If Bradford PA took over Bfd Bulls, would Bfd PA play at Odsal or would Bfd Bulls play at Horsfall?

I think there would be issues with both of those plans to be honest.

BPA would move to Odsal

TBF all bids will need to include some thoughts about income won’t they? And projected fan numbers will form a large part of that won’t it? Surely it’s wiser to have some sensible projections of what you would need to break even or even make a loss you can cover?

You’ve not seen the bid so you won’t have a clue whether it’s been done on a “beer mat”.

Where we are in agreement is the need for cash and a lot of it. Such are the potential outgoings Lamb is going to need to pump a fair bit in to enable the club to get to the end of the season. After that it’s going to be a lot of hard work to repair the club’s reputation.

A bit I’m doubtful about is the “hand it back to the fans” part. What does that mean? If he thinks the club could be run by the fans I think he’s living in cloud cuckoo land – unless we’re talking about a part time championship 1 team not playing at Odsal, but even then some fans would have to give up their day jobs to run it. I can’t see it.

the hard part for any of the bidders is having to cover the lost season ticket revenue of approx £300K if they honour existing tickets on top of the lost central funding....that's close to £1m down before having to pay any creditors off...........ouch......

It’s the sheer amount of outgoings that need covering before you can even move forward that will put off many. It’s not like a clean slate, as I expect those putting the club into admin intended. It’s more of a flattened cow pat.

Looking at some of the prospective buyers I’m not sure they have the finance. Aside from that I’m not sure they realise what they’d be getting into. The last bunch were a bit naïve I would suggest. The others like the BPA consortium and Mr Lamb say positive things but any idiot can sound convincing as we’ve learnt in the past.

If the Bulls are to remain a SL operation then it’s going to cost someone.

You mean, when you asked:

... and I answered your reasonable question by pointing out:

Which it was.

No further response needed, the position remains just the same. I'm not sure why it seems to annoy you so much.


Thanks, but I prefer to devote it to selflessly answering your questions.

Wouldn't that be "bull pat"?


Indeed, and no combination of zero capital introduction with reduced distribution share is ever going to cut it. And that is even discounting that the last suitors were proposing to spend part of whatever limited money did scrape in, in paying off trade creditors somehow.

I'm intrigued why Lamb and other potential buyers would bid now when they didn't earlier. The administrator might be prepared to accept a lower offer, but the RFL would have to insist on the same conditions as demanded from Moore & Co and presumably the tax man will still want a bond and security. I cant see that any of them have the funds to pay off the creditors and get the points deduction reversed so they would still face the apocalypse brought on by relegation.

Has something changed?

Lamb did put a bid in last time - it wasn't successful. Read into that what you will.

Indeed, the administrator will have accepted what was the best deal for creditors, so whatever happens next (if anything) will surely be a worse result for them.

It wasnt successful because the administrator took view that bb2014 bid meant more money going to the creditors. Admininstrator isnt concerned with RFL's criteria for owners just financial terms for his creditors. Since bb2014 bid isn't on table anymore then Lamb should win, unless BPA or BCFC put in a bid that improves on his terms, unless administrator takes view that he'll get a better return for creditors by liquidating remaining assets. considering players are effectively free agents assets are basically worth peanuts.

So could creditors take action against the RFL for getting them a worse deal?

Let's hope so,no incentive to pay anybody now,thanks to the idiots at Red Hall

With regard to TUPE, and the strange question of whether you could be TUPE'd to someone sort of "provisionally", for a bit, but the reverse-Tupe'd back to where you came from, if the deal turned out to have been a provisional deal that was never completed, I think the consensus on here was that no such TUPE hokey cokey is possible.

What does that mean? Well, presumably, that it was [iproposed[/i to TUPE the staff to BB2014 and they were all notified, but it never happened.

In which case they never actually left the employ of BB2104.

Carvell in the T&A yesterday said that he had refused to be TUPE'd. Which would of course have been his right. However, here's my point; if we accepted that the issue of TUPE was just a future plan, of which due notice had been given, but never actually happened, then the TUPE provisions would never actually come into play. So Carvell never became a "free agent".

just another of the weird and unexplained twists in the neverending saga.

As time goes by it's harder to see a solution, but if another bid came in to be able to satisfy the triple headed monster of administrator/RFL/HMRC it would need to be better than the "little new cash but lots of hope" offers to date.

Lets have a look at "Fantasy Owner" and see how close we can get to a working model

how much does it cost to run the Bulls for 10 months......March to Dec....that's players, staff. rent, upkeep of ground, all other costs....

What is the estimated income from RFL, new sponsors, matchday revenue etc....

I may be wrong here but i think i saw something which was somewhere in the region of 3.5 million,all told

...and the Sky team on Backchat seem to think the fans have that sort of money to take over the club

so lets work back from £3.5m and see how much a new owner needs to put in....

£3.49m

It's easy.

The new owners get a club from the Administrator with no debts.

Spend no more than the Sky money coming in on players pay.

Any other spending to be covered by gate receipts etc.

This isn't the case really is it?

I think it is.

6 point deduction penalty already imposed.

Potential buyer offers £x** for the Club to the Administrator.

Administrator uses cash raised from the buyer to cover his fees and then pays creditors to the extent possible.

Buyer gets Club with a clean slate.

** potential buyer could make his offer subject to whatever cost cutting he might want, to be done [iby the Adminstrator[/i, BEFORE the sale of the Club.

We think it's not.

Why would the RFL require much, much, exceedingly much less from a new owner making a worse offer, than they did from the previous lot who made a better offer, including paying off ALL trade creditors over time?

I mean, not much the RFL would do would surprise me any more, but that wouldn't seem remotely logical.