Let's hope you are about the additional investment.

Sounds a bit like OK shafted us over.

What? The very same OK that I regularly raised concerns about but was continually berated for doing so?

Fancy that.

You must be well pleased tonight then.

Not at the state of the club, no. But it is always nice to prove the haters wrong.

Although you said OKB would go into administration, which it has not. It MAY happen in the future, after (if, but IMO when) they hive down/off the club into Newco, when maybe the only creditor left is the previous owner. It was stated categorically tonight though that the club would not be going into administration.

Like you did in your OP, I think some specific words may have been used tonight. Fine by me.

I have to ask - since it was this that induced me to return to the forum to make the post I did - did your post reflect specific information, rather than just deduction? I felt there was a high probability that it DID. Which is why I feared there was a good chance that the real message in my coded post (which you picked up straight away in what I saw as maybe a confirmation?) would prove bang on the money too.

From my dealings with OK and Whitcu*t, away from the public eye, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt what we had confirmed tonight. And so, like you, sadly I was not at all surprised.

One unanswered question: what does Gerry have to say?

The questions at the evening show that there were serious errors made by the old regime and also some underhand tactics used when they came to jumping ship.

OK, Sutcliffe, and Whitcut seem to have used the Bulls to play on being the great saviour and building their own egos.

I thought the meeting last night felt better than the previous ones, although the news wasnt brilliant I came away with a truer understanding of where we are.

I know some on the board fall asleep at the mention of accounts - but if you don't have a grip on the money it eventually comes back to spoil the party on the field.

It seems from all the statements from the new managing team that they will strive to keep costs on or below income but I worry that the conclusion to that might be that you cannot get enough money in Bradford to support SL aspirations? Hope I am wrong.

I've said before that I think we can support a mid-range SL team on gates and average sponsorship - assuming we get average results, especially at home. We have a particular problem this season though, on two points; one is we still have only half our TV money and two, that all this increased financial pressure is on the one season where regular season results suddenly become much more important.

The saving grace for me though is, much as I hope we can beat the odds and retain SL status, I'll still be near the front of the queue for a season ticket in the Championship, if indeed that is where we play in 2015.

me too, despised though we are in some quarters for such blind folly. But the saving grace for me is that whatever happens, the club that is lost to make way for a promoted club in 2014 is seemingly 99.99999999999999999% nailed on to be poor old London, isn't it? Can you realistically see a way out for them? I mean, it may not even be a contest as so far they have no ground and no squad, in effect, as I understand it.

There is some (IMHO remote) possibility that if London do fold, a Championship club would replace them in SL2014. That may be so, and theoretically relegation may still be left in place, but we all know that in those circumstances, the cobbled-together new SL club would be guaranteed to finish last by some distance, whatever troubles we, Wakey and anyone else have. So the way i see it, if we stay alive, we stay in SL for at least one more season, And then the Sky money's back, so it's like we are playing the season for a prize pot of half a mill.

Well, the RFL haven't yet announced the definites anyway, so I guess anything is possible. Much depends on how many clubs are going to be in the division [on an on-going basis, not just next season and, as you correctly say, what happens with other clubs.

It's going to be interesting..

There must be a point coming soon where the RFL turn round and say you need to confirm all these things as a Championship club will have next to no chance in being able to compete next year and what could have been a year to plan to join SL could be the one that they end up playing in for 12 months then relegated and replaced by a competitor. I dont think even with protection for a club coming up it would be the right thing to do.

to bring a championship team and give them immunity from relegation on a one off basis but they really should have sorted it by now - and I'd guess even they know that.

That said, they have little choice but to expect London to take up their position on the starting line and it's only if and when they don't that the recriminations will begin. Start announcing even possible successors too early and it makes London look like a basket case, which might well then be used by the club to show that the RFL's precipitate action was a cause of bringing down the club.

If restructure plans go through then two go down. Which puts us in frame alongside London, Wakefield and probably Cas.

Omar to take legal action... www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... al_action/

Omar to take legal action... www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... al_action/

Oh, please let's have an end to all this and get back to some rugby..

Omar Khan Vs Andrew Calvert.

This is going to get very nasty and I actually sympathise with both parties. The combined actions in the 12 months prior to administration of the RFL and Lord Peter of Hood have virtually made the club un-rescue-able (sp).

Quote ="Bully_Boxer"Omar to take legal action... www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... al_action/'" Where have all his defenders gone?????? Come out of hiding guys. * Awaits the denials - "Who defended him?" *

Quote ="Bully_Boxer"Omar to take legal action... www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... al_action/'" Where have all his defenders gone?????? Come out of hiding guys. * Awaits the denials - "Who defended him?" *

I can't recall any poster specifically 'defending'. A number have tried unsuccessfully it must be said to add context, or point out some of the basic realities associated with purchasing a club that had been catastrophically mis-managed for years. Some of us have some (limited in my own case) experience of trying to keep a ship afloat with precious limited resources and overwhelming responsibilities, and whilst lacking inside information or access to accounts, have some sympathy for a task which looked impossible and has proven to be so.

For your part, you have routinely responded in the manner of a four year old.

I supported Omar. Was I wrong? Don't know yet it'll all come out in the wash.

I'll support the new lot too though because it's what I have to do.

Who cares whether I'm right or not and who cares whether you are?

You obviously but does anyone else care.

What I will say though is I won't be eating at Omar khan's restaurants any time soon.

So Omar did put money in then? And he wants it back? Seems fair enough.

So you think the new board are on the wrong now? I can't keep up with your stance from one day to the next.

Fair comment Mr M - but you'll never beat the knee-jerkers.

Is this the new politically correct name for ......s??

I thought mystic Eddie was anti Omar and liked the new board?

Confused

Do you even know what you write any more?

It is reported that a statutory demand has been served to require repayment of money to OK. It is said he pu £1m into the club. Now, making allowances for sloppy reporting possibilities, it still states clearly that the Stat demand is by OK. Not OK Bulls. (Which is the current trading company and obviously couldn't serve a stat demand on itself) It also states that some sort of a deal was done when OK left and RW remained as to repayments.

If it is true that OK did put a large amount of money in and there was agreement as to repayment, then it would be an odd thing for the sort of shyster and conman you claim him to be to have done, wouldn't it? Of course, it is possible that a statutory demand is being issued over a mythical amount and in fact based on a pure lie and nothing was put in at all. That would be odd. Do you have any firm information in your detailed annals and documentation?

If, theoretically, he was owed a lot of money and if, theoretically, somebody was reneging on an agreement as to repayment, what wouldyou say would need defending about trying to seek repayment by law?

I don't therefore see where this question of "defending" arises. Either the above is the case, or it is not. Time will doubtless tell.