The thing is, Pearson has invested his own money, when he bought out the old regime.

But the club is his, he can do as he wishes. You'll find that bank covenants and personal guarantees would thwart your idea of him asset stripping. Also, in current times, I doubt many banks would lend big to a company with no asset security.

One thing I agree with, I doubt Pearson will be at Hull anywhere near as long as Hudgel will have been.

So what do you think his intentions are?

He (Pearson) would not accept a loss on his investment, I guess only Adam knows what his intentions are but it all looks very suspect to me.

Like I said, there are ways for him to make a profit out of Hull FC over the next 2 to 3 years even if he sells the club for what he paid for it originally, including the debt he paid off!

If I am wrong then Mr Pearson is prepared to lose unfathomable amount of money, and this I just don’t believe will happen.

I suppose you will all want a detailed explanation of how he can possibly make money out of Hull, but without knowing exactly what he intends to do, it would be almost impossible, and as you all say, I am wrong anyway!

Only time will tell, a good time scale for him to make a decent amount of money would be about 4 years, 3 at a push, then he will sell the club (maybe for even less than he bought it for, which still makes him look like the good guy) and move, on Hull fans will thank him for saving them and Adam will have a nice little profit in the bank, everyone is a winner!

What part of "Hull board" are you failing to understand? You freppin' gormless gits.

Sorry, I will say no more on the subject.

HULL BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, anything more goes in the bin. A bit is inevitable, and it's not an uninteresting discussion*, just not here to this extent.


*The use of a double negative is legitimate when looking to downplay or understate - how I hate the pedantry of others, especially those too senior for me to tell them to their faces. Wait 10 years and do it on here, that'll show 'em.

edit: Oh, I see it is sorted. My thanks.

Did someone say AP was saving for a conservatory? I wouldn't mind one myself...

font banned from hull forum as people got fed up of his trolling, on the subject here hudgell is right about one thing, sl are bending over backwards for bradford a lot of which stinks the room out,it sends the wrong message out,it seems some clubs are ringfenced against any missdimeaners,is that spelt right?

What Trolling?

Must be nearly a record for a ban that.

If it is somebody buying Bradford and they can strike a deal with creditors, then I'm all for that - really good news. That's how the most recent press reports are framed, but they're vague enough and I'm cynical enough to just wonder.

If they let in a newco Bradford then that is more than a bit whiffy, but c'est la vie. If they do that [uand[/u try to keep licensing that will be 2 parts shameful to 1 part embarrassment, IMO. Though it was all very opaque, I wonder now if that is what happened with Crusaders. They'd struggle to keep this under wraps... if it's a newco, which hopefully it won't be.

It seems I am not banned as stated by hull2524, I have just posted on the Hull board.

Surely the 7 figure SLE bid rules out any chance of a 'newco' since it guarantees that creditors will be paid whatever the outcome.

The administrator is hardly going to accept an offer which will not pay the creditors when he has one from SLE which will.

I never saw any indication that SLE would be paying a 7-figure fee, or guaranteeing debt. In fact I think Hetherington made a point of saying it would only cover liabilities [igoing forward[/i. It had newco written all over it, IMO. Can you imagine the clubs finding £100k each to pay off someone elses debts in full? Unless they've already agreed a CVA in principle for pennies in the pound, not a chance - and why would HMRC accept that?
To me it looks like either:
1. One or more of the bids look likely to fly as an oldco. Fingers crossed.
2. The clubs have looked over the precipice and didn't like what they saw. If that's the case they'll hopefully make the small leap of logic that a sacrifice then has to made to save the Bulls - licensing.

Getting a bit broken record about this, I know, but I'm haunted by visions of massively damaging gormcloptitude. And the coverage has been more heat than light. Lots of people trying to be sensible and reasonable, while missing the point or not thinking about the wider implications.

I was just about to mention that. Seems some folk assume that if a poster doesn't post for a few days he must be banned.

Assume, or hope?

I assure you the administrator is on record as saying he would accept the SLE bid if no other was forthcoming. He added that it guaranteed the Bulls would not be liquidated and therefore there would be no newco. The bid was for a 7 figure sum, liquidation wouldn't provide anything like that and so that threat was removed.

The clubs would then get their money back by relegating Bradford and taking their TV money.

However it is now very obvious the clubs are happy to give the green light to one of the other bids now on the table either Bradford Park Avenue or Omar Khan both of which match the SLE offer. The SLE bid ensured that any other had to at least match it and creditors would be paid. One of the 2 bidders will own Bradford by next week, creditors will be paid and the Bulls will stay in Super League. A good outcome - provided the new owners do not have ulterior motives.

[urlhttp://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/bradford-bulls/super-league-rivals-provide-chance-for-bradford-bulls-to-secure-future-1-4856718[/url

No, we just lost against Wakefield, thats all!!

I did have some fun.

Not my reading of the SLE bid - why save them to relegate them? 'Integrity of the competition' or £100k and getting their 2013 TV money anyway, seems an easy choice.
If the creditors get their end, then that is great.

Couldn't be duller this shizzle.

No surprise whose the instigator.

Sorry to go on - honestly. But the reason for the SLE bid was that after the RFL/SLE turned down the ABC consortium the administrator threatened to liquidate Bradford there and then - sending the current season into utter chaos.

The administrator wanted to accept the ABC bid, they offered the best deal in town for the creditors. But the RFL were wary of giving Odsal and £1m guaranteed TV income to this previously non- rugby loving group of astute asian businessmen. Which is what they demanded as part of the deal.

The administrator was miffed - he'd found a deal to suit creditors and the pesky RFL wouldn't play ball. So he told the RFL Bradford would be liquidated.

At a hastily convened meeting of the SL clubs they came up with a solution to avoid what would have been within days the extinction of Bradford Bulls. They put in a bid themselves which they knew the administrator and the creditors couldn't refuse and guess what? The bid was for the exact amount of one years Bulls TV money which is a 7 figure sum.

SLE didn't really want to own Bradford they hoped another bid would materialise which would pay off the debts and now it has. That wouldn't have happened without the SLE bid - no one pays more than they have to but the SLE offer started the bidding at £1m.

One last point to consider - former chairman and still major shareholder Chris Caisley. He forced the resignation of chairman Peter Hood and then put the club into administration under Brendan Guilfoyle, someone known well to him via his law firm. Since then complete & utter silence from Caisley - was he hoping and expecting to pick up a 'newco' complete with Super League licence? Some people think so. If so the rug was well & truly pulled from under his feet by (IMO) the quite brilliant manouvre from Super League.

BTW although I am and always will be a lifelong Rovers supporter I live & work in Bradford hence my particular interest in them.

My take on the SLE bid is how it satisfied the creditors (circa £1.5 million) in order to avoid liquidation, and as such set the bar for any other bid(s). Note how there has not been any reference toward a CVA.

The £100,000 payback (so to speak) would be adjusted by the 2 'advances' made to cover the Bulls July/August players contracts.

I have to say I do feel the administrator has overstepped his remit. Having worked for the Official Receivers Office in the past, his sole duty was to find a buyer who would satisfy the Bulls creditors, and NOT to find a buyer who can demonstrate continuance of the business. TBH I am surprised the creditors, in particular, the tax man (IR & VAT), have not pursued the winding up order or placed enormous pressure once the administrator didn't bite the SLEs hand off!

Avoiding the damage to this season clearly was an issue, but so would be paying £1.5m [ijust[/i to avoid that one problem. 'Handing over' Odsal was clearly going to be more than problematic, but the Sky money and a place in SL wouldn't be an unreasonable request [ufor an oldco[/u. Take on the liabilities, take on the licence basically.




That anybody is willing to put in a bid that big is pretty astonishing and even more amazing would be that it hasn't then been resolved by now. I think we can probably both see a likely explanation, but to state it would be potentially libellous.

Anyway, if you're right it is to be an oldco, which is best all round.