Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Bradford Bulls deducted 6 points & purchasers withdraw


  • Please log in to reply
242 replies to this topic

#201 Amber Avenger

Amber Avenger
  • Coach
  • 5,740 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 12:18 PM

Nope, that was a crock of #### to cover the fact the RFL had secretly loaned Bradford £700k and when they realised they weren't getting that back they chucked another £500k their way and came up with the story that it was in exchange for the lease to prevent predatory developers from getting their hands on Odsal.

 

Do you have a verifiable source for these "secret loans". It's genuinely the first time I've heard about that - but there is so much rubbish flying about I could easily have glossed over it. I'm not sure I would have though.


SQL Honours
Play off mini league winner - 2002. Bronze Medalist - 2003. Big Split Group Winner - 2006. Minor Stupidship - 2005, 2006. Cup Silver Medalist - 2008, 2009
CHAMPION - 2005, 2009, 2010

#202 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,341 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 12:22 PM

Because I don't see that anyone has actually introduced any "new ideas".

 

1. Maurice Lyndsay was set to introduce a genuine new idea and it was rejected.

 

2. From 1996 to 2009 the RFL ran the old structures only with one up and one down.

 

3. In 2009 Ralph Rimmer and the RFL introduced the first "new idea". Instead of P & R picking who was in Superleague, a RFL commitee would do this. Do you think that was a new idea? Or do you think that was a ruse to protect London, Catalans and Crusaders. I think the latter CKN.

 

4. Now we are back to P & R. Is that a new idea? Or is it a failed idea from Switzerland??

 

This so called new idea has the idea behind it that creating meaningful matches i.e. lower division promotion and higher division relegation battles is going to increase crowds all round.

 

See the current thread on this by Martin Sadler. He finds the idea preposterous (apoligies to my Wakey friend of the same name). Far from a new idea it's a flawed idea in which Martin's real life figures disagree with the figures KPMG won't publish.

 

This "new idea" allowed RFL to out manoeuvre (how do you spell that) Mr. Lenegan.

 

New idea or unsubstantiated idea created for political ends??

 

For me CKN we seem to have had 17 years of no real change of any substance. Traditional people don't like real change.

So licencing was the same as P&R and the 2x12/3x8 is the same as that?

 

Whether you think the ideas are good or not is not what makes them new.


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

#203 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,811 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 12:23 PM

Because I don't see that anyone has actually introduced any "new ideas".

 

1. Maurice Lyndsay was set to introduce a genuine new idea and it was rejected.

 

2. From 1996 to 2009 the TFL ran the old structures only with one up and one down.

 

3. In 2009 Ralph Rimmer and the RFL introduced the first "new idea". Instead of P & R picking who was in Superleague, a RFL commitee would do this. Do you think that was a new idea? Or do you think that was a ruse to protect London, Catalans and Crusaders. I think the latter CKN.

 

4. Now we are back to P & R. Is that a new idea? Or is it a failed idea from Switzerland??

 

This so called new idea has the idea behind it that creating meaningful matches i.e. lower division promotion and higher division relegation battles is going to increase crowds all round.

 

See the current thread on this by Martin Sadler. He finds the idea preposterous (apoligies to my Wakey friend of the same name). Far from a new idea it's a flawed idea in which Martins real life figures disagree with the figures KPMG won't publish.

 

New idea or unsubstantiated idea?? For me CKN we seem to have had 17 years of no real change of any substance. Traditional people don't like real change.

Nope, you've not sold me on a single word of that.  We've had strategic change after strategic change, all impacting the sport as a whole, all devaluing it as they come in, get abandoned and the chase is on for the next fad.  We've had massive and substantial changes to the league with far too great a regularity.

 

Choose a structure and stick at it for a while.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#204 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,138 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 12:25 PM

So licencing was the same as P&R

 

and the 2x12/3x8 is the same as that?

 

Whether you think the ideas are good or not is not what makes them new.

 

Well you can switch the argument to a definition of "new" if you want.

 

Ask Padge whether Licensing replaced P & R and p & r stopped?

 

Ask anyone whether 2/12/3/8 is just another P & R system?.

 

You may find there were no new ideas just tinkering.



#205 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,138 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 12:29 PM

Nope, you've not sold me on a single word of that.

 

Choose a structure and stick at it for a while.

 

I don't have to sell you anything good Sir.

 

As above I see 17 years of P & R with some tinkering about.

 

What I dread is sticking to P & R for several more years until we have 20 years of P & R and we are are no further forward.

 

See if you can sell me the idea that Mo Lyndsay's idea was not genuinely new? and that tinkering about with P & R for 17 years equates to several new ideas.



#206 PREPOSTEROUS

PREPOSTEROUS
  • Coach
  • 667 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:09 PM

Do you have a verifiable source for these "secret loans". It's genuinely the first time I've heard about that - but there is so much rubbish flying about I could easily have glossed over it. I'm not sure I would have though.

 

To be honest I thought it common knowledge that is how this all kicked off. As for a verifiable sources, check back on all forums at the time from Bradford fans as well as rival supporters for discussions on it, whether that is good enough I guess is up to yourself.

 

See the quote from Adeybull back in 2012:

 

http://www.rlfans.co...01250#p16801250

 

 

 
Not quite.

It seems the Bulls indeed borrowed £700k in 2011 from the RFL (secured ion the assets by a second charge, incidentally - visible to all at Companies House from Jan 2011). When I put the £700k figure to the CEO he did not deny it.

It seems to me the deal to sell the stadium to the RFL was at least in part due to the club not being in a position to repay that loan. So the RFL got an asset instead. If so, puts Odsalgate 2012 into a whole new light now, eh?

I understand the loan to the RFL was not to be repaid immediately, so the club could use the funds from the sale to deal with other pressing issues (including tax, I think) and not have to rely on using the bank overdraft (I surmise).

It then seems that (for reasons I am unclear about) the RFL required the loan to be repaid now rather than when was originally (supposedly) agreed. SOmetime in the last few weeks.

The bank, it appears to me (and knowing from the horse's mouth they have been keen to get out of exposure to RL clubs for years) saw the cash coming in, and did what banks so often do and grabbed it and reduced the facility as a result. The Bulls had actually asked the bank for a small increase to help plug the gap for a few weeks because of the RFL loan repayment. The bank instead pulled most of the facility. I gather this was last week.

So the club appears (as far as I can deduce, anyway) to have been hit by a double-whammy: RFL requires earlier repayment of loan; Bulls look to use whole overdraft facility, and a bit more, to plug the gap for a few weeks; bank instead pulls rug from under them.

Also, there would be no value to the bank in the old Odsal lease in the event of insolvency, since it would be voided and the site revert to the council. So why would the bank treat it as the main security? Anyone?

Now if the above, which is a combination of public information, things I have been told and personal deduction, is anything like correct, how does that now make it look?

 

I don’t think you’ll find any verifiable info that Trinity were advanced £200K last year to pay off HMRC either but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.



#207 Amber Avenger

Amber Avenger
  • Coach
  • 5,740 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:19 PM

No, Adey's word is good enough for me and genuine thanks for posting. Although as for it being common knowledge is debatable as to how much you persue these things online. I consider myself to read a LOT about the Bulls and it didn't ring a bell with me, so please forgive me for doubting - you'll understand it's easy for anyone to make up anything at this stage.

 

It certianly hasn't been picked up on in any official papers that I can recall and that says more for the state of RL reporting than anything else. There is a massive investigative job waiting to be published, it seems at the moment nobody has the time/resources or willingness. If that's true - and there is no reason to disbelieve - it is utterly scandellous.


Edited by Amber Avenger, 27 February 2014 - 01:20 PM.

SQL Honours
Play off mini league winner - 2002. Bronze Medalist - 2003. Big Split Group Winner - 2006. Minor Stupidship - 2005, 2006. Cup Silver Medalist - 2008, 2009
CHAMPION - 2005, 2009, 2010

#208 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,094 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:21 PM

No, Adey's word is good enough for me and genuine thanks for posting. Although as for it being common knowledge is debatable as to how much you persue these things online. I consider myself to read a LOT about the Bulls and it didn't ring a bell with me, so please forgive me for doubting - you'll understand it's easy for anyone to make up anything at this stage.

 

It certianly hasn't been picked up on in any official papers that I can recall and that says more for the state of RL reporting than anything else. There is a massive investigative job waiting to be published, it seems at the moment nobody has the time/resources or willingness. If that's true - and there is no reason to disbelieve - it is utterly scandellous.

 

You need someone like David Conn looking into it really.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#209 PREPOSTEROUS

PREPOSTEROUS
  • Coach
  • 667 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:28 PM

No, Adey's word is good enough for me and genuine thanks for posting. Although as for it being common knowledge is debatable as to how much you persue these things online. I consider myself to read a LOT about the Bulls and it didn't ring a bell with me, so please forgive me for doubting - you'll understand it's easy for anyone to make up anything at this stage.

It certianly hasn't been picked up on in any official papers that I can recall and that says more for the state of RL reporting than anything else. There is a massive investigative job waiting to be published, it seems at the moment nobody has the time/resources or willingness. If that's true - and there is no reason to disbelieve - it is utterly scandellous.

The supporters of this game are fed scraps so we never know the complete facts and rely on hearsay. I wonder if Mike Rylance fancies getting his teeth into it. It would make a fancinating read but for probably all the wrong reasons.

#210 Amber Avenger

Amber Avenger
  • Coach
  • 5,740 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:29 PM

You need someone like David Conn looking into it really.

 

Didn't he briefly write something back when this first blew up at Bradford? Think it was more an overall look at the league - something like "Bradford are a basketcase, but the rest of the league is better than you think". Would like to see him do more on this certainly.


SQL Honours
Play off mini league winner - 2002. Bronze Medalist - 2003. Big Split Group Winner - 2006. Minor Stupidship - 2005, 2006. Cup Silver Medalist - 2008, 2009
CHAMPION - 2005, 2009, 2010

#211 Amber Avenger

Amber Avenger
  • Coach
  • 5,740 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:33 PM

The supporters of this game are fed scraps so we never know the complete facts and rely on hearsay. I wonder if Mike Rylance fancies getting his teeth into it. It would make a fancinating read but for probably all the wrong reasons.

 

As was always the way sadly. It will make for an explosive book, I've no doubt about that and I'll be the first in line when it comes out. Shouldn't have to wait that long though. Ho hum.


SQL Honours
Play off mini league winner - 2002. Bronze Medalist - 2003. Big Split Group Winner - 2006. Minor Stupidship - 2005, 2006. Cup Silver Medalist - 2008, 2009
CHAMPION - 2005, 2009, 2010

#212 GIANTSTRIDES

GIANTSTRIDES
  • Coach
  • 1,582 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 02:09 PM

Well we get closer all the time.

 

But I'd rather have a 15,000 crowd Bulls than a 7,500 Fartown with Ken Davey's cheque covering the empty seats.

 

You forget that the game needs to develop players, and it's people who organise teams and people who play in them. The game is much better attracting people than subsidising empty seats.

 

 

I'm sure you would rather have Bradford with 15.000, but the point is Would you rather have Bradford with a potential 15.000 fans and bankrupt, or Giants, Salford, Wakey whoever with 7 or 8.000 doing a reasonable job, even if some of them are funded by rich men.

 

Everybody wants to see big crowds, But what we want and what we have got are not just the same, There will be always clubs who can pull in big numbers of fans, the names are obvious and good luck to them , they are destined to be the top of the Elite for many years.

 

When Saints take on Salford tonight , there will be what? around 300.000 watching and very very few of them will care where Salford get their money, they, just like me want to watch top class League.

 

I take your point about young players  but we have been round this before. For what it's worth IMO the clubs who are below the Elite comp  "when we finally get there " will be the breeding grounds for the young players. I am well aware of how that will get up some people's noses, but like i said earlier what we want is not what we are getting.

 

League has to go with what is actually happening, Not keep dreaming up everlasting new things to try to vitalise lesser clubs, The only thing that will do that is Money Money Money " wherever it comes from, It makes no difference who the club are, If for eg Fev's man comes up with enough Millions they will be one of the Elite, because they will be able to fund better players, Wont matter if they only get 5.000 species, if they are good enough they will be there. Won't make any difference who likes it or doesn't.

 

Bradford need such a money man, IMO it's the only thing that will save them for SL, they may well need to drop down to regroup , but i still think they will need to be rid of Odsal to have any chance, It's hard to see anyone with real money taking on that ground, What a shame the Superdome never came about.


Dont expect anything from a pig but a grunt

#213 a j cougar

a j cougar
  • Coach
  • 1,650 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:00 PM

It now appears that Bradford Council lent the club (unpublicised) £200,000 in 2012, and it doesn't sound like its going to be repaid double quick.

This whole saga is becoming a scandal.

#214 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,065 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:07 PM

It now appears that Bradford Council lent the club (unpublicised) £200,000 in 2012, and it doesn't sound like its going to be repaid double quick.

This whole saga is becoming a scandal.

I'd read of that a while ago so I think it ws publicised as much as any other bit of Bulls news. I think - at the time - it was labelled as a "start up business" loan, to get some immediate cash into the works. But, that's what I read and I take that with a pinch of salt really these days.


On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#215 a j cougar

a j cougar
  • Coach
  • 1,650 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:11 PM

I'd read of that a while ago so I think it ws publicised as much as any other bit of Bulls news. I think - at the time - it was labelled as a "start up business" loan, to get some immediate cash into the works. But, that's what I read and I take that with a pinch of salt really these days.


It's news to me, and I'm appalled by it.

I think serious questions need answering. BDMC cut its support to the club with the payout, so this is completely out of order.

#216 stewpot01

stewpot01
  • Coach
  • 128 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:47 PM

The Bradford council have always favoured the Bulls out of the city's two sporting sides and at times seem to have gone beyond what they should do.

None of this surprises me, but yes aj, I too am appalled if these allegations are true.



#217 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,969 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 09:48 PM

I don't think the council should be giving money to the bulls but I don't think they have favourited them over City.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#218 stewpot01

stewpot01
  • Coach
  • 128 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 10:12 PM

I don't think the council should be giving money to the bulls but I don't think they have favourited them over City.

 

I have been in Bradford over 25 years and beg to differ. When City almost went to the wall the council cocked a snook at them and they have always gone over the top with regards to their support of the Bulls and have not hidden the fact. City have always been the poor relations in the councils eyes and I doubt they would have 'helped' them in the same manner.

 

I have a friend - and ex councillor - who would back me up on this.


Edited by stewpot01, 27 February 2014 - 10:16 PM.


#219 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,703 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 10:36 PM

Why would you need someone with new ideas? That's half the problem over the last two decades, people with new ideas coming in and trying to "fix" things despite the last "fixes" not having had a chance to bed in properly. Can we just try for stability for a few years first? For example, I think the move back to P&R and the 3x8 leagues thing is sheer idiocy of the highest order but I'd willingly support it if the RFL and clubs would guarantee to give it at least 5-6 years before trying to change it again.

Also, who in their right mind would come in and run the RFL? It's a no-win situation for anyone. Have a look at the skills and experience of the current Board of Directors. Then think what it'd cost to replace them like for like, never mind asking for even more skills, including getting them to work out of Leeds.

they committed to give licensing 5-6 years, actually did so, and still got loads of stick. They basically cant win.

#220 The Parksider

The Parksider
  • Coach
  • 17,138 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 10:48 PM

I'm sure you would rather have Bradford with 15.000, but the point is Would you rather have Bradford with a potential 15.000 fans and bankrupt, or Giants,

 

League has to go with what is actually happening, Not keep dreaming up everlasting new things to try to vitalise lesser clubs, The only thing that will do that is Money Money Money " wherever it comes from, It makes no difference who the club are, If for eg Fev's man comes up with enough Millions they will be one of the Elite,

 

Bradford need such a money man, IMO it's the only thing that will save them for SL,

 

I don't believe in a well run Superleague that Bradford would go bankrupt. Events led to it but in the end as above the SL clubs and the RFL themselves put the knife in.

 

If one of Fartown or Bulls are "lesser" it's Fartown with respect. Bulls were still pulling the bigger crowd last week.

 

It makes every difference  who is in the league. As I said clubs who don't have fans or local junior clubs are no use to the game.

 

You still persist in the idea that it's OK to have an empty stadium and no local RL as long as the chairman is loaded and can import a team. We are poles apart on that.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users