Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Bulls news thread


  • Please log in to reply
158 replies to this topic

#61 scrape_goose

scrape_goose
  • Coach
  • 1,445 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 10:26 AM

I don't see how he's been greedy, he hasn't said that he wants it, he said it's dissapointing it wasn't used for the wider good of the game and was just split between the other SL clubs.

#62 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,616 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 10:43 AM

Do we know why they aren't getting it is it simply a punishment for going into administration. Or is it to repay the money the previous regime had early to make sure they saw out the season. If its the first then the money should of gone to the RFL to invest in the game. If its the second reason I think the other clubs are well within their rights to want that money back

Pretty impossible to say, to be honest, though I'd suspect it was decided last season, since it was pretty much known beforehand and no doubt was part of the negotiations in getting the other clubs 'on-side' with the deal.

You are repeating the old canard about getting "extra" funding last season; they did not, they just got some Sky payments early, that's not quite the same as getting more than they were due. It's very true that a number of clubs gave donations to the Bulls in the form of free tickets or giving the club all the entry money paid by Bradford fans, and all of us, fans, players and officials are very grateful - it helped to save the club and, along with other efforts, is directly responsible for the club being in SL this coming season. Are you suggesting they are taking it back? quid pro quo?

I've said before that I don't think there is any point in 'fining' the new owners - they are blameless - but, if we are to start at a disadvantage then so be it, but why has half our Sky money gone to the other clubs, putting us at a bigger disadvantage?, why not put the cash into funding youth development, promoting the international game, maybe as part of an RL fund to help badly injured players at all levels - I'm sorry, but I can find a number far more worthy causes than jusxt doling out the money to the other SL clubs.
No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#63 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,244 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:03 AM

why not put the cash into funding youth development, promoting the international game, maybe as part of an RL fund to help badly injured players at all levels - I'm sorry, but I can find a number far more worthy causes than jusxt doling out the money to the other SL clubs.

I would suspect that the money has gone to Super League (Europe) rather than the RFL, and Super League (Europe) are only responsible for Super League rather than the International game etc. It was fown to the clubs as a whole to decide what to do with the cash rather than the governing body. And who's to say the clubs won't spend the extra cash on youth?

St Albans Centurions 1st Team Manager. Former Medway Dragons Wheelchair RL player.

 

Leeds Rhinos, St Albans Centurions y Griffons Madrid fan. Also follow (to a lesser extent) Catalans Dragons, London Broncos, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Jacksonville Axemen, Vrchlabi Mad Squirrels, København Black Swans, Red Star Belgrade and North Hertfordshire Crusaders.
 
Moderator of the International board


#64 Adeybull

Adeybull
  • Coach
  • 493 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:15 AM

Pretty impossible to say, to be honest, though I'd suspect it was decided last season, since it was pretty much known beforehand and no doubt was part of the negotiations in getting the other clubs 'on-side' with the deal.

You are repeating the old canard about getting "extra" funding last season; they did not, they just got some Sky payments early, that's not quite the same as getting more than they were due. It's very true that a number of clubs gave donations to the Bulls in the form of free tickets or giving the club all the entry money paid by Bradford fans, and all of us, fans, players and officials are very grateful - it helped to save the club and, along with other efforts, is directly responsible for the club being in SL this coming season. Are you suggesting they are taking it back? quid pro quo?

I've said before that I don't think there is any point in 'fining' the new owners - they are blameless - but, if we are to start at a disadvantage then so be it, but why has half our Sky money gone to the other clubs, putting us at a bigger disadvantage?, why not put the cash into funding youth development, promoting the international game, maybe as part of an RL fund to help badly injured players at all levels - I'm sorry, but I can find a number far more worthy causes than jusxt doling out the money to the other SL clubs.


Leeds gave the Bulls administrator a considerable sum from their home game against Bulls. That was to pay players, and Is a gesture I will not forget in a hurry. I think we gained a better idea through all this which clubs were our friends...and which we're not.

Warrington and Hudds gave over £7k and over £3k respectively to the Bullbuilder Hardship fund ( not the club or the administrator, and deliberately so) from sales of away tickets. I was not involved with the Hudds arrangement, but dealt with the Warrington one and found them to be very sympathetic and helpful. The hardship fund made donations to staff working without pay and their families, and those donations made a significant contribution to there still being a club now.

Not sure what other direct contributions there were from other clubs.

I really wish I could see the logic of punishing a totally new company, seriously hamstringing it and raising the bar perilously high for it to have chance of succeeding, for the sins of a previous company and it's warring shareholders. But I admit I cannot.

#65 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,616 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:23 AM

Leeds gave the Bulls administrator a considerable sum from their home game against Bulls. That was to pay players, and Is a gesture I will not forget in a hurry. I think we gained a better idea through all this which clubs were our friends...and which we're not.

Warrington and Hudds gave over £7k and over £3k respectively to the Bullbuilder Hardship fund ( not the club or the administrator, and deliberately so) from sales of away tickets. I was not involved with the Hudds arrangement, but dealt with the Warrington one and found them to be very sympathetic and helpful. The hardship fund made donations to staff working without pay and their families, and those donations made a significant contribution to there still being a club now.

Not sure what other direct contributions there were from other clubs.

I really wish I could see the logic of punishing a totally new company, seriously hamstringing it and raising the bar perilously high for it to have chance of succeeding, for the sins of a previous company and it's warring shareholders. But I admit I cannot.

I think teh Widnes club, and Steve O'Connor personally, are worthy of a special mention, IIRC they were one of the first.
No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#66 Bulliac

Bulliac
  • Coach
  • 2,616 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:29 AM

I would suspect that the money has gone to Super League (Europe) rather than the RFL, and Super League (Europe) are only responsible for Super League rather than the International game etc. It was fown to the clubs as a whole to decide what to do with the cash rather than the governing body. And who's to say the clubs won't spend the extra cash on youth?

Well, absolutely nothing, of course. They may give the money to the Red Cross or Help for Heroes for all I know. ...and then again :rolleyes:
No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.co...s/31337109@N03/

#67 1976PMJwires

1976PMJwires
  • Coach
  • 9,432 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:35 AM

He wasn't/isn't depending on the cash because it was announced day one he took over that we weren't getting it


thanks AA

Edited by 1976PMJwires, 30 January 2013 - 11:37 AM.


#68 Adeybull

Adeybull
  • Coach
  • 493 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:59 AM

I think teh Widnes club, and Steve O'Connor personally, are worthy of a special mention, IIRC they were one of the first.


I was referring specifically to donations AFTER the administrators were appointed, since that seemed to me the relevant period for people who were arguing that other clubs had already paid money to "Bradford". Such post-apocalypse contributions went not to "Bradford" as a club, but directly (BBHF - to people sacked by Gargoyle and their families) or indirectly (Leeds - to Gargoyle as there was no other vehicle in place at the time) to remaining and sacked staff.

The earlier contribiutions, to the "Pledge for Survival" campaign, were to the previous club itself, and for ther benefit of the previous management and shareholders. Anyone with an issue over such payments (and there will be many, in view of what subsequently happened following Caisley's intervention, the subsequent ousting of the then-management and the phoney war period while the new directors told us they were examining the books before putting the company into administration) should IMO take that up with the previous board/s. Not not vent their feelings on the new (totally unconnected) company. And, IMO more to the point, with the previous company's major shareholders who, in the main and some especially, will be damned by all eternity for their conduct over this whole sorry.

Amongst the many from outside who bow to no-one over their very generous (if ultimately fruitless) donations to the "Pledge" to try and save the former company, the Leeds club collectively and many of their fans individually at the Easter game, and Mr Steve O'Connor individually (was him, not Widnes) must stand especialy tall?

#69 Adeybull

Adeybull
  • Coach
  • 493 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 12:04 PM

Actually on the point above, yes I agree with you - I'd rather see the money spent on promotion of the Super League so that everyone can still benefit.
Interestingly, the article states £1m - I thought it was only half of the money that was being withheld - is this just shoddy journalism?

The point I disagree with is Khan speaking publicly about this to the media - I don't think it helps anyone, and tbh if I was an owner of another club, I'd be pretty annoyed with him publicising this kind of thing.


Maybe some of those who voted to keep it for themselves might be? Those who instead wanted it to be used for the purposes OK has indicated might even welcome the disinfecting effect of a bit of sunlight?

#70 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 5,976 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 12:17 PM

I was referring specifically to donations AFTER the administrators were appointed, since that seemed to me the relevant period for people who were arguing that other clubs had already paid money to "Bradford". Such post-apocalypse contributions went not to "Bradford" as a club, but directly (BBHF - to people sacked by Gargoyle and their families) or indirectly (Leeds - to Gargoyle as there was no other vehicle in place at the time) to remaining and sacked staff.

The earlier contribiutions, to the "Pledge for Survival" campaign, were to the previous club itself, and for ther benefit of the previous management and shareholders. Anyone with an issue over such payments (and there will be many, in view of what subsequently happened following Caisley's intervention, the subsequent ousting of the then-management and the phoney war period while the new directors told us they were examining the books before putting the company into administration) should IMO take that up with the previous board/s. Not not vent their feelings on the new (totally unconnected) company. And, IMO more to the point, with the previous company's major shareholders who, in the main and some especially, will be damned by all eternity for their conduct over this whole sorry.

Amongst the many from outside who bow to no-one over their very generous (if ultimately fruitless) donations to the "Pledge" to try and save the former company, the Leeds club collectively and many of their fans individually at the Easter game, and Mr Steve O'Connor individually (was him, not Widnes) must stand especialy tall?


Are Bradford a different company now I know they went into administration but I thought they came out of it without going into liquidation. Does that not mean they are the same company with different owners.

#71 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,125 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 12:51 PM

Maybe some of those who voted to keep it for themselves might be? Those who instead wanted it to be used for the purposes OK has indicated might even welcome the disinfecting effect of a bit of sunlight?

Maybe - and it's not a view I agree with, but why would Cas, Salford, Wakefield etc. turn down tens of thousands of funding?

The problem here is that Khan is criticising at least 10 other clubs here, the clubs not wanting to do this were in the minority, and I suspect this was due to having to pay the bills!

#72 Konkrete

Konkrete
  • Coach
  • 1,956 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 01:32 PM

Am I the only one who supports Omar on this? Having the financial hit of losing the SKY money for this season is bad enough, but for the other clubs to distribute it amongst themselves is another financial kick.

What a way to support a club coming out of financial difficulties. Cut their income and make sure everybody else gets more money.


OK is of course right in what he is saying. The issue for me is that he's saying it publically.

We've been through all that and we're about looking to the future not being bitter about the past. Let the other clubs have the money. The bounce at the Bulls is fantastic at the moment, it's not necessary to bring this back up. He needs to let it go, publically at least.
Integrity is shown when no-one is looking.

#73 Adeybull

Adeybull
  • Coach
  • 493 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 02:20 PM

Are Bradford a different company now I know they went into administration but I thought they came out of it without going into liquidation. Does that not mean they are the same company with different owners.


Yes. Totally separate company (OK Bulls Ltd). No connection whatsoever with the past.

Bradford Bulls (Holdings) Ltd remains in adminsitration, and will be liquidated in due course. By Gargoyle, who will collect another fee.

A company almost never escapes administration. It will almost always lead to liquidation. What almost always happens is that Newco (in this case OK Bulls Ltd) or another existing company buys the relevant assets off the administrator. Sometimes an existing company buys the DEBT from the debtholders, and gains control of the company in administration that way. In such cases, occasionally the insolvent company is allowed by the debtholder/s to continue, if it is to their advantage. This tends to happen when a dominant supplier with secured debt forces its customer into administration, so it can take it over usually on the cheap. Hardly relevant to RL though, and there was no secured debt anyway.

Unfortunately, very few hacks - let alone RL hacks - understand the insolvency process, so the various media reports tend to be rather imprecise in this field.

#74 Adeybull

Adeybull
  • Coach
  • 493 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 02:23 PM

Maybe - and it's not a view I agree with, but why would Cas, Salford, Wakefield etc. turn down tens of thousands of funding?

The problem here is that Khan is criticising at least 10 other clubs here, the clubs not wanting to do this were in the minority, and I suspect this was due to having to pay the bills!


I have seen the numbers 8 voted for taking the money, 5 voted for use in the game as a whole, quoted by a usually reluable and responsible source. I suspect the 5 (if such they were) will have included Leeds and other more financially-secure clubs.

#75 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,568 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 02:46 PM

Quite honestly, could you blame Salford and Cas for taking the money? They are really struggling financially.

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#76 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 5,976 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:00 PM

Yes. Totally separate company (OK Bulls Ltd). No connection whatsoever with the past.

Bradford Bulls (Holdings) Ltd remains in adminsitration, and will be liquidated in due course. By Gargoyle, who will collect another fee.

A company almost never escapes administration. It will almost always lead to liquidation. What almost always happens is that Newco (in this case OK Bulls Ltd) or another existing company buys the relevant assets off the administrator. Sometimes an existing company buys the DEBT from the debtholders, and gains control of the company in administration that way. In such cases, occasionally the insolvent company is allowed by the debtholder/s to continue, if it is to their advantage. This tends to happen when a dominant supplier with secured debt forces its customer into administration, so it can take it over usually on the cheap. Hardly relevant to RL though, and there was no secured debt anyway.

Unfortunately, very few hacks - let alone RL hacks - understand the insolvency process, so the various media reports tend to be rather imprecise in this field.


I see so the newco take over all the assets and then the old company can be quietly liquidated in a few months time without all the fuss.

#77 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 4,829 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:02 PM

Yes. Totally separate company (OK Bulls Ltd). No connection whatsoever with the past.

Bradford Bulls (Holdings) Ltd remains in adminsitration, and will be liquidated in due course. By Gargoyle, who will collect another fee.

A company almost never escapes administration. It will almost always lead to liquidation. What almost always happens is that Newco (in this case OK Bulls Ltd) or another existing company buys the relevant assets off the administrator. Sometimes an existing company buys the DEBT from the debtholders, and gains control of the company in administration that way. In such cases, occasionally the insolvent company is allowed by the debtholder/s to continue, if it is to their advantage. This tends to happen when a dominant supplier with secured debt forces its customer into administration, so it can take it over usually on the cheap. Hardly relevant to RL though, and there was no secured debt anyway.

Unfortunately, very few hacks - let alone RL hacks - understand the insolvency process, so the various media reports tend to be rather imprecise in this field.


So they are a Newco after pages and whole threads of denials in the past. They should therefore have not been granted a SL licence.

#78 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,125 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:19 PM

I have seen the numbers 8 voted for taking the money, 5 voted for use in the game as a whole, quoted by a usually reluable and responsible source. I suspect the 5 (if such they were) will have included Leeds and other more financially-secure clubs.

So it's disappointing that he says 2 or 3 clubs - why lie?

For him to suggest as many as 11 clubs voted for the funds is mischievous IMHO.

Edited by Dave T, 30 January 2013 - 03:21 PM.


#79 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,125 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:21 PM

So it's disappointing that he says 2 or 3 clubs - why lie?


double

Edited by Dave T, 30 January 2013 - 03:21 PM.


#80 Adeybull

Adeybull
  • Coach
  • 493 posts

Posted 30 January 2013 - 03:34 PM

So it's disappointing that he says 2 or 3 clubs - why lie?

For him to suggest as many as 11 clubs voted for the funds is mischievous IMHO.


Pass. Only those party to the meeting and the vote will know the truth of what was debated and what was agreed. OK has a bit of a knack of shooting from the hip with passion, without necessarily stopping to think or check facts, from my direct experience. So I'd not necessarily rush to ascribe any sinister motives when the explanation may actually be much simpler.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users