Some interesting comments from Danny Lockwood in his editorial this week;

[i"Could you run a Super League club if your players wage bill was paid? I reckon I could. But then again I wouldn't waste stupid money on top of that, which the Bulls have - they're (almost) the sports biggest total spenders. They should have Viv 'Spend, Spend, Spend' Nicholson on the board.

You wouldn't believe what some of their staff are on. I couldn't when I was told last week via someone who'd seen the books"[/i

It breaks my heart to think we've been overpaying the dross we've had to watch play the last 3 years!

=#FF0040Still want to trust the current BoD with our future, not for me thanks!!

I read that to mean non playing staff as he makes a point about the salary cap being just slighty more than the rfl hand out in another paragraph.

Wasn't it reported that Sykes was one of the clubs top earners when the loan to Wakey hit the press?

Also remember been told a while back that a couple of old boys are on a lot more than they're worth (my presumption was Sykes & Platt but have no proof of this)

In a pre-pack could we negotiate more realistic terms/ drop players we no longer require without having to pay? Though I'd suspect the RFL wouldn't look to kindly to this when the phoenix company comes looking for a SL licence.

If anyone is happy to put faith in an editorial which admits is based only on
something the guy was supposedly told, from "someone who has seen the books" which I presume alludes to Caisley but who knows, since who else could have "seen the books" and be prepared to make statements like that - well good luck. And there is nothing whatsoever posted in substantiation, so at best it can only be hearsay and at worst defamatory. It is anyway worded so it could mean almost anything.

And of course, if anyone DID say anything, they would be in clear breach of duty of confidentiality or any non-disclosure agreements, whatever might actually have been said. Nice.

Funnily enough, though, Lockwood has shown himself to be either a total liar, or a total incompetent. All you have to do is to get the accounts of other big SL clubs to give the lie to the (almost) biggest spenders statement. Every club filing "full accounts" shows total payroll costs and total overall costs. Remember of course that many clubs have a separate stadium operating company, so a lot of costs are in that company instead. So you need to add the whole picture together. Yet his factually-incorrect statement has clearly hit pay-dirt, hasn't it?

I gather his rag has been running propaganda for the anti-Hood camp from the start, same way as Martyn Sadler's paper has been considerably more sympathetic. That of course is their choice - provided they steer clear of libel - but that does not mean readers should take everything they read as gospel?

The back office team are on a lot, all these people that go out to schools and work with kids etc. If you ask me we pay too much in wages to peoiple not critical to the playing & coaching staff.

We have far too many staff on the development and community team. thats where a lot of the wages are.

Don't buy League Weekly for the simple fact that Lockwood is involved.

you got a source for " the back office team are on alot"?

I believe part of the francise is junior and community development hence you need these people - its not just the Bulls its every SL club

^^^this

1 - the development & community team - these would be the people employed by the Bradford Bulls Foundation, would they? A separate, registered charity? And where as I understand it external funding has been obtained to help finance them? An area the club was forced to cut back heavily on from 2005, to the almost universal complaint of most fans?

2 - the rest of the "back office" staff - these are pretty well all listed on the Bulls website "who's who". Can I suggest you list them all out on here, specify what their salaries are, and list which positions you would either cut or reduce the salaries of, and why? With explanation of how the woprk would be re-distributed?

Speaking of the Bulls Foundation and its staff, this is from the website:

[i"The Bradford Bulls Foundation is the charitable trust for the Bradford Bulls Rugby League team (Charity Number 110660icon_cool.gif

The Foundation currently employs 8 full time members of staff, 1 part time staff and 9 apprentices. The Foundation delivers services to over 50,000 adults, children and young people per annum working in 6 keys areas;

1. Sport
2. Health
3. Heritage
4. Education
5. Social Inclusion
6. Arts/Culture

Key groups that benefit from these services are Primary Schools, Secondary Schools, Special Schools including SILC's and PRU's and Local Amateur Rugby League Clubs as well as partnerships with other charities such as Marie Curie, Action for Children and the Rugby League Foundation.

Through its activities, the Foundation explores new ways of supporting learning development and education regardless of age and gender; promotes health and welfare, encourages social inclusion and cohesion, embraces and celebrates diverse communities, whilst in the process, maximizes opportunities to champion citizenship and the region, whilst growing civic pride in the City of Bradford."[/i

Would you like to help us by scheduling out how much of the staff costs is actually paid by the club and not from external sources that would not be available to the club? So we can better judge just how big a waste of money it all is? Note that the Foundation is a separate legal entity, distinct from the club, and its results are not consolidated into the group results.

Are you going to qualify this like you did with the new chairman & sponsor topic?

Not forgetting this nugget from the T&A thread...

You really are an utter tit. It takes some doing for a poster to be so utterly devoid of even a sliver of merit as to be dumped in my dustbin, so congratulations and welcome to the no. 3 slot.

Isn't interesting that when certain people tell other certain people things they don'want to stand behind in public but wish to be placed on this message board it is presented as the self evident truth, and not a highy dubious, thoroughly well spun version of events.

Yet when other certain people like Lockwood, and other posters on here are told things they are 'liars', 'incompetents', in 'breach of confidentiality and non disclosure agreements'. There views are 'anti-Hood propaganda'. Quite why Danny Lockwood is a pro-Caisley, anti- Hood propagandist is anyone's guess but never mind, as apparently he's joined the likes of the T and A and Gerry Sutcliffe in a conspiracy against Peter Hood.

maybe the wrong thread but just wanted to say on the playing field bradford are looking good, you have hit some good form, hope all goes well for the future

MB: you nailed your colours to the mast a bit ago, once you decided to back Caisley, not administration as you had been doing in preference to either - despite it merely exchanging one disgruntled minority with another, and not solving the problem you had rightly complained about for ages. I would therefore fully expect you to say that - you are entitled to hold strongly partisan views and express them, if it is your wish; the same way as the rest of us are, and will.

One little difference though between the contrasting examples you quoted: Lockwood made his comments in an editorial in a widely-read (in the game) publication. Sutcliffe's comments were widely reported in a major regional newspaper, and were picked up elsewhere in the published media. Bit of a difference, particularly in the likely impact, compared with individuals posting comments on internet message forums?

I don't remember overtly backing Caisley, or nailing any colours to any mast. I've pledged, paid and believe this board limping along to be the worst option. I believe the blatant smearing of Caisley since his leaving to have been both negative and damaging and conducted in part to deflect attention from a board who have failed to remedy any of the problems they have incessantly blamed him for.

I've argued for administration as under this board I'm convinced it is a)inevitable and b) the only way of ridding the club of both Hood and Caisley. You and other have argued vehemently that this was not the right option for a number of valid reasons. In light of this and the Bullbuilder statement to hold the board (whichever it is ) to account I have stated I would accept Caisley plus new investment as the least worst option. I do not have strong partisan views. Personally, I would take the gamble and go for administartion as I beleive the situation we have now is as bad as a protracted administration. Elima, Nas, Crookes are all OOC and cannot be expected to wait until Ryan Duckett finishes his 'confidential conversations' or Caisley conducts his review, whatever that might be. Hood is dragging his feet over the EGM and we are in complete stasis.

There are two options, administration and Caisley (which may also be adminitration). The sooner we get to one or the other the better. If we get to June/July with no budget/salary cap set for 2013 it will be a total and utter disaster. If Hood has the interest of the club at heart he must resign as this is inevitable anyway. Our main enemy now is delay. The utterly simplistic defence of the current board and the slagging of Caisley is just silly and gets us nowhere.

I might be wrong (I suppose one day it is bound to happen) but I don't actually recall [ianyone[/i "defending" the board. And whether they stay or go, and whether we sink or float, the morass the club finds itself in is pretty indefensible.

I am getting even more pis5ed off and worried in equal measure than before at the total lack of any meaningful communication since the 500K was announced, but I never pledged believing that if only the total was reached, magic would happen, I (and I think most) did so as their perceived way of keeping our club from immediately going under.

OK, thanks for reasoned reply - I've a better and more clear understanding of your position from that. Thank you.

I don't think there are too many blindly defending the current board - I certainly don't, and e.g. have made my feelings about the PR battle and in other ways pretty clear. And a return to the status quo ante is anyway unlikely to happen now so many Rubicons have been crossed, I suggest? But I also can't thank Mr Caisley for what to me have been deliberately-timed interventions that could have precipated failure and administration (and still could). I certainly don't think his public attacks, nor those of opportunistic politicians and out-of-work actors, have made the BoD's job of trying to save the business and secure external financing any easier. And I think his (IMO) disingenuous avoiding of his own role in why we are where we are is just downright dishonest. But that is my opinion.

My own stance has consistently been lets save the ship first, then decide who caused it to founder and who is best to captain it going forward. My view of the risks of administration have been consistently different to yours - and who knows which of us is right? - hence my emphasis on supporting the current incumbents to sort the mess out in the first instance, as opposed to administration taking the matter out of their hands. If Caisley would put something concrete on the table that demonstrated a commitment to avoid administration at all costs, then in the interests of the club you would have to set the past aside and consider that seriously. But thus far he has not, so there remains only one announced game in town to try and avoid almost immediate administration.

I think the attacks on Caisley have been brought on by a lot of people feeling he has sought to take advantage of and seriously exacerbate the situation, for his own ends ahead of those of the club. Again, my opinion. You could see this pretty clearly in the majority of the posts on the normally very negative T&A comments threads. Certainly his activity, and that of others who seem to share his stance, have brought about the strong reaction you have seen from me. Not in defence of the present board per se, but to counter what in my opinion was serious injustice being done. Folk who know me know that it is injustice, more than anything else, that really upsets me.

I very much share your concern though that delay is our worst enemy now, regardless. I believe the BoD are working like mad behind the scenes to fix the problem, however it arose and whoever is to blame, and despite the major external distractions. I continue to hope that we will see an outcome soon, and a better one than would have resulted from immediate administration. Time will tell, of course. The pledges etc bought some time and are buying time; what I think we all agree on is that it can't go on too long before we must have a resolution, one way or another.

It's an utter nightmare and no mistake but for what's it's worth I think the EGM should have been held this week. Whether intentional or not it must be impossible to find investment in the two weeks before an EGM to oust the board. I think Ryan is kite flying personally. CC and co will say they haven't found investment in six years so what's new but what's he offering?

I think this is very poor from both sides. Caisley has brought nothing to the table so far and Hood is a dead man walking. FA mentions the lack of communication and of course he's right but I think they haven't anything to tell us. We could very easily end up with the negative consequences of admin (losing players) and none of the positive (new shareholding) to invest and take us forward.

Apart from kite flying which I think is unfair, I wouldn't argue with any of that.

TBH I dont think there'd be too much wrong with him kite flying. We might need an impressive kite.

Is there any positive outcomes of Admin?

Please don't state removal of debts - that is morally repugnant, especially after the efforts over the last few weeks

It would sort out our ridiculous share structure.

According to Bennett we do not have any debts, just the recurring ones.

Indeed but so would a buyout without any of the associated risks. Anyone a shareholder? I would willing buy a share off you to attend this EGM if I'm not too late