Has anyone actually stated what the purpose behind the new directors setting up "Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd" is. And if the current situation only came to light last Friday. Why did they set that company up on the 12th of November?

Is this really a bolt from the blue for the new directors or did they know about it a while back?

Response to "Maurice":

Maybe. And that was relevant to the third iteration 15 months ago, when the current company was formed and granted the SL Licence.

But that is irrelevant to the present situation, since the company has not gone bust, and it is the same company. Just totally new owners, and totally new Board.

So you are missing my point, which is that folk assuming the current owners & board will continue the same financial mismanagement as their predecessors is at present without foundation. We'll judge them by THEIR actions, not by the actions of those they replaced.

Should the current company end up having to go into administration, then your argument becomes highly relevant. Probably academic though, since I cannot conceive of a Bulls phoenix ever being viable outside of SL.

And anyway, it has hardly been "pain-free mismanagement" for Bradford, with the post-administration owners being punished financially for the sins of their predecessors. Ultimately, if the current business fails it will now be because of that, irrespective of whether the punishment was justified or not.

Here is one to ponder on: some might say "let Bradford spend a fraction of what other clubs do on players then to balance the books, lose almost every game (in all likelihood) like Leigh did that time, and get relegated at the end of the season. What's wrong with that?" If Bulls were to be relegated, it would be straight into administration without a doubt. So, if you are a Bulls director, and you know (or ought to know) that in all likelihood your company will become insolvent by the end of the season because you cannot be competitive, you are bound by company law to take immediate steps to mitigate the potential loss to creditors. Which would almost certainly mean calling in administrators NOW. See the awful situation, between a rock and a hard place, that an incoming board can find itself in?

Well what is it then?

I’ve read time & time again on various threads that Bradford received less money for the 2013 season (circa £600k) & another £400k for 2014.

But I can’t for the life of me find anything official about the arrangement, was it done in a cloak & dagger way between the OK team & the RFL?

I was originally of the impression it was a way of Bradford regaining the lease on Odsal or repayment of monies lent during the initial crisis, but then people said it was a punishment for going into admin, then I heard is was a sweetener to keep their licence, with the other SL clubs agreeing for Bradford to stay in SL as long as they got a share of the spare cash.

If it was for the repayment in exchange for the lease or repayments of monies lent then, fair do’s, but as a penalty, that’s ridiculous.

They stated at the forum that it was as a vehicle for new commercial ventures, running in parallel with the existing company.

Those who know about these sort of things obviously speculated that it also provides a vehicle ready to hive the club off into, at need - maybe to quarantine it away from the loans owing to and other claims connected with or attributable to the previous ownr. If it was me, that is precisely what I would do. And I said that last week, before I got wind of what was about to be announced.

The current situation has been coming to light over a number of weeks, seemingly. I think they said every day brings some new financial revelation? Apparently, though, on Friday they found something new and very major, that was a game-changer. That was how they explained it, anyway.

In the hypothetical scenario that everything was moved from OK Bulls Ltd to Bradford Bulls (2014) Ltd except for loans owing to the former owners (which most folk assumed were not loans but capital, and were never disabused of that misconception), and then the shell of OK Bulls Ltd was wound up so the only financial loss was to the former owners, I doubt the RFL or any other reasonable person would have a problem with that.

The figure has been reported as half the sky money for 2 seasons, which equates to around 650k per season. This was apparently offered by OK as a way of keeping the licence, which the Super League clubs accepted (not the RFL) and chose to divide amongst themselves. If you call this a sweetener or a penalty either term would seem appropriate.
There was no reports or that it was as a repayment for the Odsal lease which is held by the RFL who got nothing from that deal. There was also no report that Bradford had received 2013 Sky money early, but 2012 sky money was certainly paid early prior to OK buying the club from the administrator.

Pure penalty. Forfeit 50% of 2013 and 50% of 2014 Sky money, to be shared out amongst the other clubs, as a condition of the other clubs allowing OK Bulls Ltd to be assigned the SL Licence.

Nothing to do with the lease. The RFL still own the head lease, on a peppercorn rent to the council, which they could probably surrender to the council (who could then fill in the hole and sell the land to developers) at much more than they paid the previouys Bulls company.

Nothing to do with forgiving loans from the RFL. Contrary to some of the Waknerage being pedalled, the previous company at insolvency owed very little to the RFL, and during the administration all that happened was that on a couple of occasions the RFL paid Bradford their monthly Sky monies instalment a bit early, to assist cash flow.

Everything, I think to do with other club owners saying "we've spend a shedload of our own money bankrolling our clubs, and we are not prepared to see one club get away without paying its debts. (Even though they allowed precisely that when London went bust and took HMRC for £1/2m a few years previously). Most Bulls fans I think were resigned to there being an element of justice in that attitude, but were incensed when the money forfeited by the Bulls was shared out amongst the rest of the clubs instead of being used for the good of the game or to repay creditors of the old club.

Question asked



Question answered.

It was effectively both those things, a deterent to others and a punishment, as well as a sweetner. If you remember at the time there were numerous clubs that wanted the bulls out and some that wanted us in. Then the half sky money for 2013 and 2014 deal appeared with effectively one whole year of Bulls sky money being split between the other clubs (not sure whos idea it was initially, possibly OK's? - I dont think it was ever made clear but certainly it was this deal or oblivion, or champ1 at best so it dosent really matter whos idea it was) and all of a sudden all the clubs could see the benefit to keeping Bradford in.

Cloak and dagger to be sure, I dont remember a single official release from anyone, the only public domain press on it was through interviews with Bulls staff and board members by the local press. Certainly nothing from Superleague, other clubs, or the RFL that I saw.



#edit, clearly Im slower at typing than Adey or childofthenorthern, doh. Take a mix of all three answers, its the same gist

Thanks for clearing that up lads.







It sucks.

If all debts are to Director Loans then do a deal with said Directors as they know they will not get them back due to no assets except the players and the SL franchise. They own the player contracts, who would become free agents if their contracts were breached, so could sell anyone of value, Bateman?, and there would be nothing BB2014 could do about it, or are you saying that OKB would allow the movement of its assets to BB2014 for no recompence? and fold OKB whose only debts were to its owners??? If that's the case then capitalise the loans to shares and sell all the shares for £1 and keep OKB alive

Are you also saying that money coming in goes to a company, BB2014, that doesn't have a team, a stadium to play in or a licence to play at all - who would put money into that?

PS Good luck to all Bradford fans because fans are why clubs exist

Good luck to all Bull's fans and the Club.

Regardless of who was in charge, the 50% Sky dosh reduction for 2 years was always going to be unmanageable. Although clearly OK thought he could do it. Twas never going to be the case which is surprising for an experienced businessman.

What shocks me is that the £500K raised was not used to buy a share of the club with fan representation? It seems to just have been pi$$ed away and /or used for paying previous directors' debts which appears to be bordering on the criminal.

The 50% reduction for 2013 & 2014 seems very harsh and counter productive in that it almost certainly doomed the club to greater problems. No club can survive with that reduction.

Only in RL would be punish a club in financial trouble with a financial penalty!

In other sports it would be relegation which equates to the same thing

Ex Adey Bull

Here is one to ponder on: some might say "let Bradford spend a fraction of what other clubs do on players then to balance the books, lose almost every game (in all likelihood) like Leigh did that time, and get relegated at the end of the season. What's wrong with that?" If Bulls were to be relegated, it would be straight into administration without a doubt. So, if you are a Bulls director, and you know (or ought to know) that in all likelihood your company will become insolvent by the end of the season because you cannot be competitive, you are bound by company law to take immediate steps to mitigate the potential loss to creditors. Which would almost certainly mean calling in administrators NOW. See the awful situation, between a rock and a hard place, that an incoming board can find itself in?

Adey - If they trade out of OK Ltd then surely they are all Personally liable for debts as that company is insolvent isnt it? Or do I have it wrong? As you say - A Rock & a Hard place.

As I understood it. It was the Omar Khan administration who offered to take a cut out of the sky money for 2014. That was part of the deal to get the licence sorted.

The club isn't been penalised at all. It's what they suggested. The books were submitted and audited by whoever the RFL get to do that and the licence was granted.

Now it turns out that the accounts and forecasts submitted were a load of steaming Bulls**t. And departments within the club were given different numbers to work to. And now £400k needs to be saved. It's total mismanagement and misleading.

Should we feel sorry for the new directors? Probably not. They should have checked out the situation at the club before coming on board. Now they're in a real sticky position whereby they have to sort out the mess of others who've resigned due to ill health, not been deemed fit and proper or simply slipped away when Omar did

Bradford T&A now report that OK is starting Legal action to recover monies he says he is owed www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... al_action/ So the Man who "Saved" the Bulls is potentially going to finish them off.

Bradford T&A now report that OK is starting Legal action to recover monies he says he is owed www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... al_action/ So the Man who "Saved" the Bulls is potentially going to finish them off.

#Bullsfamily

A complete mess , time for some serious and radical decisions to be made within the sport

Tbf I remember clubs going through this 20 years ago, it is hardly a new thing for RL!

So after 18 years of SL,sky money and professionalism we've gone back 20 years

Nail on the fsking head there!!!

Quote ="Brew"Bradford T&A now report that OK is starting Legal action to recover monies he says he is owed www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... al_action/ So the Man who "Saved" the Bulls is potentially going to finish them off.'" Actually, Khan is taking action against Moore and Whitcut as individuals rather than taking legal action against the club.

Quote ="Brew"Bradford T&A now report that OK is starting Legal action to recover monies he says he is owed www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... al_action/ So the Man who "Saved" the Bulls is potentially going to finish them off.'" Actually, Khan is taking action against Moore and Whitcut as individuals rather than taking legal action against the club.

Quote ="Brew"As I understood it. It was the Omar Khan administration who offered to take a cut out of the sky money for 2014. That was part of the deal to get the licence sorted. The club isn't been penalised at all. It's what they suggested. The books were submitted and audited by whoever the RFL get to do that and the licence was granted. '" Completely wrong. It was take that or leave it. And anyway, who in their right mind would "suggest" losing half their Sky distribution? Quote ="Brew"Now it turns out that the accounts and forecasts submitted were a load of steaming Bulls**t. '" Not so. Given how closely clubs, and especially clubs in our situation, are monitored, that could never be the case anyway. The esential problem is that different, bigger, numbers were seemingly given to departments, so people in the club thought they had loads more money to spend than the club actually had. Sounds rather weird, and pointless, but that is what was said, Quote ="Brew" And departments within the club were given different numbers to work to. And now £400k needs to be saved. It's total mismanagement and misleading. '" If true, yes. Quote ="Brew"Should we feel sorry for the new directors? Probably not. They should have checked out the situation at the club before coming on board. '" Now that is unfair. It seems obvious given the precipitate nature of the takeover that it would have been impossible to do thorough and detailed due diligence. Of course, you either due proper due diligence, or else you take a certain degree basically on trust. if there was no time to pis.s about then their choice as I see it would have been between say accepting the basic figures and numbers as given, or walking away, wouldn't you say? What if they took the decision to come on board as without [isomebody[/i doing so, the club had nowhere to go, and so they took the chance and were let down badly? I have no idea if that is true of course but it seems to be a fair summary of what has come out. Quote ="Brew"Now they're in a real sticky position whereby they have to sort out the mess of others who've resigned due to ill health, not been deemed fit and proper or simply slipped away when Omar did'" Again, wrong. They don't "have to". No doubt in the fullness of time the new owners will become the new hate objects, but no, they don't have to at all, and they don't need any of this. They could just have walked away. They still could. Quote ="Brew"Bradford T&A now report that OK is starting Legal action to recover monies he says he is owed www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... al_action/ Quote ="Brew"So the Man who "Saved" the Bulls is potentially going to finish them off.'" '" He is not suing the Bulls, only MM and RW.

Quote ="Brew"As I understood it. It was the Omar Khan administration who offered to take a cut out of the sky money for 2014. That was part of the deal to get the licence sorted. The club isn't been penalised at all. It's what they suggested. The books were submitted and audited by whoever the RFL get to do that and the licence was granted. '" Completely wrong. It was take that or leave it. And anyway, who in their right mind would "suggest" losing half their Sky distribution? Quote ="Brew"Now it turns out that the accounts and forecasts submitted were a load of steaming Bulls**t. '" Not so. Given how closely clubs, and especially clubs in our situation, are monitored, that could never be the case anyway. The esential problem is that different, bigger, numbers were seemingly given to departments, so people in the club thought they had loads more money to spend than the club actually had. Sounds rather weird, and pointless, but that is what was said, Quote ="Brew" And departments within the club were given different numbers to work to. And now £400k needs to be saved. It's total mismanagement and misleading. '" If true, yes. Quote ="Brew"Should we feel sorry for the new directors? Probably not. They should have checked out the situation at the club before coming on board. '" Now that is unfair. It seems obvious given the precipitate nature of the takeover that it would have been impossible to do thorough and detailed due diligence. Of course, you either due proper due diligence, or else you take a certain degree basically on trust. if there was no time to pis.s about then their choice as I see it would have been between say accepting the basic figures and numbers as given, or walking away, wouldn't you say? What if they took the decision to come on board as without [isomebody[/i doing so, the club had nowhere to go, and so they took the chance and were let down badly? I have no idea if that is true of course but it seems to be a fair summary of what has come out. Quote ="Brew"Now they're in a real sticky position whereby they have to sort out the mess of others who've resigned due to ill health, not been deemed fit and proper or simply slipped away when Omar did'" Again, wrong. They don't "have to". No doubt in the fullness of time the new owners will become the new hate objects, but no, they don't have to at all, and they don't need any of this. They could just have walked away. They still could. Quote ="Brew"Bradford T&A now report that OK is starting Legal action to recover monies he says he is owed www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... al_action/ Quote ="Brew"So the Man who "Saved" the Bulls is potentially going to finish them off.'" '" He is not suing the Bulls, only MM and RW.

What an absolute mess, whoever brokered the Sky money deal needs shooting. Short term it retained their SL status, but it's hampered them even further and put them even further behind.

In some sports the top clubs would rally around the club and waive the deal. In RL however, it seems it's become a dog eat dog world. Best of luck Bradford, get behind the club and you'll come through it.

That wasn't apparent when that article was first published.

Either way. It's a complete mess. Only a few people know the real truth of what's gone on. But no one seems to want to stand up and say that the mismanagement was down to them.

I believe OK and RW go back quite a way. So they've certainly killed their working relationship off.