Oh dear.

The RFL gave themselves the role of doing checks on finances and checking potential owners. They have been a shambles in their assumed roles several times over.

The RFL executive pumped £1m into the Bulls buying the odsal lease(with a very unstable tenant and few potential alternatives to replace them). Playing favourites in this way is farcical.

The RFL allowed the Bulls to sign Carvell Ferguson George Gaskell et al while players were not getting paid and the financial mess was in plain sight. The RFL have the power to stop these practices.

A Governing body playing favourites and presiding over repeated financial disasters does the game a disservice.

Indeed oh dear. The only people who presided over repeated financial disasters are the owners and decision makers at Bradford.

Can you answer the question? Should the RFL have not helped Bradford? If not why not when they've assisted other clubs in various ways?
On what grounds should the RFL have stopped Bradford signing players? As long as they fit in the salary cap, overseas quota, visa checks etc there is no mechanism for the RFL refusing to register players in this situation. If there was then only Wigan and Leeds would be able to sign players.
I don't know about the others but Carvell was signed (or the announcement was made) in June this year, were the Bradford players being paid then?

There is no-one other than the Bradford owners and decision makers who bear responsibility here. Any actions by the RFL have been to attempt to allow a Bradford club to continue, surely that is a good thing?
So again, which part is the shambles?

The rfl can be blamed for a great deal many things, but I don't think this is one of them.

They approved a budget where by the bulls lied. The budgets sent to the rfl and the departments at the club didn't match. This has been confirmed at the bulls forum. Short of hiring an auditors for random checks what more could they do?

As I said, is it any wonder, given they copied the failed business plan of previous administrations, they needed the sky money!? If the bulls had cut back as I had suggested, this may not have been needed? Were the rfl to refuse the advance and let the club die there and then? There was still opportunity to make suitable cut backs, and by buying time, the rfl were doing all they could to throw the club a lifeline.

When bulls went under the first time, what saleable assets did the bulls have? Buying the lease was the only support the rfl could offer for the amounts required. Whether or not they did due diligence on the "purchase" is irrelevant, at least in terms of getting the money the failing club needed at the time - this is in fact an argument to say that the rfl should of let the bulls die in the first place as opposed trying to buy them time to sort themselves out.

To my knowledge the financial checks mid season were on the owners/directors weren't they as opposed to the club? (I may be wrong) but even so what were the rfl to do? Step in and run the club themselves?

The new debts were discovered after whit cut left. My knowledge of the matter (which as with most of this situation, is little more than conjecture) is that the person running the concerts, tried to hide the losses made from said concerts, by taking out loans against the club. Not until whit cut left was this found, again short of assigning random audits what could the rfl do to discover this?

These unknown debts seem to be the starting point of the fall out between khan and Moore (and whitcut)

You're right, bulls fans deserve better, but the rfl shouldn't me the target of blame for this, it is purely down to the owners...

Fans of sports clubs dont ' deserve ' anything, certainly not having other people subsidise the cost of their tickets, maybe if the 1,000s that were happy to pay to attend when they were winning everything had shown loyalty to the club, they wouldnt be up sht creek without a canoe now

They shouldn't selectively buy grounds or give substantial advances when their repayment is doubtful. Which other leases have they bought for £1m approx. - give us the whole list.

They failed on the financial checks the RFL took responsibility for, many times over...so a shambles.

I take your point that because they were such a shambles in their financial checks in April /May that they allowed Carvell to go ahead.

That said players failed to get paid at the end of July and there was a delay for around 2 weeks yet Gaskell signed later that month - permitted by the RFL - ho hum. Like I say, a shambles.

HTH

So they should assist other clubs but not Bradford? Tell us why?


Which financial checks are these? What are the RFL checking?


Why should the RFL have refused to register Carvell's contract?


So the players were paid then? Again why should the RFL refuse to register a legitimate contract?


Not really, all you've done is repeat what you put in your first post.

Which clubs who needed bailing out and tried to sell their lease, then the rfl refused? Please do give us the whole list.



You mean the ones where the rfl were lied to about the finances? Or the ones where they deemed that past emergency measures the person in question wasn't fit and proper and was removed from the club? Unfortunately, it was too late, he did the damage before being put in a directors position. Or should every person at every club be vetted for their financial accumen?



So after being reassured that the situation was resolved, the players being paid, and lying about administrative issues, the bulls shouldn't of been allowed to be competitive - are you suggesting they should of had transfer embargo? And for how long for? And what for - financial difficulties? they convinced most it was "an administrative error" - in which case, any embargo would of been over long before Gaskell signed ... Or should every administrative error at every club lead to a transfer embargo?

Blame the people who lied, cheated and blundered the bulls, not the people who tried to help them.

They brought Rochdale's share in Spotland when a previous guise of the Rochdale club went under, to make sure that there was still a RL interest in the stadium and that a Phoenix club would be able to play there.

When the odsal lease transfer went through (no money changed hands from what I recall, it was said to be in lieu of repayment of a previous debt) other items of the RFL's property portfolio were listed, Keighley was mentioned as well as shares in a football stadium somewhere.

Exactly. Whatever the failings of the RFL, whether their help was necessary or successful or not, they were the ones trying to help. The people who were actually in control of the club are the people responsible. Otherwise it's the equivalent of blaming the police for your car being stolen rather than the person who stole it.

So which clubs had leases bought for £1m?

If you don't know about the financial checks for licensing / checking takeovers try doing some research before you make statements, HTH

You will not find a single post by me saying the bulls owners were not to blame for the internal failings of the club. So try not to misrepresent what I have written.

The RFL do have a role impartially running the game and applying their own rules. On this they have failed miserably.

So you cannot name another case where a club had a £1m bail out...as I thought. Three mis managed clubs get bailouts. But other clubs do not get ground buying bailouts (such as wakefield). Perhaps the RFL executive should not prefer some clubs over others while spending the games money?

Why are you obsessed with the lease? That was a method of assisting Bradford in a time of need. Why would the RFL take exactly the same action in different cases? They have assisted other clubs in various ways. Why are you so against the RFL helping out Bradford?

So what checks do they make? Do you know?

Are you just ignoring the issue about signing players now?

I never said you are not shouldering the blame with the owners, there is no misrepresentation. What I am saying is there is no one else to shoulder the blame, not the fans, not the players, and not the rfl.

You keep saying the rfl have acted against their own rules/ poorly/ whatever during this fiasco. But on each occasion you have given your opinion, myself, and others, have given counter arguments and examples, and given counter questions, which you have chosen to ignore, and simple reiterated, the rfl have conducted themselves poorly - how so? Either show how my responses were wrong, or concede said points and bring more points in.

The rfl are guilty are a great many things, but they can't be accused of anything with regard how they have handled this ongoing saga

Who owned the lease of odsal at the start of this ongoing saga and who own it now? Only asking because I can't think of any other SL club that needed that level of non-assistance!

I genuinely have no idea! Tbh I'd imagine most documents like that will be held by holding company's etc, which even with clubs in trouble are financially secure - the difference between Bradford and other situations is it appears the entire ship was going down , holding company's and all, hence assets like the lease became "available" for purchase. At least to my understanding of the situation

I'm gonna have a look into who actually owns what now :p

Quote ="gutterfax"Who owned the lease of odsal at the start of this ongoing saga and who own it now? Only asking because I can't think of any other SL club that needed that level of non-assistance!'" Strange, I actually can't find ANYTHING on the financial state of the bulls before 2012 - I'm only on my iPad tonight, and will use bloomberg tomorrow to get some more detail, but he's what I have as a brief breakdown of the story so far: Date Chairman Owner Action Source Jan 12 Hood ??? Sold odsal to rfl to "secure immediate finances" www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/16709752 March 12 Hood Announces financial difficulties to the tune of 1m www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/17521786 June 12 Hood Bradford enter administration to the tune of 1.5m www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18554519 Aug 12 Whitcut? Kahn Kahn buys the club "securing financial future" www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19446070 July 13 Whitcut? Kahn Bradford players not paid due to "administrative error" www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... y_Tuesday/ Aug 13 Whitcut? Kahn Kahn injects 900k into club to pay wages www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... pay_wages/ Sep 13 Moore Kahn "steps down" as chairman, "sells" to moore www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... ip/?ref=rc Sep 13 R paul Moore Robbie paul appointed CEO www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24283813 Oct 13 R paul Moore Whitcut fails fit and proper person test and leaves www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... s/?ref=rss Nov 13 R paul Moore New financial holes found - Moore "not paying a penny of kahns loans www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... urvive___/ Dec 13 R paul Kahn? Moore and co leave bulls after kahn refuses to transfer shares www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... _the_club/ I don't believe I've missed anything major? With regards the stadium - Bradford owned it (along with whoever owned the bulls before kahn ... Who that is I don't know) they OFFERED the stadium to the rfl, who agreed a price, and seems the very start of the financial story

Quote ="gutterfax"Who owned the lease of odsal at the start of this ongoing saga and who own it now? Only asking because I can't think of any other SL club that needed that level of non-assistance!'" Strange, I actually can't find ANYTHING on the financial state of the bulls before 2012 - I'm only on my iPad tonight, and will use bloomberg tomorrow to get some more detail, but he's what I have as a brief breakdown of the story so far: Date Chairman Owner Action Source Jan 12 Hood ??? Sold odsal to rfl to "secure immediate finances" www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/16709752 March 12 Hood Announces financial difficulties to the tune of 1m www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/17521786 June 12 Hood Bradford enter administration to the tune of 1.5m www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18554519 Aug 12 Whitcut? Kahn Kahn buys the club "securing financial future" www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19446070 July 13 Whitcut? Kahn Bradford players not paid due to "administrative error" www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... y_Tuesday/ Aug 13 Whitcut? Kahn Kahn injects 900k into club to pay wages www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... pay_wages/ Sep 13 Moore Kahn "steps down" as chairman, "sells" to moore www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... ip/?ref=rc Sep 13 R paul Moore Robbie paul appointed CEO www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24283813 Oct 13 R paul Moore Whitcut fails fit and proper person test and leaves www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... s/?ref=rss Nov 13 R paul Moore New financial holes found - Moore "not paying a penny of kahns loans www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... urvive___/ Dec 13 R paul Kahn? Moore and co leave bulls after kahn refuses to transfer shares www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... _the_club/ I don't believe I've missed anything major? With regards the stadium - Bradford owned it (along with whoever owned the bulls before kahn ... Who that is I don't know) they OFFERED the stadium to the rfl, who agreed a price, and seems the very start of the financial story

Cripesginger: Why do you keep avoiding direct questions, saying the same thing, then thinking you have somehow "helped" ?

Bradford are in a unique situation with the lease hence the constant use of it as an example. I can't name another club in a similar position. I'm sure Andy or some other bulls expert can explain it better.

The ground is actually owned by the council. The lease is something else. A very long lease with I think some covenants in place about usage. Buying the lease was actually the best deal for the rfl. If they had not taken the lease then the loan made to the bulls would have been lost along with all the other creditors monies and the fans money in the administration. The lease means the rfl have an asset that even if the bulls died entirely could still generate income through speedway or some other enterprise. But it is more than likely to make a return on the lease in the lloby term. ( this being long term over a period of decades). Not to mention it has a resale value.

Taking saints as an example the rfl could not buy the lease for £1 million even if we needed the help so when other examples of rfl purchases were given you see he ignored this as it was not precisely the same figure.

The point about buying players. Well the rfl approved saints buying Amor and our losses are massive far beyond Bradford and have been for a decade. It's a pure lack of understanding of financial checks and the purpose. Financial checks do not guarantee solvancy. Just that a club could operate.

If I say the business will generate £3 millions. We will spend £3.5 and plan to increase revenue by x y and z. I also have about £2 million ofmy oan capital. That seems decent. If once approved we only generate £2.5 millions and spend £4 millions which I cover with various loans or I walk away there is jack the rfl can do to stop me even if they knew. Which they wouldn't.

Similar lease scenario at the Cougars.

My understanding is the Co-Op own the ground and the RFL hold the lease from the last time the Cougars went down the pan.



The way it works is that the RFL pay the lease so the cougars can play at the ground and the money is taken from the central pool fund that is paid to the club.


As usual the Cougars lead and the Bulls follow

That would not satisfy cripse as the lease would not be for precisely the same amount.

Who owns Belle Vue? My understanding was that Wakefield had no assets of any significance (certainly not a valuable long leasehold) which the RFL could pick up. At the Bulls, securing the lease of the ground made good financial sense. Of course, absent any assets on which to secure their money, the RFL consistently offers clubs like Wakefield, who have perpetual cashflow crises, advances on the clubs' Sky cash.

You basically appear to be asking that Wakefield be just given money for nothing - are they a unique special case?

My understanding is that the Wakefield Wildcats still own their own ground. Which is maybe why when they went into administration they had to be treated differently to the Bulls.

The Bulls had no significant assets other than the lease which they sold prior to administration.

=#FF0000(The assumption that Wakey own some or all of their ground seems to be wrong)

Cripesginger is proposing that Wakefield's lease should have been bought by the RFL for £1 million same as the Bull's.

Which shows the futility of say the same solution should be offered to all clubs in all circumstances.

Wakefield don't own Belle Vue.....“It’s early days though, Wildcats are on a rolling contract in leasing Belle Vue I believe so we have to wait to see the outcome of the new stadium and take things from there.” Think the ground was sold in the 1980s to Wakefield Metropolitan District Council to prevent the club going bankrupt back then. www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport ... -1-4023481 The potential of the club is promising however with a healthy 8,500 average crowd attendance which could grow with the correct running of the club now. It's also the only professional sports club in the City of Wakefield and one of the oldest rugby clubs in the sport dating back to 1873.

Wakefield don't own Belle Vue.....“It’s early days though, Wildcats are on a rolling contract in leasing Belle Vue I believe so we have to wait to see the outcome of the new stadium and take things from there.” Think the ground was sold in the 1980s to Wakefield Metropolitan District Council to prevent the club going bankrupt back then. www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport ... -1-4023481 The potential of the club is promising however with a healthy 8,500 average crowd attendance which could grow with the correct running of the club now. It's also the only professional sports club in the City of Wakefield and one of the oldest rugby clubs in the sport dating back to 1873.

Quote ="asmadasa"Wakefield don't own Belle Vue.....“It’s early days though, Wildcats are on a rolling contract in leasing Belle Vue I believe so we have to wait to see the outcome of the new stadium and take things from there.” Think the ground was sold in the 1980s to Wakefield Metropolitan District Council to prevent the club going bankrupt back then. www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport ... -1-4023481 The potential of the club is promising however with a healthy 8,500 average crowd attendance which could grow with the correct running of the club now. It's also the only professional sports club in the City of Wakefield and one of the oldest rugby clubs in the sport dating back to 1873.'" 8,500 on the back of some cheap ST s isnt it? , now where have we seen that before?

Quote ="asmadasa"Wakefield don't own Belle Vue.....“It’s early days though, Wildcats are on a rolling contract in leasing Belle Vue I believe so we have to wait to see the outcome of the new stadium and take things from there.” Think the ground was sold in the 1980s to Wakefield Metropolitan District Council to prevent the club going bankrupt back then. www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport ... -1-4023481 The potential of the club is promising however with a healthy 8,500 average crowd attendance which could grow with the correct running of the club now. It's also the only professional sports club in the City of Wakefield and one of the oldest rugby clubs in the sport dating back to 1873.'" 8,500 on the back of some cheap ST s isnt it? , now where have we seen that before?