Jump to content

Adeybull

Coach
  • Posts

    1,864
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    9

Adeybull last won the day on June 12 2018

Adeybull had the most liked content!

Member Profile

  • Location
    At the Gates of Delirium

Recent Profile Visitors

4,533 profile views

Adeybull's Achievements

1.2k

Reputation

  1. Prove that Bradford have made "no attempt" to reach the population of the district (which includes Keighley, btw - so you concur Bradford are OK to looks for fans in Keighley - good man) or I will have to label you a liar. Clue: they have made a lot of effort. I am sick and tired of saying - Odsal is at the very southern tip of the Brad met area, and therefore of the artificial Service Area. You can hear the tannoys from Odsal in Kirklees if the wind is in the right direction, and you can walk to Calderdale in half an hour from Odsal. Much of the Odsal - and Bulls - hinterland is across the boundary. Why the hell should the Bulls be precluded from promoting themselves more than a mile from their stadium? You do not insist that Leeds do not market themselves in south or west Leeds, where the local clubs are Hunslet and Bramley. Please explain whay this does not make you a hypocrite?
  2. Or Singapore Sling, or teh "Singapore Parachute" as I labelled it a while ago. I think that is a separate issue altogether, relating to residence (or otherwise) for tax purposes? And where (if anywhere) a player is actually resident when he is domiciled in Oz/NZ/etc but has been resident in the UK but is now permanently on his way back home - but is not yet resident there. He is in the air somewhere over Singapore, and the payment is dropped into a bank at that time. When he is not actually resident for tax purposes anywhere...
  3. My understanding: the 15% is the percentage of the total package that HMRC have indicated they are prepared to treat as being justifiable image rights in non-superstar cases (superstars have to be looked at individually). Clubs who paid more than 15% to non-superstar players for image rights are targeted. HMRC is seeking to treat payments in excess of 15% as being net pay to the player, and therefore seeks grossing-up for tax and NIC as well as interest and penalties. They can go back a fair way, and for some clubs the amounts at risk are understood to be very substantial. I have posted at length about the image rights tax issue in the past - not least because of the implications for retrospective salary cap breaches.
  4. OK thanks for clarifying. Bulls WILL be rated lower, that's without a doubt. And, sadly, it is primarily down to the fans not turning out (for whatever reason and whoever is at fault...) and nothing to do with e.g. quality of stadium. I AM sure I read that that "contribution to the game" criterion was not as prescriptive as "top 8"-only, and that measure was indicative but not mandatory. Was sure there was a caveat in front of "averaging..." But like you I also read the top-8" measure too. I'll have to try and track down where I came across it, because it DID seem quite important (I think someone from an expansion club was using it to demonstrate why they may well qualify for a point there, but can't be sure).
  5. First point - for sure. Dead right there. Maybe as important is not sharing a city with a struggling soccer club with friends in high places, and the richest man in the city aiding and abetting the opposition. Second point - re the youngsters: watch this space. Saints and the like have 2-3 years start on us. You haven't really seen the best of the young talent coming through yet - still a bit too young. But you will. Its one of the few things at the moment that is exciting about the future here. We are also seeing some changes now within the club that I reckon will reverse the decline. Won't list them on here, but - within the lack-of-sugar-daddy reality we are in, I'm actually cautiously optimistic.
  6. We won't fail on the Salary cap breach. The breaches happened for 2005 and 2006 (and only modest and only then because Harris' image rights paid by Publico were inexplicably treated as falling within the cap, whereas e.g Scully and Gillette, and all those clubs using devices HMRC are attacking were not - don't even go there). Had the 2008 licence application process been in 2009, we would have received an A grade. But I already added the point, so why repeat? We won't fail on junior development. We'll be graded much higher than last time. We won't fail on solvency. Without a sugar daddy we HAVE to be solvent, and we are. I already marked us fail on crowd >10k and crowd 40% capacity and "contribution to the competition". And you will find that "contribution to competition" is a bit more vague than that simple "indicative" guideline anyway. Lobby has a single agenda against Bradford, regarding the stadium. I don't think he is wired up right over it. And you seem to have an agenda, But you failed to make any points I had not already recognised, and have set hares running with no justification on two other criteria. I'm sure you had your reasons.
  7. Most Wires are - good lot in the main. We all have a few Fekkwits though!
  8. I would not be at all surprised to see this happen. Not at all.
  9. Maybe we can get a new stadium pretty well given to us by Tesco to solve the problem at modest cost? Maybe you can give us some tips there? We DID try that, of course, but local politics killed it off. Others, who were in a much worse state than us, were rather more fortunate, were they not? There but for the grace of God... Incidentally, Bulls are most definitely NOT "failing in every department". Are we "failing" in junior development, for example? I rather think not.
  10. Last time round, Bulls scored 7 out of 10. You needed 5-7 for a B Licence. See below. Might make interesting reading for the pathetic fekkwits who seem to think its all about the newness of and facilities at your ground (clue: its one of TEN criteria) Capacity of 12,000 YES 1 Premier competition standard ground NO 0 Average crowd of 10,000 YES 1 Operating at 40 per cent full YES 1 Turn over
  11. Gobby, you need to go see someone about your worrying obsession with Bradford and its stadium. Soon.
  12. Last time I looked, we were not on a warning about our ground from the RFL, and our SL future did not depend on us getting a new ground. You were; and yours does. So now we have got rid of the pot, kettle nonsense as being a red herring, was there anything useful you wanted to share with us?
  13. Far from it. That accolade goes to Wakefield.
  14. If that's the case re Finnigan, you've bragging rights over all the "professionals" who have reported his signing a full-time contract this morning!
  15. Thanks - but I'll get the full set from Companies House. All the interesting stuff and detail is always in the notes and narratives. I never use a D&B (or similar) summary for credit assessment or interpretation. Far too little detail. Also, looks like these are the intermediate parent co accounts - but not consolidated, so not really very meaningful. I can't remember the group structure - from memory it was not deliberately complex or anything - so I can't remember which accounts you need.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.