Adeybull
-
Posts
1,864 -
Joined
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by Adeybull
-
-
No mention of the Philippines parachute then?
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...
-
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.
-
I wasn't marking you down for anything concerning junior development or solvency, I just used them as examples of how if one of them were to fall, then you would be a C grade.
And I was also just saying with regards to crowds and capacity it's crystal clear, 100% certain that you won't be getting any points for them. And the way your looking on the pitch it's quite likely that you won't be finishing 10th. However you do have Wakefield next so basically you could say that the match has one franchise point at stake. And yes getting an average of 8th or above is the only criteria regarding "competitiveness".
"Teams earn one point if they are considered to have made a contribution to the competition - that means averaging a place in the top eight over each of the last three seasons."
My agenda was simply to highlight that you are very likely to be the only club getting a lower rating than you got in 2008, which would be an absolute disaster for the club. I have nothing against Bradford personally, infact I'm sad that the Wolves have replaced you as one of the "big four" as opposed to there being a "big five" with Bradford included. It's just that the club seems to be spiraling downwards both on and off the pitch at an alarming rate, whilst clubs like Salford and Hull KR and Castleford; although they're in a worse position then the Bulls at the moment, within a few years could easily be better placed for Super League than the Bulls will be.
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).
-
Your right you need a good council for starters and a few friends in high places to get your new ground like Wire.
I just think every year Bradford are going backwards on and off the pitch. You may have a few juniors to mask over the fact that the big names have gone but they are hardly in the class of Saints young stars.
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.
-
The criteria for No. 9 is actually broken the salary cap in the last three seasons, and seeing as you guys cheated in 2005 (punished in 2006) you'll be getting another point there.
However contribution to competition is based on a teams average position being 8th or above in the last three seasons. Seeing as you guys finished 5th in Super League XIII and 9th in Super League IX, then if you finished 10th this season you'd get the point, but if you finished 11th this season you wouldn't get the point.
Also your Super League XIII attendence was 10,287; your XIV was 9,677 and XV at the moment is 8,440. This means that it is highly unlikely you'll get a point for having 10,000 average over the last 3 seasons.
This also means that you won't get the point for having a 40% capacity ground as 40% of 27,000 (which is how much Odsal holds) is 10,800 which is above what you guys have got over the last three years.
So if one of your other things like junior development or solvency was to fall, then you could be getting a C licence and would probably be the only club to actually have gone down a grade. Which would be a disaster for the club especially as teams like Huddersfield Giants and Crusaders have made progress, and especially as in three years times many many clubs will be getting several points for their new grounds.
So back off Lobby - he is not trolling he has actually made a very good point about Bradford's soon to be very poor licence application.
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.
-
I've been nice today and I'm a wire
Most Wires are - good lot in the main. We all have a few Fekkwits though!
-
I would not be at all surprised to see this happen.
Not at all.
-
It needs a serious overhaul over there at Bradford, the days of them having 20,000 crowds and regular final appearances is long gone, and the fans have gone with it! I don't think they are in danger of losing their superleague licence, but its job on for those in charge to get them moving forward as a club because in every depatment from marketing to player base they are failing.
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.
-
In the last licensing round, Bradford were a strong club and got a B licence. This time round, they have failed to reach the play-offs in 2009 and 2010, so they are weaker there. I don't know what their juniors are like (junior development is supposed to be one of the criteria), but their ground is a cause for concern. It is quite conceivable that Bradford will be seen as weaker this time and that will put them under real pressure for the next licensing round. Lobby, I think you are 3 years ahead of your time!
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
-
Gobby, you need to go see someone about your worrying obsession with Bradford and its stadium. Soon.
-
A bulls fan that is critizing another teams ground???? pot, kettle, black?
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?
-
Thats the worst away end in SL, tiny, out in the open and crumbling.
Leeds should do-up that end first.
Far from it. That accolade goes to Wakefield.
-
Ah forgot about Olbison, thanks for that.
I think Finnigan's birthday is 4/8/89.
Gareth Owen can be added to the Salford list, played yesterday aged 17
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!
-
Here are Leeds Rugby accounts
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.
-
I'll call off the various sets of accounts and have a good look through as soon as I get a minute. First reaction is that the numbers must reflect some exceptional item - like the year the Bulls treated most of the 17-year Odsal settlement as year-1 income, or when Leeds sold the cricket ground. Will prob depend which of the various companies the numbers are for.
But it can never be a bad thing when profits flow into RL. Shame some of these likely came from somewhere I would very much have preferred them not to have, but much more to the point its a major issue that most other clubs currently have limited if any potential to make profits of any kind. That is the big challenge facing the game going forward IMO.
-
Bulls: Add Tom Olbison = 8
Telegraph & Argus report has Finnigan still down as 20? Says he has been doing his degree for last 2 years which suggests may be bit early for 21? Although I don't have DOB so if you do could you post on here EK? Ta.
-
Mick, you were definitely there - where were your usual updates last night?
-
Bulls players won't get a better chance to impress their new coach...
-
Atkins was let go by Macnamara, shortly after taking over, he reckoned we had a number of young players coming through in the backs, and Atkins would get more opportunity with Wakefield to develop, he has haunted us ever since. I know another player was also let go at the same time cannot remember who it was.
Not to be hard on Mac, but it was the time when big debts had to be settled and Leeds were pushing us for compensation, I am sure in normal circumstances a prospect like Atkins wouldn't have been allowed to leave but Mac was under pressure to make savings and if we had adequate cover then players could be let go, and of course Atkins may not have developed.. Our downward path was just beginning.
Checking dates, and yes Macca was appointed in April and Atkins was released in May. So not quite the timeline I recollected. Interesting what you say about Macca being under pressure on costs right from start...that is the argument I proposed in support of Macca for several years. I was p
-
Atkins went to Wakey on loan when Hape and Ben Harris were the Bulls' centres. He then got offered a permanent move and took it. Can't blame anybody really, just unfortunate timing from the Bulls' point of view.
Hape and Harris in the centres...hell those were the days! I think though that the issue was more that the Bulls were not perceived as in any way incentivising him to stay - indeed quite the opposite? That was my recollection anyway, although happy for anyone to improve on my fading recollection.
-
Apparently Potter is keen to take him to the Bulls but Flannery would prefer to stay at Saints. However Saints are holding off on making Flannery a new contract offer as they've made offers to other overseas players (rumoured to be Blair & Uate) and are waiting to hear back from them first.
Ta muchly.
-
leon debuted at 16 on the wing and was a special talent as was robbie paul. its a shame we showed the likes of bridge and atkins the door although with hape in there they werent getting a look in back then. theres just not that ,any decent centres knockin about these days.
Bridge was a half back then. I think the reasons for him leaving were more related to off-field activities and attitude. Sadly for us, the move seems to have done him good. Atkins...I despair of that move. Was a last throw under the Noble regime though, IIRC?
-
This was policy rhinos used to tie down the core of their current team on long and relatively cheap over the length of the deal contracts.
Indeed it was. When Leeds did it they were unusual in doing it, and it looked good to the youngsters as well as made excellent PR. Very smart move by the club, even if as players progressed they may perhaps have wondered whether it had been as much in their interest as it was the club's.
Unfortunately, agents are far wiser to that now, and the "home-grown" rules are making such youngsters very expensive. I know you missed the forum, but the panel made this point. I suspect it would now be prohibitively expensive to tie a young star-in-the-making down to such a long contract.
-
From the list above the most important players to resign are Langley (who has been great this year when not injured) and some of the 'up and coming' youngsters like Finigan, Addy and Wardle.
I think Steve Menzies has been great for the club but both he and Nero will have to go to free up wages and quota places.
As for the rest, the questions are which ones Mick Potter thinks he can get an improvement out of, how much they want and possibly who effects the home grown player quota.
I think at least 3 more players (in addition to Menzies and Nero) will need to be released for the club to have the funds to do anything in the transfer market that will start to win back missing fans.
Releasing players will free up funds for paying new players (or, and lest anyone forget and as you imply, significantly upgrading the contracts of some of our rising stars if we are to keep them) but won't free up any cash for transfer fees. Given the club could not spend the cap this year, and says it is aiming to next year - but I reckon it will be a close-run thing - I can't see where money for transfer fees would come from. I'd love to see Leon back for a final stint, but even though Bulls and Saints boards get on well I can't see them giving him away
What we need is for some wealthy fan to stump up a transfer fee or two...
Bradford Bulls Pledge Campaign
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted · Edited by Adeybull
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?