a Newco though. The bid takes on the existing company with the existing debt which will need to be resolved - one way or t'other. Otherwise all current contracts would be void and all the players could immediately leave.

Nope, it wasn't Wakefield. If it's true, the club is one a lot closer to home.