Bradford at it again one of the directors on the radio last night saying we are reducing the debt rapidly and in the next couple of months we can give Cummins some extra cash to get some better players in, there is light at the end of the tunnell blah blah blah. Nearly made me puke on the way home from work. Well done Bradford you really have busted a gut to reduce the debt for this season!! All your star names been forced out Sammuit, Carvell ??? No wait a minute WEINTERSTEIN

Not our problem, lets just follow our team and not get in to there business

Obsessed!!!!

If they've managed to do it without selling players then so be it. Good for them.
I'm not sure what your problem is.

We had to sell players and get expensive players off our books, if they've done it without then well done.

However I suspect that unless they get some extra investment in then it won't be long before they're in the mire again. Hopefully the approach we took means that we won't be.

My concern would be that they arent out of the woods and are taking a calculated gamble.

Scenario 1 - Offload players and balance the books = potential relegation.

Scenario 2 - Keep the squad together,dont balance the books and muddle through = avoiding relegation.

It would be interesting to see what punishment the rfl would dish out should it be scenario 2 and the club subsequently enters admin after 2014 season has finished.......................because a points deduction the following season wouldnt fit with the "crime"and the reward they have gained - ie avoiding relegation.

I can't see the issue.
They have had some sponsorship deals and have made some people redundant.

If that's how they want to reduce their expenditure/debt and have done so, why should it concern us, apart from maybe learning from it?

Thing people aren't realising is that the 400k figure bandied about isn't a debt. Ts a deficit on the projected incomes for the coming year. If we'd carried on without taking action we would have been 400k in debt at the end of the season. The deficit came to light because the new board redid all the budget forecasts after they took over and were more realistic in their projected incomes than the previous owner. They've reduced outgoing by losing some back room staff and releasing winterstein. At the same time they've increased incoming funds with new sponsorship deals.
From memory when wakey had a similar figure to save when MC took over it was an immediate debt which needed paying hence the need to raise funds quickly by selling players. Bulls situation is different as we had time to deal with issue before it became an actual debt.

Exactly the same thing we've had to post numerous times in response to largely the same stuff directed at us; people tend to see the figure, their eyes gloss over and they assume it's a debt - repeat it a few times and before you know it, the received wisdom is that x club is y 00's of 000's in debt.

I don't like what's gone on up at Odsal in recent years but if the new owners are managing to bring the finances back into alignment - fair play to them; if not and it goes belly up mid-season, then I guess one of the relegation spots will be pre-determined.

An addition to that is you cannot force players to leave who are already cantracted to 2014 and beyond. Most other SL clubs have their squads complete for 2014. In the WTW scenerio other SL clubs were building up there player rosta's for 2014 - hence Poore to HKR, Smith to Salford and so on.

I really couldn't care less what happens at Bradford.

Yep. If they stay good for them, if they go so be it.

I don't care about a Bradford but it has to be looked at if is as suggested that a club 'rolls the dice' with their finances this season to stay in Super League whilst a more financially frugal carefully managed club gets relegated in their place by not overspending.

I can't see how Bulls are, as you say rolling any dice. The club might want to trim the squad down but players simply don't want to leave. They can't just sack players when they have legally binding contracts.

The only other alternative would be to go into administration - and it wasn't that long ago that this same option to WTW was blocked by the RFL. The same might apply to Bulls for all we know.

good luck to them if they have managed to do this without having to sell but I'd be concerned if I was Carter and it cost us a place for the season after

It does make you wonder doesn't it; if Bradford, having been helped beyond the wildest dreams of any other club, manage to scrape through this season and avoid the drop, we could have a genuine grievance. As far as I'm aware, we were prevented from signing players in the off-season until our financial future was secured (by Messrs Carter and Brereton's mortgages) and although we had an advance of Sky money, it is to be repaid.

Quote ="bren2k"icon_lol.gif Exactly the same thing we've had to post numerous times in response to largely the same stuff directed at us; people tend to see the figure, their eyes gloss over and they assume it's a debt - repeat it a few times and before you know it, the received wisdom is that x club is y 00's of 000's in debt. '" Perhaps Daddycool could explain then, seeing as he's said himself in this article www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news ... 3/2013/10/ : "are still things coming out of the woodwork, but we have paid a large chunk of the debts we inherited." Even your own chairman says debts. In terms of Bradford, the quote about money next season is because they get the full allocation of Sky money - i.e. £600k more.

Quote ="bren2k"icon_lol.gif Exactly the same thing we've had to post numerous times in response to largely the same stuff directed at us; people tend to see the figure, their eyes gloss over and they assume it's a debt - repeat it a few times and before you know it, the received wisdom is that x club is y 00's of 000's in debt. '" Perhaps Daddycool could explain then, seeing as he's said himself in this article www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news ... 3/2013/10/ : "are still things coming out of the woodwork, but we have paid a large chunk of the debts we inherited." Even your own chairman says debts. In terms of Bradford, the quote about money next season is because they get the full allocation of Sky money - i.e. £600k more.

Quote ="Fully"Perhaps Daddycool could explain then, seeing as he's said himself in this article www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news ... 3/2013/10/ : "are still things coming out of the woodwork, but we have paid a large chunk of the debts we inherited." Even your own chairman says debts. In terms of Bradford, the quote about money next season is because they get the full allocation of Sky money - i.e. £600k more.'" bet you dig graves for a living

Quote ="Fully"Perhaps Daddycool could explain then, seeing as he's said himself in this article www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news ... 3/2013/10/ : "are still things coming out of the woodwork, but we have paid a large chunk of the debts we inherited." Even your own chairman says debts. In terms of Bradford, the quote about money next season is because they get the full allocation of Sky money - i.e. £600k more.'" bet you dig graves for a living

And with a bit of luck chucks himself in one.

Quote ="Fully"Perhaps Daddycool could explain then, seeing as he's said himself in this article www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news ... 3/2013/10/ : "are still things coming out of the woodwork, but we have paid a large chunk of the debts we inherited." Even your own chairman says debts. In terms of Bradford, the quote about money next season is because they get the full allocation of Sky money - i.e. £600k more.'" Here's Comical Ali, gathering intel to re-brand for the nutjob forum! Different issues - the club was under-capitalised for the coming season, hence the sale of some players and the efficiencies in the backroom staff; the debt was discovered as part of that process - hence, it 'came out of the woodwork.' Ok with you?

Quote ="Fully"Perhaps Daddycool could explain then, seeing as he's said himself in this article www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news ... 3/2013/10/ : "are still things coming out of the woodwork, but we have paid a large chunk of the debts we inherited." Even your own chairman says debts. In terms of Bradford, the quote about money next season is because they get the full allocation of Sky money - i.e. £600k more.'" Here's Comical Ali, gathering intel to re-brand for the nutjob forum! Different issues - the club was under-capitalised for the coming season, hence the sale of some players and the efficiencies in the backroom staff; the debt was discovered as part of that process - hence, it 'came out of the woodwork.' Ok with you?

Not going to argue - it's futile when you cannot have a reasonable discussion on here with you Bren. If you prefer to act childish, so be it. However, it has always been mentioned in tandem with debt, as this video also proves www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/23950797 Within first few mins it's said that the club has some immediate and pressing debts left from previous regime that need attention and therefore need £400k. Perhaps it's not meant in that way but all and sundry have reported it as debts and therefore I must question why the club have not bothered to correct this if it is indeed an error. I no doubt expect some other childish response; this hasn't even got anything to do with the other forum. It was a genuine point as to why it's referred to as debt everywhere and, in that sense, you can hardly ridicule people for stating that themselves.

Not going to argue - it's futile when you cannot have a reasonable discussion on here with you Bren. If you prefer to act childish, so be it. However, it has always been mentioned in tandem with debt, as this video also proves www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/23950797 Within first few mins it's said that the club has some immediate and pressing debts left from previous regime that need attention and therefore need £400k. Perhaps it's not meant in that way but all and sundry have reported it as debts and therefore I must question why the club have not bothered to correct this if it is indeed an error. I no doubt expect some other childish response; this hasn't even got anything to do with the other forum. It was a genuine point as to why it's referred to as debt everywhere and, in that sense, you can hardly ridicule people for stating that themselves.

Quote ="Fully"Not going to argue - it's futile when you cannot have a reasonable discussion on here with you Bren. If you prefer to act childish, so be it. However, it has always been mentioned in tandem with debt, as this video also proves www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/23950797 Within first few mins it's said that the club has some immediate and pressing debts left from previous regime that need attention and therefore need £400k. Perhaps it's not meant in that way but all and sundry have reported it as debts and therefore I must question why the club have not bothered to correct this if it is indeed an error. I no doubt expect some other childish response; this hasn't even got anything to do with the other forum. It was a genuine point as to why it's referred to as debt everywhere and, in that sense, you can hardly ridicule people for stating that themselves.'" Obsessed that's all WE ARE THE FAMOUS WAKEFIELD TRINITY

Quote ="Fully"Not going to argue - it's futile when you cannot have a reasonable discussion on here with you Bren. If you prefer to act childish, so be it. However, it has always been mentioned in tandem with debt, as this video also proves www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/23950797 Within first few mins it's said that the club has some immediate and pressing debts left from previous regime that need attention and therefore need £400k. Perhaps it's not meant in that way but all and sundry have reported it as debts and therefore I must question why the club have not bothered to correct this if it is indeed an error. I no doubt expect some other childish response; this hasn't even got anything to do with the other forum. It was a genuine point as to why it's referred to as debt everywhere and, in that sense, you can hardly ridicule people for stating that themselves.'" Obsessed that's all WE ARE THE FAMOUS WAKEFIELD TRINITY

Quote ="Fully"Not going to argue - it's futile when you cannot have a reasonable discussion on here with you Bren. If you prefer to act childish, so be it. However, it has always been mentioned in tandem with debt, as this video also proves www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/23950797 Within first few mins it's said that the club has some immediate and pressing debts left from previous regime that need attention and therefore need £400k. Perhaps it's not meant in that way but all and sundry have reported it as debts and therefore I must question why the club have not bothered to correct this if it is indeed an error. : SLEEPY: I no doubt expect some other childish response; this hasn't even got anything to do with the other forum. It was a genuine point as to why it's referred to as debt everywhere and, in that sense, you can hardly ridicule people for stating that themselves.'"

Quote ="Fully"Not going to argue - it's futile when you cannot have a reasonable discussion on here with you Bren. If you prefer to act childish, so be it. However, it has always been mentioned in tandem with debt, as this video also proves www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/23950797 Within first few mins it's said that the club has some immediate and pressing debts left from previous regime that need attention and therefore need £400k. Perhaps it's not meant in that way but all and sundry have reported it as debts and therefore I must question why the club have not bothered to correct this if it is indeed an error. : SLEEPY: I no doubt expect some other childish response; this hasn't even got anything to do with the other forum. It was a genuine point as to why it's referred to as debt everywhere and, in that sense, you can hardly ridicule people for stating that themselves.'"

Bateman? Our most exciting academy prospect. L'estrange, our co captain and probably highest earner? Jamie Langley, again probably our highest earner. Lulia again another top earner. We've also had cuts and redundancies across the whole club.

I think (and hope) things are genuinely different this time. When Khan came in and saved the club (for which i am still grateful) Khan made made a load of noises how the Bulls were back, 2013 was our year etc Similarly as Glover did with yours.

This time the directors stated straight from the off that they had a 400k deficit to make up. They are business men first and foremost and are looking to get the finances in order. I think our situations were pretty similar, both went through bad times, were saved by local enthusiastic local businessmen, things didn't turn out great but no wboth look to be under control with proper business men who won't over spend to get extra twitter followers.

Hope you guys have a good season! As long as you don't finish above us

Quote ="Fully"Not going to argue - it's futile when you cannot have a reasonable discussion on here with you Bren. If you prefer to act childish, so be it. However, it has always been mentioned in tandem with debt, as this video also proves www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/23950797 Within first few mins it's said that the club has some immediate and pressing debts left from previous regime that need attention and therefore need £400k. Perhaps it's not meant in that way [ubut all and sundry have reported it as debts[/u and therefore I must question why the club have not bothered to correct this if it is indeed an error. I no doubt expect some other childish response; this hasn't even got anything to do with the other forum. It was a genuine point as to why it's referred to as debt everywhere and, in that sense, you can hardly ridicule people for stating that themselves.'" Did they really?? www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-6003018 www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... 6/8898655/ It seems they above reported it as under capitalised.

Quote ="Fully"Not going to argue - it's futile when you cannot have a reasonable discussion on here with you Bren. If you prefer to act childish, so be it. However, it has always been mentioned in tandem with debt, as this video also proves www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/23950797 Within first few mins it's said that the club has some immediate and pressing debts left from previous regime that need attention and therefore need £400k. Perhaps it's not meant in that way [ubut all and sundry have reported it as debts[/u and therefore I must question why the club have not bothered to correct this if it is indeed an error. I no doubt expect some other childish response; this hasn't even got anything to do with the other forum. It was a genuine point as to why it's referred to as debt everywhere and, in that sense, you can hardly ridicule people for stating that themselves.'" Did they really?? www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-6003018 www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... 6/8898655/ It seems they above reported it as under capitalised.

That's just a re-hash of the original statement released on the club site. But since then it's been referred to as debt - both from people at the club - and also in national press. www.dailystar.co.uk/rugby-league ... ants-party www.totalrl.com/web/super-league ... -wildcats/ www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24940791 But besides that, the point of my comments were to highlight - in response to Bren - that this wasn't something dreamt up by people commenting, more it's just what people are reporting from elsewhere. Either it's debt or it isn't debt.

That's just a re-hash of the original statement released on the club site. But since then it's been referred to as debt - both from people at the club - and also in national press. www.dailystar.co.uk/rugby-league ... ants-party www.totalrl.com/web/super-league ... -wildcats/ www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24940791 But besides that, the point of my comments were to highlight - in response to Bren - that this wasn't something dreamt up by people commenting, more it's just what people are reporting from elsewhere. Either it's debt or it isn't debt.