longboard Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 And are either of them "money men"? (Hint: I very much doubt it) Who are the named shareholders in the club or its holding company? Killer facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul hicks Posted August 22, 2019 Author Share Posted August 22, 2019 Killer facts not that strong and stable was it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulls2487 Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 Killer facts not that strong and stable was it Maybe check out the accounts out while on that page. Lowe was a director of the Orcas until April 18. The loss was covered by someone in January 2018. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulliac Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 yes I'm sure Leeds untied will be up in arms about it Lol, Leeds untied - you couldn't make it up! No team is an island......................................... http://www.flickr.com/photos/31337109@N03/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clogiron Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 Due to Brexit (surely not) the waste and rubbish that is exported to Europe from the south of England is going to have to go into landfill sites in the North of England (surely not) according to some bod on the BBC news. Strange coincidence that isn't it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blind side johnny Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 Due to Brexit (surely not) the waste and rubbish that is exported to Europe from the south of England is going to have to go into landfill sites in the North of England (surely not) according to some bod on the BBC news. Strange coincidence that isn't it I believe that there are restrictions upon using the site for landfill, possibly due to serious geological problems. Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul hicks Posted August 22, 2019 Author Share Posted August 22, 2019 Lol, Leeds untied - you couldn't make it up! you could and that's why they trip up at the final hurdle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdesert Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 15 hours ago, Blind side johnny said: I believe that there are restrictions upon using the site for landfill, possibly due to serious geological problems. There is a large area of land available. If it is contaminated, and I have no doubts of people claiming it is, then that land will require remediation first before it could be used as landfill. Even if it wasn’t, knocking the old stadium down and preparing the land for resale will severely deplete whatever people think it’s worth. I think the Council would look kindly on any offers from Developers and their proposed plans, but I cannot see the available money from a sale being even 10% of what they would need for a new stadium on the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulliac Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 All of the debate seems to omit to mention that a commercial deal to build a stadium plus a commercial element (aka Superdome) was all signed off and ready to go a few years ago. Unfortunately, it fell foul of the then government's building criteria and not a lack of investment or problems with toxic waste on the site, which was known about and reported at the time. Other than the current toxic political position and a looming economic slowdown there is little actual difference on site. No team is an island......................................... http://www.flickr.com/photos/31337109@N03/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdesert Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 22 minutes ago, Bulliac said: All of the debate seems to omit to mention that a commercial deal to build a stadium plus a commercial element (aka Superdome) was all signed off and ready to go a few years ago. Unfortunately, it fell foul of the then government's building criteria and not a lack of investment or problems with toxic waste on the site, which was known about and reported at the time. Other than the current toxic political position and a looming economic slowdown there is little actual difference on site. No toxic waste, fair enough. But waste has many facets that still require remediation or otherwise. Any developer would want to do their own due diligence, trial holes, soil analysis, geotech, anyway, despite what feasibility studies have been done. No company is just going to take the councils, Bulls or RFL word for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulliac Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 8 minutes ago, Lowdesert said: No toxic waste, fair enough. But waste has many facets that still require remediation or otherwise. Any developer would want to do their own due diligence, trial holes, soil analysis, geotech, anyway, despite what feasibility studies have been done. No company is just going to take the councils, Bulls or RFL word for it. Sorry, you misunderstand me. There is toxic waste, I didn't say otherwise, it has been there for years and is so old no-one seems to know exactly what (or where) it is. Just what it was and how 'toxic' it remains is also beyond my ken. What I do know, and which was the main point of my post was that a commercial stadium was designed, had local planning permission and had finance in place before the government pulled the plug by saying a sports stadium in a retail park was against their planning guidelines. One can only assume that any costs relating to the waste had been factored in, so it nonsense to suggest, as some have, that it isn't financially viable. No team is an island......................................... http://www.flickr.com/photos/31337109@N03/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blind side johnny Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 3 hours ago, Bulliac said: All of the debate seems to omit to mention that a commercial deal to build a stadium plus a commercial element (aka Superdome) was all signed off and ready to go a few years ago. Unfortunately, it fell foul of the then government's building criteria and not a lack of investment or problems with toxic waste on the site, which was known about and reported at the time. Other than the current toxic political position and a looming economic slowdown there is little actual difference on site. AC has stated, categorically, that they will not retrun to Odsal under any guise. He says that they are actively planning the development of another site elsewhere in Bradford (not PA or VP). Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulliac Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Blind side johnny said: AC has stated, categorically, that they will not retrun to Odsal under any guise. He says that they are actively planning the development of another site elsewhere in Bradford (not PA or VP). ...and in other news Mafeking has been relieved. Yes, BSJ I know what he said. If you haven't been keeping up with the twists and turns of this thread (and I wouldn't blame you, It does get a bit surreal) then you won't be aware that there have been a few posts about Odsal's other possible uses and the problem of waste, dumped long ago. My last two (or was it three posts) have been on that topic. Ie, if the old Superdome development was given the green light on safety and financial grounds then the waste can't be as expensive to put right as some suggest. NB, for whatever use that may be, not necessarily sports. Though, who would be daft enough to rule anything out, whatever was said..? No team is an island......................................... http://www.flickr.com/photos/31337109@N03/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Future is League Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 2 hours ago, Blind side johnny said: AC has stated, categorically, that they will not retrun to Odsal under any guise. He says that they are actively planning the development of another site elsewhere in Bradford (not PA or VP). Has he mentioned where the moneys coming from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roofaldo Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 Well the RFL have begrudgingly allowed the move to Dewsbury, but only for 1 year and just to really stick it to Bradford, they've been put in special measures meaning they're not allowed to sign players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clogiron Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 Suprise, suprise, the RFL have taken the hump and only granted them 1 year at Dewsbury and trashed their talk of returning to the Bfd area demanding more solid details about it, that might prove problematic as I doubt if any exsists so it's advantage Chambers for next season, providing he wasn't calling their bluff and doesn't lose too much money, then it's a good old Mexican stand off, unless those serial thief's in the night of Bulls player's Shuddersford don't sign him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulls2487 Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Clogiron said: Suprise, suprise, the RFL have taken the hump and only granted them 1 year at Dewsbury and trashed their talk of returning to the Bfd area demanding more solid details about it, that might prove problematic as I doubt if any exsists so it's advantage Chambers for next season, providing he wasn't calling their bluff and doesn't lose too much money, then it's a good old Mexican stand off, unless those serial thief's in the night of Bulls player's Shuddersford don't sign him Based on the information received the RFL feel that this decision made by the Bradford Bulls directors is a poor one; however ultimately the Board of that club is responsible for determining what is in the best interests of Bradford Bulls. Does anyone think this part of the press release is a weird thing to say? And very unprofessional from a governing body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelic Cynic Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 I'm at a bit of a loss to fully understand this. Isn't it public knowledge,and explained by Mr Chalmers,that remaining at Odsal is expensive and they have found,by moving,that it is cheaper.Ergo,the club save money. On the RFL website - Quote Special Measures Where the Rugby Football League reasonably has concerns regarding a Club’s stability the Club may be placed in ‘Special Measures’ and restrictions placed on the value, duration and type of playing contracts the Club may enter into. The saving of money will make the club more stable - but they are jeopardised by not being allowed to register players. No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindle xiii Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 No regrets here. 2018 without Rugby League wasn't a bad thing for me. I recommend if you aren't satisfied, take a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulls2487 Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said: I'm at a bit of a loss to fully understand this. Isn't it public knowledge,and explained by Mr Chalmers,that remaining at Odsal is expensive and they have found,by moving,that it is cheaper.Ergo,the club save money. On the RFL website - The saving of money will make the club more stable - but they are jeopardised by not being allowed to register players. I reckon this is down to the fact RFL are going to lose 72k a year. Spitting dummy out at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul hicks Posted August 23, 2019 Author Share Posted August 23, 2019 26 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said: I'm at a bit of a loss to fully understand this. Isn't it public knowledge,and explained by Mr Chalmers,that remaining at Odsal is expensive and they have found,by moving,that it is cheaper.Ergo,the club save money. On the RFL website - The saving of money will make the club more stable - but they are jeopardised by not being allowed to register players. the statement by chambers that they intend to spend the same on players in 2020 as they did in 2019 and if they have a surplus of money for 2020 they will spend it on players for me says it all about the bulls. spend spend spend what's up with preserving that surplus towards moving back to Bradford with a bit of money to invest. just how there going to save money is also a bit unsure as they must assume there going to get the same crowds but if say 1500 decide not to follow them at Dewsbury then that's a lot less money coming into the club . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konkrete Posted August 23, 2019 Share Posted August 23, 2019 Well, where to even start with this decision. Admin 5 and a oooh maybe a 14 point deduction this time round. New owners appointed, sign Odsal lease as caveat of approval, denial of central funds, eldest child of each parent fan to be sacrificed to the RFL gods under the black dot at every home game. F ######s Forever in our shadow, forever on your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul hicks Posted August 23, 2019 Author Share Posted August 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Konkrete said: Well, where to even start with this decision. Admin 5 and a oooh maybe a 14 point deduction this time round. New owners appointed, sign Odsal lease as caveat of approval, denial of central funds, eldest child of each parent fan to be sacrificed to the RFL gods under the black dot at every home game. F ######s at last a reasonable proposal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkw Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 9 hours ago, Bulls2487 said: I reckon this is down to the fact RFL are going to lose 72k a year. Spitting dummy out at it. No, it's down to Bradford being in breach of regulations and us the standard punishment for those breaches as other clubs have also seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted August 24, 2019 Share Posted August 24, 2019 11 hours ago, Angelic Cynic said: I'm at a bit of a loss to fully understand this. Isn't it public knowledge,and explained by Mr Chalmers,that remaining at Odsal is expensive and they have found,by moving,that it is cheaper.Ergo,the club save money. On the RFL website - The saving of money will make the club more stable - but they are jeopardised by not being allowed to register players. They may save money, but they will also lose income imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.