Wasn't it the bank withdrawing overdraft facility which caused the issue which finally tipped us over edge. We had borrowed 700k from RFL and also had a sizeable overdraft. The RFL bought odsal lease for 1.2million. They only actually paid 500k cash as they deducted the 700k loan from amount paid which board at time claimed they were unaware was going to happen. At same time bank took the bulk of the 500k cash coming into clubs account as repayment of the overdraft facility which they cancelled as they decided that the lease was the security for the facility. Iirc other major cockup was board at time not realising they had to pay vat to hmrc on the sale. Immediate bill from hmrc for 250k vat plus normal monthly paye amount was what triggered pledge appeal.

As far as I am aware, you are spot on.

We were to get the price of the lease instead got our loan self-paid off. And the RFL were no longer owed money by the club when it went tits. Handy, that, I thought.

Again, we had the unseemly scramble for the Bulls and their bank to issue self-excusing press statements, but you never got to the bottom of anything, just claims and counterclaims. However I again agree that it seems the bank felt vulnerable precisely due to the sale of the lease, and had not seemingly been consulted, so responded with the bank time-honoured equivalent of "thatforagameofsoldiers" and called in the overdraft. Many felt it was naive of the Bulls to think the sale of the lease would be a neutral event for their bankers, if they did.

And the claims that nobody realised the lease sale included VAT were widely circulated, and so far as recall never specifically denied. Nor seemingly was any advisor sued. So seems to be true until the contrary is shown, and if true, is truly shambolic.

The Bulls did not come out at the time of the pledge and say "look fans, we fekked up on the lease sale and owe 250k VAT. plus as it goes we are 700k short of what cash we thought we were gonna get".

Hood and co didn't say they'd made a dogs breakfast of it at the time of the pledge but quite obviously they had.

Checking with the RFL how much of the loan would be going back and with the bank as to how all this might affect the overdraft would seem to be fairly important things to do before proceeding.

All reasons why I'd be reluctant to see Hood back.

... over the next 3 months until january, when he paid the loan off in full (effectively)

What I heard was, the bank was not totally in the dark but, like the Bulls, was completely wrongfooted when 700k of expected spondulicks was not credited into the account.

As we can do nothing else other than speculate, can I ask how people would feel about the action of the RFL if, as one version has it, they knew they were going to repay their own loan, but had not said so to Hood & Co.?

I thought repaying the £700k loan was one of the main reasons - if not THE main reason - for the sale of the lease in the first place?
It almost seems like common sense to me, if you agree to sell something to somebody who you already owe money to, you just knock the difference off the selling price. If Hood genuinely thought any different then he's an even bigger muppet than I originally thought.

I thought Peter Hood had said he'd not expected to pay the whole loan back immediately, which suggests they'd at least discussed it with the RFL and then that either changed to full repayment immediately or his understanding was wrong.
It does seem conversations with the RFL lack clarity.

RFL (Woods) got cold feet when he realised the other 13 clubs might find out.....You are owed £700k by a club but they have a lease to the ground you have a safety net.......you are owed £700k and they don't have a lease as you already own it and you are it Shiite street if they can't pay....

[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/9490230.RFL_s_surprise_swoop_to_buy_Odsal_Stadium/?ref=rcHere[/url is the article setting out Hood's public views. I don't see this reason even mentioned. he did say he:
"...[iwelcomed the financial boost to the club’s coffers and said the deal would spell the end of any predatory moves for Odsal[/i."

At the time, far from any remarks about repaying any loan, all we were told that there had been a sale, "for an undisclosed sum" and that it was market price and the Bulls would be paying a market rent.

Richard Lewis told the BBC "[iWe have paid market value for the stadium [/i".

At the time these comments were made surely if it was the fact they had not actually paid the price agreed must have been known to both men?

The only constant over the last 6 years has been Duffy. He's probably got the best chance of knowing where the skeletons are.

The 2 camps up until 2012 were Hood/Bennett/Duckett and CC. They'll each know their own positions and their dealings with the RFL but can only surmise each others positions.

From then we have Guilfoyle/RFL for a couple of months and then OK/Whitcut & RFL from then.

We need to convince Duffy to write a book. For his pension...

well it won't include any minutes from meetings with the RFL.....unless you count what Woods ordered off the menu.....

Extract from RFL Operational Rules:

" SET-OFF

Whenever any sum of money shall be recoverable from or payable by any Member to the RFL .... then the same may be deducted from any sum then due ... to that Member arising out of these Bye Laws or any other contract with the RFL ... Exercise by the RFL of its rights hereunder shall be without prejudice to any other rights or remedies available to the RFL. "

BCFC, although I don't really mind as long as the people that come in do a proper job of turning us around, and not, if I can use the phrase, 'do an Omar Khan'. We need someone to run the club properly, not just save us from the abyss only to let us fall back in once again, like Khan did.

But nobody suggested the RFL either wasn't owed the money, or didn't have the power to do it

I think it's unarguable that, over a number of years, quite a few people have made some pretty serious mistakes with their failed business plans which went awry.

All the way from Caisley, who spent the Odsal settlement on players, on his belief that the team would be so good and perform so well that the crowds would rise and rise; through Hood and his, 'let's bring them in with half-price tickets' idea [filched from City, where it was a reasonable success, incidentally and Omar whose knowledge of how to run a sports club always seemed a bit lacking and then when he was royally shafted by the RFL it was made 'mission impossible' quite frankly, and then Moore and co who got mired in the immediate past [not exactly a first for a bulls board and jacked it in before they got badly hurt.

I honestly don't believe there is a [igenuine[/i villain in there. They all did what they thought was best at the time, but as has been said before, After the Odsal money was spent and big cutbacks made and the chairman took his leave, his successors were continually fighting a financial fire - and desperate men are wont to fall back on desperate measures. Blame? Well yes, of course, there's bucket loads but they were all just out of their depth, not villains imo.

Correct. Owing the RFL £700k plus having a big overdraft suggests a gradual period of increasing losses, rather than an 'instantaneous' event.

I'm happy to admit I'm a bit thick, does that mean "if someone owes money, then the RFL will do what they need to to reclaim it"?

OK, so there was no sudden blind panic to raise half a million or die.

I must have misunderstood.

Just slightly off-topic, but I can't help feel the same about Lee St Hilaire, he seems to have been a mainstay throughout our on-field down turn! And because of that I sort of see him at fault. Sorry Lee, but a new assistant down the line would fill me with confidence.

(I come in peace FA.)

Let's not forget it was originally billed as 10,000 fans pledging £100 each too.

We can't be far off that "anniversary" either.

27/03/12

Isn't it accepted that the club were losing £100k a month by the time they entered administration?

Considering what had already entered the public domain, surely there was an obligation on the shareholders to call an EGM, oust the board that had brought about such a situation and examine the books.

The idea that Hood and his buisness plan, backed by a mystery Chinese billionaire were going to rescue the club from a fiasco of his own making is risible.

The 'we'll never know' theory is simply silly.

But we raised the half a million....and died. It wasn't a one off situation, it was systemic, month by month losing of money.

I've said it before: all this started when the Joynt's Voluntary Tackle thread was deleted. Pumpetypump is to blame for all of this.

I am behind most things. My finest moment was driving the white Fiat uno through that paris tunnel, but this comes a close second.