Adeybull

Coach
  • Content count

    926
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Adeybull last won the day on January 20

Adeybull had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

425 Excellent

About Adeybull

Recent Profile Visitors

2,361 profile views
  1. Really no idea. We are TOLD it is ChaLo. And it is implied that their limited funds explains, inter alia, why they were not able to sign players sufficient to avoid the near-inevitable relegation. Can't be official central funding (effectively zero) or sponsorship (most went to Green) and gate receipts will be limited, given the club honoured season tickets where Green received the funds. Or anything much else, as far as I can see. None of the finances stack up to me. But they never did anyway, over recent years. There was never any way the Khan or Green regimes were ever going to make anything other than big losses. The mood in the limited corridors of power at the club seems to be far more upbeat than the seeming impending latest disaster facing the club would suggest. But I really have no idea what the role of Wood and his cabal in all this is - beyond that they made sure the only bidder left standing was the one with seemingly much the least funds, that the new club would be forced to see out the fixture programme and then face almost certain relegation anyway at the end of it (totaly wasting a year, at best), and that - crucially - the RFL kept its hands on the stadium site, which is recorded as a valuable asset in the RFL accounts. I very much speculate that any involvement the RFL may have has little to do with the Bulls per se, and everything to do with the stadium site. And its (re?)development potential.
  2. Sadly, QED SIX winding up petitions in under a year.
  3. Yet more nonsense and false facts...? You really should know better. We are on Bradford #4 now! (By some measures, if you include the short-lived Gang of Three interim administration, #5 even...) Do keep up...!
  4. That would be the day Wood & co. handed the poisoned chalice to the men without the means.
  5. I recall three things about that match: 1 - long queue through the town to get to the (nice, neat) stadium, due to the massive Bulls travelling support, and parking somewhere to the north of the stadium. 2 - a game where we disappointed somewhat, even though I think we won by a good margin, and Rochdale very much stepped up to the plate. 3 - coming back the long and scenic way round, on a nice summer evening, albeit through the delight that was Bacup, to avoid the traffic back through the town. As you say, I suspect Saturday will indeed be a little different...
  6. FF, The whole setup under Chalmers/Lowe has never, ever made any sense to me financially. Nor, I know, to many other Bulls supporters, and certainly to various posters (some obsessed, some sensible) on here. If the stadium was not central to the bidder selection, I'll eat my hat and probably those of everyone else on here. It seems clear there is very little money. I DID harbour some optimism right at the start, until it became clear that any "investment" would be the minimum possible. What is surely also clear is that (a) Wood & Co. would have faced a big issue had a Bradford club not been there to fulfil the 2017 fixtures; (b) an even bigger issue if the RFL had to write off its £1.25m stadium lease asset in its accounts; and (c) there has to be very considerable potential - for development or for profit, with or without the Bulls, and as a stadium (and HQ...?) or otherwise - in the Odsal site, provided the Council play ball (i.e. get some benefit)? Put those points together, look at what seems so much like a minimalist holding operation for the current season, and - I suggest - go figure? Once this season is out of the way, will Wood & Co. still have a need or use for a Bradford club? And, if so, for anything beyond a remaining interim period? Maybe the remaining supporters - many of whom are stating across social media now that enough is enough - are wondering the same?
  7. I think the irony in my post may have not been obvious, then? And, of course, what would be REALLY scandalous is not the rumour (and again, I may or may not have been utilising irony there... 😏) but if the substance of the rumour did indeed come to happen!
  8. I suppose that depends on whether you actually believe anything Wood and his cabal say? Those who believe Wood, Rimmer & co. are doing their very best for the good of the game as a whole would probably expect to see some ongoing effective monitoring, and assurance that the current owners have the funds to see out the three years? Even if the sceptics would doubtless argue they are doing a cracking impression of struggling for funds to even see out this season? Those who opine that the way you can tell Wood is fibbing is when his mouth moves, might well argue that the only reason for those "guidelines" for bidders was to ensure that no-one else but his mates could meet the criteria? And that none of us have a clue what vetting was or is being done? Others again will doubtless continue to argue that "The Bulls" have been most favourably treated, and that everyone involved - including all the fans, most of whom disagreed anyway with what the RFL did - should have bad things done to them. Mind you, they will probably be playing hell about the huge advantages the Bulls were given this season, years after the Bulls are dead and gone. The only thing I know of that is more awesome than a Scotsman with a grouse is an RL fan over a perceived injustice... So the answer to your question is...I don't think anyone really has a clue?
  9. Indeed, yes. And, of course, the RFL insisting that "Rugby Debts" are paid by any new company taking over the operations of an insolvent one. As they did with Bradford. Some of us lived in hope, when Bulls 3.0 was in Admin 3.0, that the RFL would insist any purchaser paid off HMRC. As part of the price for being allowed to get their hands on the stadium. Who knows if that was in the plans of any of the rejected bidders? But we should have known better, I guess? But it makes you wonder if, by admitting only the one bid that had no money but allowed Wood and his cabal to keep hold of the stadium, the RFL may very much have further antagonised HMRC?
  10. Hi mate. Good, thanks! I think it is more the other way round, though. For years, sports clubs ( by no means just RL) treated HMRC and its predecessors as a soft target, when not able to pay creditors. It was regularly used as a kind of unofficial extra credit line. Way back then, because of Crown Preference, the Revenue tended not to petition for winding up unless the debt was very seriously overdue. But, since CP was abolished and HMRC rank as any other unsecured creditor, they have increasingly taken steps to protect their - the taxpayers' - position. The sad history of so many RL and other sports clubs going bust owing a shed load to HMRC means they now tend to move quite quickly. I believe more quickly than perhaps for many other industries, since they rightly see sports clubs as being a much higher risk of being insolvent.
  11. HMRC have to pay a substantial court deposit fee every time they petition for winding up, plus their own legal costs. Taxpayers money. Once a petition has been advertised ("Gazetted") it cannot be withdrawn, but at the hearing it can be stated that the debt has been paid and the request to wind up is withdrawn. There will usually be legal costs on both sides. Don't be under any illusions here. Advertising a WUP is the nuclear option in debt collection. It is not some minor technicality, but about the most serious existential threat a company can face. Before the petition is advertised, formal statutory notice of intent to petition to wind up is served on the company, at least 7 days before. So, by the time you see the petition advertised, the company should already have had at least a further week to pay. To pay a debt that was already sufficiently overdue for the creditor to commit serious costs to try and collect it. Once a petition is advertised, banks usually freeze the bank accounts and your credit rating (if you still have one) collapses. So, when you hear directors say it was a mere oversight, all paid and nothing to see here, you might want to think about whether you believe them?
  12. You have till the 22nd of the following month, to pay over tax and NIC that you deducted from employees the previous month. Money that therefore was never actually your own from that point. you have over a month to pay over the VAT that you charged on income in the previous (usually) quarter. For sports clubs, much if not most of that income will have been paid to you well before then. Other than employers' NIC contributions, the money you are paying over is money that you collected or deducted on behalf of HMRC, and which is therefore not your money. So, if you find yourself unable to meet the payment due dates, it means you have been using someone else's money to run and fund your business. There is a word for that in my book. That is why I have no sympathy with failure to pay PAYE, and VAT where you have already received the income (very different where you yourself have not yet been paid), by the due dates. Bulls fans in particular are experts now at hearing the myriad bullpoo "excuses" from owners whose money has run out. Owners who have taken, and lost, taxpayers' money just to postpone the inevitable day of reckoning.
  13. The only attraction seems to be the site? Would anyone take over the club for any other reason? And, having got hold of the site, would anyone bother to actually run a club there, for the remaining fans to walk away from? I suppose at least we would have the satisfaction - if you can call it that - of seeing all the experts finally understanding that the actions of the RFL in January had nothing to do with helping Bradford? And everything to do with the stadium site, and getting Wood and the RFL out of a big hole?
  14. I seem to recall this is the scenario that most of the remaining Bulls supporters who post on here fully expected, back in January? When arguing that the new club should have started in the division below? At a time when a majority of other experts on here assured us that everything would be just fine after the RFL had treated the new club so favourably? I remember, for example, Bullseye being derided when he posted a picture of a typical Bulls 2017 player, a young lad who should not have been put up against tough men. One day, maybe truth will out about why some mates of Wood, with no money, were given the new club, in preference to consortia who looked to have some cash to invest in the team. It surely cannot have been to ensure no-one else got their hands on the one remaining asset of value? And I am sure there is no truth in the scandalous rumours about who may be taking over the Bulls end of this year? Since, anyway, will there even be a Bulls beyond the end of this year?
  15. I see the some of the nasty pieces of work just cannot button it, can they? If - and I still fear it is odds-on, given the mountain now to climb - Bradford do get relegated, and if by two points or less, what will these obsessed Bradford-haters say then? That the RFL showed favouritism to Bradford, by pitching the strong, newly-relegated team against a decimated outfit that had lost most of its key players, had no pre-season, has effectively no central funding, and started on a 12 points deduction? Seesm to me, whatever torments the RFL inflicted on Bradford, these flat-earth obsessives would still see that as favouritism?