Bulliac

Coach
  • Content count

    857
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

71 Excellent

About Bulliac

  • Birthday
  1. I'd agree with your assessment of £400k as probably being a mixture, of full and part-time players, though the new owners are claiming to be signing a "full time" squad. Given the player exodus already seen and then coach leaving also, it seems that a cost cutting season is to be undertaken. To be honest, as it is, I think the club will be lucky to get 1k to 1.5k as a regular attendance this year, maybe even falling below the lower figure as the defeats mount. We should have been given a place in Championship1 on zero points like the rest. Having to endure a pointless [maybe in more ways than one] in the higher division will be too much to bear for many. For the first time since the 1950s, I'm seriously thinking of giving this season a miss - and I've already paid for a season ticket. Forcing this on fans is just so unfair, it's just putting off any renewall for a full year. Fans don't ask for much, but the chance to dream would be nice.
  2. Not sure about valuable, but there is a fair amount of toxic stuff, dumped long before they thought about regulations. Removing this was one of the more expensive elements of all the previous attempts to renovate/rebuild and I don't suppose it's gone away.
  3. Your memory isn't quite accurate. If I remember correctly Wakefield didn't actually loan players to Bradford, they gave them without payment. Northern at them time weren't bust though, it was the 'new' club, rising, phoenix like, out of the ashes of the old which received Trinity's largesse not the very definitely bust one which went under in '63 and the fixtures would certainly have been fulfilled even without them, though they definitely enabled us to have a more competitive side! I'll happily thank you again, just as we all did at the time, though, isn't it a shame that now it's the fans who take up the cudgels instead of the teams? The 21st century rugby league family seems very different from the 1964 version.
  4. If it is a fact that most chairmen/clubs want rid of the rule then they have the ability to force a vote and get rid of it, it's called democracy. As yet they have haven't done so, which tells me that most must be happy with the status quo. Maybe this is because most are actually already successfully cheating the system, who knows? The fact remains, anyone caught doing so should have the book thrown at them, otherwise we say goodbye to democracy and welcome to anarchy. This applies in spades if any club is found to have deliberately abused the system with double contracts, etc[even if they were, "honest", and said they were going to do so].
  5. LOl, the Bulls couldn't afford to pay peanuts for the lease to the council so the RFL took it over and, "saved the Bulls' by charging a commercial rent instead? I'm sorry but my 'ead 'urts...... The RFL did pay an advance on some TV money a couple of years [and owners] ago, something which has been done for others. It was an advance, not a gift. I was simply some of the money they would have received a little later. I've no idea about the status of Mathers contract with London, maybe his contract was terminated at the time of the ban? Dunno, to be honest, though the fact he was working for Warrington [all be it part time] makes it appear that his ties to the Broncos are probably finalised. However, I digress. I'm neither ecstatic nor disappointed with the Mathers signing. Truth is, whilst we have, maybe three players, who 'have played' full back, we didn't have a recognised out and out player for the position so Mathers fits the bill for that exactly and hopefully a bloke who has done it all, at a much higher level, can be a role model for the younger ones.
  6. I know we haven't qualified for a proper studio for a while, but surely there is a no longer used outside loo they can use? Stick of chalk to add a some extra graffiti, so as to add some atmosphere, and live feed taken from a mobile phone stuck to the wall with blu-tack....how much would it cost?
  7. They still have the lease. It is still on their balance sheet as an item of value and will remain so until they sell it on - presumably back to the club and at the same price or greater. The cost of the lease is irrelevant to the ongoing deal betweeen the club and RFL.
  8. Is it a fact that the lease [paid to the council] by the RFL is less than the lease [paid by the Bulls] to the RFL? Yes, of course it is. Without the actual figures, the club originally paid what was termed a 'peppercorn' rent to the council. In other words 'peanuts', and it is this 'peanuts' rent the RFL are now paying to the council. The rent currently paid, by the club, to the RFL is termed 'a commercial rent', though it hasn't been officially declared in cash terms it has been called, "a lot of money", by club officials. The idea that the the rent paid by the club is less than the RFL pay to the council is risible, so the RFL make an annual profit and keep the primary lease as an item of value on the balance sheet - a good investment, I think.
  9. I do wish that people who want to have a dig would at least make the tiniest effort to get the facts right. The RFL took the lease of Odsal under the chairmanship of Peter Hood. This is approximately three owners ago - depending on whether or not you include the 3 musketeers [the Beds R Us, group] who were put in charge without ever actually buying the club. So, it was around 2011. Still, "last season" is near enough. Incidentally, as the post could be read as suggesting the club was saved, "by the RFL paying the lease", can I just remind everyone that the RFL is paying the 'peppercorn' low level rent to the council and the Bulls are currently paying a commercial rent to the RFL. In other words the RFL is making a handsome profit on a commercial deal.
  10. Don't know who they've brought in to be honest, but whoever it is it will depend on how the pack gets up to speed and gels as a unit. Replacing Sinfield and Peacock will take a while; you can't just 'parachute in' replacements and expect them to produce that sort of quality and understanding overnight. If asked to guess though, I'd say that come the end of the season it will still be all on track and Leeds will the there, or thereabouts.
  11. I can see the advantage of loaning players from the point of view of the loaning club, and I totally accept Parksider's point about the finances, but I can't honestly see any good to Hunslet in any football sense. It must disrupt the development of their own players and make it awkward for the coach. For Leeds it gives players who are, 'on the outer', or regaining fitness, some game time and maybe the odd 'big name' putting in an appearance draws a few more fans in, but to me, unless it's to cover a specific short term need, it's an overall loss to the club taking players. Still, they enter into these agreements of their own free will so I guess they must make the decision.
  12. That, of course is the important bit. None of the bidding process had anything to do with 'the club', it was done to 'due processes' by the accountants, as all similar winding ups are.
  13. I think it's fair to say that he has actually put cash in. In his first year, it's clear that virtually all the season ticket money had been spent by the previous management before he even took over so that was dictated by necessity. I believe any business has to be ready to 'speculate', often just to keep up with the rest, but I think the difference he was trying to show, was that, he isn't the besotted fan who would throw good money after bad at the team, just to keep it going. Given recent history, I don't have a,problem with that. You have to laugh at the Mrs [Mr.?] Koucash cameo we had. The bid was the smallest of four on the table, so I guess, from her [his?] point of view it was a very cheap publicity stunt, with a carefully calculated offer to ensure it didn't stand any chance of going further.
  14. Charman Green has always made it clear he won't be pumping money into the club and that it must stand or fall as a business on its own, so I don't think there is any possibility of getting a new ground without outside finance. There was a ground deal, signed and ready to go, a few years back but, as it involved building a supermarket, the then government scuppered it by 'calling it in' for a planning inquiry. Hopefully that won't be repeated.
  15. To be fair, a situation where the landlord is the tenant is ludicrous. If the RFL put our rent up, do we respond by increasing theirs? I suspect buying the freehold is just a lever to be able to buy back the lease. At the moment the club is paying a 'commercial lease' [which was for 150 years but probably C135 remaining] to the RFL but still retains all responsibity for upkeep and any development costs. As for development, the Odsal site is pretty big; the former 'superdome' plan envisaged a supermarket and other things on the site, as well as a fair sized rugby ground. If the current ground is filled in and the whole site levelled [again, as per the 'dome' plan], the ground, smaller that the old plan - maybe for 15 to 20K, and the playing area could be exactly where it is now, just a few yards higher in the air and there would be plenty of room for retail, or other development.