Quote ="Wooden Stand"The RFL runs the game for the benefit of all stakeholders. It has more and better things do than micro manage Bradford Bulls.'"
Thank you for repeating the published RFL line. We'd prefer a bit of original thought though?
,
Quote ="Wooden Stand"It did not "take the stadium". Bradford Bulls freely entered into an arrangement offered by the RFL to help the Club. '"
"to help the club"? As it happens, IIRC Hood told some of us that the idea to sell the ground was his, in a discussion with Wood on a train. But, regardless of how it arose, it was a deal done between Hood and one or more heirarchs at the RFL. That deal, far from helping the club, did absolutely immense damage to the club:
- it took away the one tangible asset the club had left
- it seriously restricted the scope and opportunities for any future owners.
- it caused immense ill-feeling at other clubs, and Iconicgate (thanks to the guy who coined that!) appears to have been one of the main factors behind the other clubs demanding central funding be confiscated from the new owner (please don't regurgitate yet more of the RFL line...most folk now accept it was imposed not volunteered)
- it, and the secret loan that predated it, allowed the club to incur further losses of maybe more than £1.5m, over a period when the shareholder war made running the place very difficult.
- it seemingly so incensed Caisley and co - especially since what they were apparently told at the 2011 AGM was contradicted by actions just a few weeks later.
- it thoroughly pìssed off the supporters, who having been assured the deal had guaranteed the club's long-term future, were landed the bombshell just weeks later that the club was about to go under.
- most important of all, it made me look a total prat because I made the serious error of believing what each of Hood, Bennett, Duckett and Duffy told me at the fans' forum immediately after the sale was anounced. And supporting them, because of their assurances. Some of them were just doing their jobs, but Hood just plain lied. To everyone.
It seems perfectly plain now that what the RFL did was akin to giving a druggie a load more of whatever he was addicted to. What condition did THAT ever solve? Had the RFL said "no" to the loan, and to the stadium deal, then Hood would either have had to cut a deal with Caisley's cabal to save the club, or put the thing into administration so someone esle had the chance to. And the loss to creditors, and the mountain to climb, would have been far less, not least because the club still held its principal asset. Oh, and we would not have had to suffer an administrator appointed by the Caisley cabal, whose fees and actons in sacking people were a scandal.
But, silly, me, that would never have happened, would it? Because Wood & co had made this big secret loan to the club. You know, the one they never told anyone else about? And then - one wonders? - started cräpping themselves at what would happen to THEM when the existence of the loan came out, when Bulls went bust and were not able to repay it?
YOU may still want to think what Wood & co did was to help the club. Most of us now realise it achieved precisely the opposite.
Quote ="Wooden Stand"The alternative could have been the bank, to which the Club owed a lot of money, taking the ground.'"
Oh dear. You really don't know how these things work, do you?
The bank could only have seized the ground if they had a fixed charge on the freehold. Which they did not. The fact is, if BBH became insolvent, the long lease reverted to the council. The bank could never have realised ity in any way as security.
If BBH became insolvent whilst still holding the long lease, the best scope for Natwest to recover what it was owed would have been for the administrator to secure a decent price for the goodwill and other intangible assets - including a transfer of the lease to a new owner. Being a floating charge holder, the bank would then have had first dibs once the prefs were paid. Any in any case, the bank was only in for about £1/4m or so.
Quote ="Wooden Stand"The RFL was not "taken in". It's 'fit and proper person test' is, as I've made clear previously, a BACKWARD LOOKING test. It is not intended to predict FUTURE behaviour.'"
I never said it was "taken in". They either failed to conduct due dilligence when advancing the original loan - which should have meant Wood & co being ejected from office in most commercial organisations - or they knew what they were doing, and where it might lead.
As for the "fit and proper" test, well do you really think the leopard changed its spots so dramatically after the takeover?
I really wish you would just stand back from the line Wood and co have been pedalling, and look at their actual actions leading up to and throughout this whole ongoing train crash. The train crash was due entirely to the various people who owned and ran the club. I don't think there is any argument about that? The scale of the crash, the extent of the casualties, and the long-term consequences of it, seem to me though to owe much to the actions of Wood & co.
Something folk might want to think about? Moore & co were pilloried in various quarters for "walking away" from the club, when they were told about the (to them) unexpected points deduction AND, more seriously, continuing special measures. They said those actions by the RFL effectively consigned the club to relegation and (the subtext) possible financial oblivion. They said they could not allow themselves to be associated with the next train crash. Hood and Khan, by contrast, elected to try and carry on despite the overwhelming financial burdens. Who got it right?
