Situation was a bit more complex than it seemed. Best not gone into on a public forum, to be honest, but the end result was the same, and was not what was at all expected or planned-for.

Adey thanks for the updates.

Just out of interest, during the discussion with the board was it disclosed why the club needed a loan from the RFL in the 1st place? I understand why the club have suddenly been dropped in it at this present time but most of these issues are linked directly to having to pay the RFL back money which was borrowed. I'm assuming that the need to take on this massive loan was also not the fault of the current board?

Cheers

Well done Bullbuilder. £2500! Good stuff.

Sensei - we did not go into detail about that as a subject in its own right, but was effectively covered under a series of other points. Its clear to me, for example, that having to settle Harrisgate (and, more to the point, the massive legal costs - I suspect the lawyers made more out of us than Leeds ever did) must have played no small part.

The effects of the serious economic downturn have also clearly had a massive impact on the club. Clubs with rich owners just ask sugar daddy to write them a cheque. Leeds got their finances in order years ago and are on an extremely sound financial footing. Clubs without a sugar daddy have considerably lower outgoings than ours (shame our on-field performances over recent years did not match our cost levels!). We are in a sort of unique position of having costs more akin to the monied clubs but no backer to put the money in to even out the swings and roundabouts.

One thing that was specifically mentioned was the lack of play-off football. Seems the financial consequences of missing the play-offs are far more profound than many realise. Also seems no prize money at all now for those finishing outside the 8, and the top-two get a far bigger share than in the past when we kept winning things!

There was another issue we were appraised of that I'll not talk about on here, that led to an unexpected cash outflow in 2011. There may have been others. When you have been sailing close to the wind cash-flow wise for years (as I did keep telling people...) you don't have a lot of margin for error.

All-in-all, I believe a combination of things. No-one blameless, but most of the causes seemingly down to cumulating circumstances the club management had no control over.

No -one can argue with that??? They haven't even spoke to their own shareholders, the most significant of which negotiated the transfer away from the club of two of our best young players for what turned out to be paltry (undisclosed) sums, in between writing letters to the T and A stating just how useless the current board is.

Oh. And if the club folds it's our fault.

I understand your scepticism, and can see why you feel negative, but aside from the pledge scheme being successful can you see another way the club can survive?

Do you want the pledge scheme to succeed?

PH bought the holding of one of those shareholders. AB another, I think. That sounds like "talking" to me - and at least it rationalised the holdings a bit. The other big holders are Jack Bates and Roland Agar, and I think they see and talk to them regularly?

And they have spoken with the other fella all right. I'd love to tell you how it went. But if he's just prepared to sit there, and fire off at the board, in public or otherwise waiting for it to all fall over so he can pounce and pick up the pieces if he so chooses, I don't see what the BOD can do?

Its a bloody mess while he and others are sat on the sidelines with ownership but no responsibility. But solving THAT conundrum is something for another day, sadly.

Most of MY suggestions for solving the problem would likely see me serving a considerable period at the pleasure of Her Majesty...

I don't think anybodies saying that if the club folds it's our fault but highlights that we have the power to stop it doing so.

I believe there are people out there who would like to see it fail just to be able to say 'I told you so, this lot are useless etc..'
As stated earlier anyone who doesn't pledge will be able to think about how clever they have been for two hours every Sunday afternoon for the next decade or so.

Indeed (NOT Maislebugs, btw)

Signing off now - been a long shift, and I am so far behind with my day job that I'll probably have to work all through the night to catch up (and I'm not joking).

Hope some folk are a little better informed now.

Cheers Adey. I am sure your input and that of Bullbuilder will help the cause.

I disagree. This is precisley the time to solve that conundrum, in fact I think it might be our only chance. What many decent, loyal fans believe is saving the club is in my view, prolonging the death throes.

If the situation is as you describe (and I believe you are right), the board should have resigned over the Sam Burgess transfer and forced CC's hand. People from the club have been saying for over 5 years that CC was doing as you outline but have done nothing to lance the boil or draw him out. Whilst he's fired off at the board they've briefed about him in equal measure as you're well aware.

I don't believe this is about saving the club or not saving it. I accept this may not be a popular view but I believe this is merely about when we enter administration.

I don't think there is anybody in the whole rugby league league community who wants to see the Bulls go to the wall. But if the worst happens it won't be the fault of the fans whether they have pledged or not but the fault of the people who, over the past few years, took the decisions that put the club in the position it is. And that includes board members past and present and external parties who are holding a financial gun to the head of the club.

You're entitled to your opinion but we heard parts of the plan and it seems viable that we can survive and compete without being in "death throes".

Sorry, but that isn't true. A season ticket is what it sounds like: a ticket to attend home matches. It doesn't need to suggest any greater degree of commitment than that. For some of you the commitment to the club is much deeper, and I'm not suggesting in any way that that's wrong. However, people who buy a season ticket are buying a service. If they value that service at £75, that's up to them. Many of them might never have owned a season ticket before, but thought it might be reasonably priced entertainment. You can't blame a business's casual punters for the failing of the business. That blame lies squarely and solely with the people who made the pledge necessary.

I'm not saying people shouldn't support the pledge, just that those who don't shouldn't have the blame for the club's demise (which I hope doesn't happen, and believe won't happen) dumped on them.

Regardless of whose fault it is that we are in this situation, the hard fact remains that by not supporting the pledge you are assisting in the downfall of the club.
It's like saying if you saw someone collapse in the street having a heart attack and you didn't assist or call an ambulance that it's not your fault if they die! But as has been said earlier there will be plenty of empty Sunday afternoons to think it over.

There seems to be some confusion in the local press - has the £250k been reached or not? Is the idea that the Bulls needed to raise £500k by 7th April?

I was thinking about pledging - my business is in Bradford but given Hood's comments in the T&A I'm thinking again. I think his attitude quite possibly stinks.

Actually it could well be that his attitude is fine, but his press people really need to read how he comes across.

The 250k barrier has indeed been surpassed.

I don't think he has any press people. This is what comes of attempting to run a club without any middle management.

I'm convinced that his attitude is good and that the board have acted in good faith. I'm also very concerned that the quality of communications over the last week could cost us in a big way. I really hope I'm wrong though...

Thanks MicktheGled



You're possibly right. To me though had Hood been in the press and said

"I am asking the businesses of Bradford to help us. We are like you, we employ people in the city and we're in dire trouble. Please can we ask that you help us in any way you can"

But instead he says

"The small and medium enterprises and larger businesses could very easily and potentially match the pledge figure.

There is no groundswell of support from the Bradford business community, except for the odd pledge. The man in the street might pledge £100, which is tremendous. I’d like to think that small and medium-sized businesses in Bradford could at least match that or perhaps do more than that, given that we are like them and employ 150 people in the city."

It just doesn't sit right with me - all I want to say to him is get your own house in order before you start suggesting what other businesses should do.

Just semantics but goodness it bothers me!

Hood's notoriously bad at communicating. Check any of his recent press releases!

You make it sound as though people supporting a sports club have the same relationship with the club as someone taking a garment to be dry cleaned has with the cleaning company. That, without doubt, is the legal reality but it certainly isn't the way I view it, nor do I believe it is the way the vast majority of fans (not customers) look at it.

300K has been reached

www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/news/581 ... %20PASS%20£300K%20MARK It seems we get more pledges when Stuart Fielden is on the phones

www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/news/581 ... %20PASS%20£300K%20MARK It seems we get more pledges when Stuart Fielden is on the phones