It is really becoming like a bad Monty Python sketch and the situation we are in is "merely a flesh wound"

Carvell, Sammut and Scruton gone! We've had worse!

If this is about their reputations and the end result is we hear nothing more then they've lost.

Well, it seems the RFL know they're in the cacky and are trying desperately to cover it up. This whole "Not responding in public stance" on the heels of their last very public response seems to say they've cocked up and know it but don't want to admit it

Interesting bit for me was that they seem to have agreed to pay all creditors (except Omar) in full, over a 5 year period. You would think that this lengthy payment plan would have been mostly for the debt due to the tax man.

Second point that interested me was the the HMRC placed demands on the owners (6 figure bond required), through the RFL. This doesn't sit right with me, and makes me wonder if this was an additional condition that the RFL wanted to impose. I'm not sure how much involvement HMRC have with newly formed companies, maybe someone with experience in this field could add more value?

If Moore and co have got a case then i hope they see it through.If they've not then i hope the RFL ruin them and if that means the Bulls getting dragged deeper into the mire then so be it

How would te Bulls get dragged deep into the mire? Moore, Calvert and Watt have nothing to do with Bradford Bulls anymore

Think you need to take your comments elsewhere

Rog- are you sure on the Sutcliffe loan - Have read somewhere that this is now a no go?

I find the silence from other clubs surprising, normally when something like this happens some either support the club or speak out against.
Maybe the reason for the RFLs u turn is something to do with them ?

I've got to say I've not seen anything about this loan other than here!

Its usually an innocent party that gets damaged when the dirty washing is done in public,who know what kind of info could come out because of this

Don't think much else could make this situation worse tbh, so come on let's have a dick measuring contest between bb2014 and the RFL would be something else to talk about, especially if bb2014 emerge victorious the RFL could be in all kinds of trouble, and we finally get rid of those muppets in charge.

Taking away all the unhappiness about the RFL, when you distil the press release, doesn't the whole thing come down to these two things:


So the only question is whether those two things are true, surely? If not, then it is easy to understand their anger. If true, then it would have ended in the same outcome even if the RFL had made all parties happy with their conduct.

That's what I don't understand, why would the hmrc tell the RFL that they won't accept part payments? Surely hmrc would tell the administrator?

Even then, can you really imagine hmrc turning down a 60 percent payment, when the alternative is them getting 0 (hypothetical of course)?

The rfl could of asked hmrc for clarification on the situation? Given they were going into a crucial meeting about the future of the club, it would be sensible of them to have that information? Or they knew of the law and assumed it would be in place. Or they were just trying to screw over Moore and co.

And the payment is a drop in the ocean for hmrc, they are capable of blocking the new company forming if deemed too high risk (and are allowed to ask for bonds in high risk situations, which one would assume is applicable) - so choosing no payment, with no risk to other companies would be a better option if the bond was refused?

Yes. In cases of admin/CVA etc it is normal for HMRC to vote "no" to any part payment, even though they know the alternative is 2p ijn the £ or whatever. As i understand it, the reason is on general principle, they will not do a deal to accept part payment in settlement.

Unless of course you are a multinational telecoms giant, owe billions and are mates with a man who can sign the deal off, I suppose.

So in a nutshell, even though Moore et al are unhappy with the RFL, and feel that they were misled, ultimately the HMRC stiffed the deal, not the RFL, that the RFL merely passed on what they had been told by HMRC.

It may be, of course, that the RFL didn't know of the HMRC position until shortly before the fateful meeting, meaning that they appeared to be happy with proposals until they found out that more was required to placate the HMRC side of thing.

I suppose one of the hard things for the RFL is that they are not only concerned with running the Bulls club. Whereas Moore et al have had months of constant work and effort on one project, the RFL have got to slot the Bulls situation in alongside doing all their other stuff, which included negotiating new league formats, new Sky deal, and kicking off a new season.

Bradford Bills......the team that keeps on giving!

At he beginning of February I was told by someone close to the club that everything would be hunky dory, including much of the stuff that they've claimed to be the RFL's position after the 23 Jan meeting. I'm sure that he genuinely believed this to be the RFL's position at that time and think its very likely that that was the view of the club. It would seem that, either Moore & Co completely misread the signals given by the RFL, or that the RFL's position changed radically. Perhaps after further dialogue internally or with HMRC. Which would make the anger understandable.

Either way its difficult to see why or how the other parties involved in talks with the RFL are going to come up with a more acceptable package to the RFL now, when they couldn't or wouldnt do that during the 28 day period.

Quote ="Cibaman"At he beginning of February I was told by someone close to the club that everything would be hunky dory, including much of the stuff that they've claimed to be the RFL's position after the 23 Jan meeting. I'm sure that he genuinely believed this to be the RFL's position at that time and think its very likely that that was the view of the club. It would seem that, either Moore & Co completely misread the signals given by the RFL, or that the RFL's position changed radically. Perhaps after further dialogue internally or with HMRC. Which would make the anger understandable. Either way its difficult to see why or how the other parties involved in talks with the RFL are going to come up with a more acceptable package to the RFL now, when they couldn't or wouldnt do that during the 28 day period.'" Beg to differ, but you kept the Sky money and were docked 4 points. Don't believe me, read the administrators report here. www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadw ... istration/ I agree we've brought much of this on ourselves, but does our punishment fit the crime? If so what was different about your crime?

Quote ="Cibaman"At he beginning of February I was told by someone close to the club that everything would be hunky dory, including much of the stuff that they've claimed to be the RFL's position after the 23 Jan meeting. I'm sure that he genuinely believed this to be the RFL's position at that time and think its very likely that that was the view of the club. It would seem that, either Moore & Co completely misread the signals given by the RFL, or that the RFL's position changed radically. Perhaps after further dialogue internally or with HMRC. Which would make the anger understandable. Either way its difficult to see why or how the other parties involved in talks with the RFL are going to come up with a more acceptable package to the RFL now, when they couldn't or wouldnt do that during the 28 day period.'" Beg to differ, but you kept the Sky money and were docked 4 points. Don't believe me, read the administrators report here. www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadw ... istration/ I agree we've brought much of this on ourselves, but does our punishment fit the crime? If so what was different about your crime?

Quote ="Mirfieldbull"Beg to differ, but you kept the Sky money and were docked 4 points. Don't believe me, read the administrators report here. www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadw ... istration/ I agree we've brought much of this on ourselves, but does our punishment fit the crime? If so what was different about your crime?'" Think you will find that the poster is on about the seasons 1999 & 2000 when Wakefield entered the Super League, they did not receive central funding from superleague for those first 2 seasons......and there was P & R then.... www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 87453.html

Quote ="Mirfieldbull"Beg to differ, but you kept the Sky money and were docked 4 points. Don't believe me, read the administrators report here. www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk/chadw ... istration/ I agree we've brought much of this on ourselves, but does our punishment fit the crime? If so what was different about your crime?'" Think you will find that the poster is on about the seasons 1999 & 2000 when Wakefield entered the Super League, they did not receive central funding from superleague for those first 2 seasons......and there was P & R then.... www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 87453.html

Notwithstanding any potential misleading that may or may not have occurred by the RFL or any other party, the cynic in me still questions how the BB2014 setup perceived that their super duper business plan was so fantastic that they would not offer up any of their own brass to support it, yet expected the RFL to advance funds to them to support a plan that would, at best (assuming the cash flow projections were accurate and targets hit) make a £100k loss in year 1.

Or am I missing something here? I'd love to see the proof of funding presented to the administrator to support the offer made for the club to see what was being offered in terms of actual cash.

I think the answer to that is "very little or nothing at all".

I'm afraid without any serious cash to inject any takeover is pretty much doomed. You're effectively starting a new business with zero capital whilst trying to meet some of the obligations of the old company. Folly, absolute folly.

I think "folly" is a bit strong. If just for the purposes of this conversation we make an assumption that the new owners were decent enough business men to the extent that they knew what they were doing, then read this;

... the result is a 100K shortfall for 2014 which - if we rashly assume normal distribution monies in 2015 - turns into a surplus; albeit a surplus unless you try to start to rebuild the squad with some more players to start to fill some of the huge holes that 2014 left.