There is that. I was looking at if from the employer's obligations POV.

Quote ="Adeybull" You stated that OK had bought BBH, when the public statements (including from the administrator) state clearly that it was the business that had been bought. '" The only report I have read on the matter is on the BBC website which states "[iBut administrator Brendan Guilfoyle said in a statement that he had sold Bradford Bulls Holdings Limited to OK Bulls Limited for an undisclosed sum[/i". Therefore I was misinformed by that report based on what you have subsequently stated. The BBC report is somewhat misleading and does not accurately reflect what has actually transpired, as I'm sure you'd agree. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19446070 I was not aware that Holdings was a trading company, as I had assumed it was simply a Holding company in the conventional sense especially given that there appears to be a group of companies including BBL, Bradford Northern (1964) Ltd and Bradford Bulls Foundation Ltd. You have advised me that my assumption was incorrect, I accept that.

Quote ="Adeybull" You stated that OK had bought BBH, when the public statements (including from the administrator) state clearly that it was the business that had been bought. '" The only report I have read on the matter is on the BBC website which states "[iBut administrator Brendan Guilfoyle said in a statement that he had sold Bradford Bulls Holdings Limited to OK Bulls Limited for an undisclosed sum[/i". Therefore I was misinformed by that report based on what you have subsequently stated. The BBC report is somewhat misleading and does not accurately reflect what has actually transpired, as I'm sure you'd agree. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19446070 I was not aware that Holdings was a trading company, as I had assumed it was simply a Holding company in the conventional sense especially given that there appears to be a group of companies including BBL, Bradford Northern (1964) Ltd and Bradford Bulls Foundation Ltd. You have advised me that my assumption was incorrect, I accept that.

sorry for feeling a little elated especially as it now gives us an outside chance of reaching the play offs but you have hardly gone through the turmoil the Trinity has had to put up with last season

like you say it might not be all over

Did you really just say that we have not been through turmoil?
Where have you been for the last six months?

Spoke to a couple of the senior players and coaching staff after game. They are extremely positive about the future and us being in SL next season. They agreed that timing of announcement may not have helped, a game too far and all that. When the stress and worry stops the adrenaline stops a bit.

Needless to say they had no excuses though and were thoroughly pi$$ed off with the performance. However they were talking about finals rugby and see wakey slipping on a banana skin.

I also had the utter pleasure of chatting to Omar Khan. He was excited, positive and extremely open to ideas and comments. A very likeable fella.

Awful result but I've come home surprisingly happy.

Quote ="Derwent"The only report I have read on the matter is on the BBC website which states "[iBut administrator Brendan Guilfoyle said in a statement that he had sold Bradford Bulls Holdings Limited to OK Bulls Limited for an undisclosed sum[/i". Therefore I was misinformed by that report based on what you have subsequently stated. The BBC report is somewhat misleading and does not accurately reflect what has actually transpired, as I'm sure you'd agree. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19446070 I was not aware that Holdings was a trading company, as I had assumed it was simply a Holding company in the conventional sense especially given that there appears to be a group of companies including BBL, Bradford Northern (1964) Ltd and Bradford Bulls Foundation Ltd. You have advised me that my assumption was incorrect, I accept that.'" Fair enough. And yes, the BBC hack got it wrong and his report is indeed misleading. Sorry mate, we get so many come on here spouting off and lecturing us on "facts" that are anything but - and especially in the field where (unlike the rugby, where I am no expert whatsoever) I have some expertise - that maybe someone with genuine intent but lacking some facts gets tarred with the same brush. The BB Foundation is not part of the group, btw. It is a company limited by guarantee and a registered charity (and I was once a director and company secretary of it) which operates in the community field. Just to support this business of names not necessarily bearing any relation to structure, BBH was until 1998 called "Bradford Northern Rugby League Football Club (1964) ltd, and was the operating company since it was formed in 1964. There were some name swaps in 1998.

Quote ="Derwent"The only report I have read on the matter is on the BBC website which states "[iBut administrator Brendan Guilfoyle said in a statement that he had sold Bradford Bulls Holdings Limited to OK Bulls Limited for an undisclosed sum[/i". Therefore I was misinformed by that report based on what you have subsequently stated. The BBC report is somewhat misleading and does not accurately reflect what has actually transpired, as I'm sure you'd agree. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/19446070 I was not aware that Holdings was a trading company, as I had assumed it was simply a Holding company in the conventional sense especially given that there appears to be a group of companies including BBL, Bradford Northern (1964) Ltd and Bradford Bulls Foundation Ltd. You have advised me that my assumption was incorrect, I accept that.'" Fair enough. And yes, the BBC hack got it wrong and his report is indeed misleading. Sorry mate, we get so many come on here spouting off and lecturing us on "facts" that are anything but - and especially in the field where (unlike the rugby, where I am no expert whatsoever) I have some expertise - that maybe someone with genuine intent but lacking some facts gets tarred with the same brush. The BB Foundation is not part of the group, btw. It is a company limited by guarantee and a registered charity (and I was once a director and company secretary of it) which operates in the community field. Just to support this business of names not necessarily bearing any relation to structure, BBH was until 1998 called "Bradford Northern Rugby League Football Club (1964) ltd, and was the operating company since it was formed in 1964. There were some name swaps in 1998.

any other small club would of been wound up and binned

you have a large supporter base and I do recognise that super league (rugby league) will be worth less without you and I haven't a problem even if the RFL say you can stay in SL for ever but come on take YOUR blinkers off now and see how your club has been propped up to keep the club alive

I'm pleased to hear that the club will survive so take joy from that and build

now that's very funny because I too expected to see Bradford do the same but not against a poor Hull FC



exciting now

I am just a fan, and regardless of your perception of events, we, as a club and as fans, have been through turmoil.

It is hard to see how it could be construed as otherwise.

look, being on the other side of the fence we have see all that has gone off at Bradford and tried on here to give quality advice,

its a shame you fans never listened as you could of been part of a group controlling your clubs direction

I sincerely hope your new owners have the integrity as we have in Andrew Glover that has taken a bigger task than he expected

We have told you and told you but you would not listen.

There was no way WHATSOEVER that we the supporters could have done ANYTHING to gain full or partial ownership of the club.

None of the major shareholders were prepared to sell. There were no shares available. And there was no way we could anyway have raised the sort of money needed to run the club post-insolvency anyway, even if other interests were not at play.

You lot never had to do it yourself. Kindly do not presume to lecture US. Some of us know a bloody sight more about it than you do.

Adey, I agree that there appeared to be little time to do anything other than pour money down the drain back in April...............sorry, support the pledge.

You're right in saying that Wakefield fans were never asked to raise half a million quid, but WE WERE asked to "dig deep" in an effort to raise a six-figure sum at the beginning of last year. Ultimately, the fans decided we'd had enough of the Richardsons so WE CHOSE not to contribute knowing that the uncertainty of Administration would follow.

Given what you now know and with all the RFL financial support through the Administration period, it's perfectly reasonable to say that a Supporters' Trust COULD have been put together and (given how much the supporters raised in the pledge) been able to put a bid to take on the Bulls that was worth more than the OK bid.

All you can hope for now is that that Omar Khan (who, just like Andrew Glover never harboured ambitions to own a RL club) is able to put the Bulls back on a sound footing for the years to come.

In terms of the pledge I am happy that my small contribution along with that of others probably allowed us to complete the season, have a reasonable attempt at getting into the play offs and allowed us time to find an owner who seems keen to take us on

Without the pledge we might have had £500k split across many pockets with no club. No brainer for me

There was nothing wrong with the players' attitude at the start of the game. Nothing to suggest they weren't up for the game. If anything I thought they were a bit too hyped and reacted like a pricked balloon after the sin binning and Hull's two quick tries.

Sorry mate, [ubut you people are just not listening.[/u

Whether we could have raised more than £150k is totally academic. Personally, in the circumstances of the time, I very much doubt it since we would have been competing against the club and at the time few people were aware we even HAD a supporters' trust.

The new owners are having to go through serious due dilligence by the RFL, to prove thgat they have the MILLIONS needed to fund the ongoing losses, at least while they come up with ways of cutting costs and increasing income. How the hell would you have expected a supporters' trust to have been able to do that?

This really is getting quite tiresome now.

Had the fans not contributed the £400k (it was not £500k, btw, and if you knock out the contributions from outside of the Bulls fanbase it was rather less than that) to the pledge, do you really think a supporters trust - staffed anyway only by a handful of spare-time volunteers - could have raised that sort of money from a standing start in such a short period of time? Of course not. And we would anyway then have been hailed as the bad guys for undermining the club's efforts. And lets say that as a result the club had been placed into administration just after Easter, as was lined up had the pledge failed, do you realisticaly think any kind of a bid - costed, financed, staffed - could have been put together in time? Of course not. The administration would have been unfunded, and while the fans were trying to get organised the most likely scenario IMO is that a group involving former shareholders would have pounced. The very last thing most fans will have wanted to see.

And how were we to know that certain shareholders were set on staging a coup to oust the board - that Caisley announced the day before the pledge closed and when most of the funds had been raised?

I for one am getting sick and tired of being lectured by people who never actually had to atempt it themselves - indeed who admit that they CHOSE not to attempt it themselves - to do something that they know little about in a political and financial situation that likewise they clearly know little about.

Please note that off topic posts having a go at posters will be deleted.

I suggest that, with indeed the benefit of hindsight, any further Wakey insolvency experts start by explaining exactly how a ST would have stopped the HMRC winding up the club, and then, exactly how they would have acquired the club from the shareholders.

I totally disagree that the players threw the towel in. There was too much passion, if that's possible. They started the game in a manic fashion, flinging the ball about, tearing into tackles and were clearly too hyped up imo. It was lost in the period after Jeffries was binned for tackling player who wasn't tackled, when we shipped, what was it, three tries?

The players, whatever was said before the game, were clearly desperate to win, just look at Ainey's chase and tackle on Foster. They were simply too hyped up and when things went wrong they became frustrated and then became their own worst enemies. I for one won't blame them for anything after all that's gone on over the last few months, the players and staff have nothing to apologise, or feel they've let anyone down for, what they've achieved is way beyond the call of duty.

Also confirmed in T&A. How could they justify calling in the pledge if that was the case?I dont regret pledging now, but wouldnt have if I'd known we were £100k short. Do the ends justify the means?

They did actually raise £500k - the figure I was told was £504k. I was also told that the vast majority of the amounts pledged were subsequently honoured by the pledgers.

The difference was from things like the extra money from the Leeds game, over and above what was budgeted (as they said at the time IIRC?) and things like the auction, I believe. the £400k referred to in the joint administrators' report, which I saw last week hence my reference to the number, was I believe the amounts directly from fans pledging, not through other fundraising. For example, not sure if the £400k includes or excludes the very substantial amount raised by the Bullbuilder bucket collection at the Leeds match, or the donation from Steve O'Connor.

Maybe the could show they have Millions in their bank account - but of course that does not mean if the going got tough again they would choose to put those Millions in - they are not giving an unconditional guarantee. I would have thought the more relevent test would be the quality of their business plan to balance costs and income

bit hard to balance their books when the income will be determined at a future date by the RFL:
Will they be in Super League
If yes, what will they be getting from the RFL as regards Sky Money and what will the RFL be charging them to play at Odsal
How many fans will pay up front for season tickets and at what price.....

That's a lot of unknowns to base a business plan on to balance the books

Ok thanks

There is also the fact that most of the money was raised, or paid in, by cards which would lead to an automatic C2% lost in transaction charges.

I was always amazed how they just managed to hit the pledge targets whether it was cash raised or season tickets sold.

If I was more cynical I might believe they were lying about that as well as all the other lies we were told.