Comments at bottom of page:

[urlhttp://www.rbs.com/news/2012/03/our-changing-approach-to-sponsorship.html?cq_ck=1332956095884#comments-hqm2-yet_the_bankdoesno[/url

Why will they not loan money when they have assurances (not the ground)?

But they will sponsor ............(see for yourself)

Have fun !

'By giving back to society we begin to rebuild our connection with the communities we serve.'

Hmmm...

RBS have made their decision based on the principles of RESPONSIBLE LENDING.

We all know that they didn't always do this in the past (and the cost to the taxpayer and thousands of workers as a result). I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but those of you who criticise them for the actions of the past can only be described as hypocrites if you say that they are unreasonable for giving the management team the option of providing additional security to replace the value of the lease that was sold to the RFL or having reduced facilities.

For RBS to have done anything else would be considered irresponsible lending.

I can't believe that anyone is trying to find any fault with what the RBS have done.

So far it appears that RBS have not called for repayment of the overdraft the bulls have, but simply said that the current overdraft limit can not be exceeded.
Hence no cash from them and no cash in the till = Cash flow problems.
Or at least a problem with more cash flowing out than cash flowing in to the tune of M£1 this year.

Quote ="redeverready"I can't believe that anyone is trying to find any fault with what the RBS have done.'" I'm not. RBS and Bulls' statements in the press contradict one another (www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/17536053) so I know neither what they have done, nor whether what they have done was wrong or not. However, there is discussion on their sponsorship page that does sit well in light of what has happened over the last couple of days, and it sticks in my craw.

Quote ="redeverready"I can't believe that anyone is trying to find any fault with what the RBS have done.'" I'm not. RBS and Bulls' statements in the press contradict one another (www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/17536053) so I know neither what they have done, nor whether what they have done was wrong or not. However, there is discussion on their sponsorship page that does sit well in light of what has happened over the last couple of days, and it sticks in my craw.

Quote ="ridlerbull"I'm not. RBS and Bulls' statements in the press contradict one another (www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/17536053) so I know neither what they have done, nor whether what they have done was wrong or not. However, there is discussion on their sponsorship page that does sit well in light of what has happened over the last couple of days, and it sticks in my craw.'" RBS's rugby sponsorship focuses (rightly or wrongly) on Rugby Union. In any case, there's a huge difference in "connecting with communities" through projects like Cricket Force for local AMATEUR clubs and a commercial banking relationship with a PROFESSIONAL club with an annual turnover (reportedly) in excess of £3m.

Quote ="ridlerbull"I'm not. RBS and Bulls' statements in the press contradict one another (www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/17536053) so I know neither what they have done, nor whether what they have done was wrong or not. However, there is discussion on their sponsorship page that does sit well in light of what has happened over the last couple of days, and it sticks in my craw.'" RBS's rugby sponsorship focuses (rightly or wrongly) on Rugby Union. In any case, there's a huge difference in "connecting with communities" through projects like Cricket Force for local AMATEUR clubs and a commercial banking relationship with a PROFESSIONAL club with an annual turnover (reportedly) in excess of £3m.

Haven't RBS been bought out by Banco Santander ?

Er...No.

You own it.

The version of events I heard this evening suggests quite the opposite, and supports what I was told earlier.

Wish I did Bulls would not have a problem lol

Understand what you mean

Yes santander are taking over RBS,told so by a Bulls fan who works in santander on monday in Bradford city centre.
She was gutted about the situ !

Hi,

RBS are not getting taken over by Santander.

You're getting mixed up with the (enforced) branch sale.

RBS have sold 318 UK branches to Santander.

Hope this clears things up.

M

Thanks for clearing that up.

Does this mean that RBS is monitoring this board for the moment?

Well done RBS

You have a history of irresponsible behaviour and I am pleased to see you are trying to move away this now that you re playing with our money.

Yes RBS is watching you........

Seriously, I hold some shares in RBS, but I'm also a Bulls fan.

I’m not entirely familiar with the situation, the Bullbuilder guys seem to know more.

But from an outsider’s prospective, we seem to have sold our only asset (Odsal lease) to cover the RFL debt. However, this deal has resulted in the overdraft facility been withdraw by RBS, as the Bulls no longer hold any securities. RBS have made similar decisions with other businesses, such as GAME and even Gordon Ramsey.

Seems when we sold the lease, the board were caught between a rock and a hard place. How we got to that position is what I would like answering!

I'm struggling to work out how we were physically able to sell the ground lease if it was the main security on the overdraft. Sorry if I'm biased because I hate RBS and love Braford Bulls but it doesn't seem as simple as RBS are making out.

Also if Ryan Duckett is to be believed they were offered securities last week by the directors last week. From my experience RBS seem to be quite inflexible nowadays in their lending to businesses.

RBS' Corporate Banking Division claims: -

"No bank is doing more to support UK businesses than RBS"

Regardless of the securities issues, it doesn't seem that way to me...

It was not our only asset. Far from it. And it was IMO an asset of little value to a bank in the event of insolvency. Also, I do not believe RBS's explanation that they pulled the facility for the reason they said. I suspect (although do not know) they saw the big receipt from the RFL, and took the opportunity to cut and run while they had the chance. In also suspect that this was all the domino effect from the RFL wanting the loan repaid earlier than expected (however that arose). I was told several years ago by a senior RBS official (I was in the middle of negotiating a £3m facility at the time...) that they RBS had no appetite for lending to RL clubs, and wanted to exit the sector.

But we do not have concrete facts, so I'm hesitant to pillory RBS as it stands - especially since they are owned by the taxpayer, and we'd scream blue murder if they lent to someone we saw as a poor credit risk!

...is the right answer.

And RBS are our current bankers, so I can speak from the same experience.

Apparently the Lord Mayor of London is a lifelong Bradford fan. He wants to get in there and start swinging his mace about.

Or put it on Ebay.

It's ironic that the amount we're looking for to save our club is pretty much exactly what RBS head honcho Hester was going to get as his Christmas friggin bonus.

RBS have to find the money to pay their £20m Six Nations RU sponsorship. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/7843258.stm But on a serious note RBS said they removed the overdraft because of the stadium www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/17536053 Simple way for the overdraft bk would be for the RFL to transfer the title deed back to the Bulls and RBS would be olbliged to restore the overdraft.

RBS have to find the money to pay their £20m Six Nations RU sponsorship. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/7843258.stm But on a serious note RBS said they removed the overdraft because of the stadium www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/17536053 Simple way for the overdraft bk would be for the RFL to transfer the title deed back to the Bulls and RBS would be olbliged to restore the overdraft.

And I have already put up a strong argument regarding why I cannot believe that was the case.