I have to ask was the investor -communicating by email and suggesting to have 2.5 million inheritance if you reply with your details? Or suggesting some claim of needing to store some money till they arrive in the country as they have a lottery win but cant claim out of the country?
Desperate times an all..........

Adey, I think you are missing the payment to awford from your equation. as you pointed out to me, a charge in favour of the RFL was registered well over a year ago, which was shortly after the resolution of the Awford contract "after discussion with the RFL", said discussion obviously also imo including help with paying the whining Aussie piece of excrement off. So following the Odsal deal we had to repay the loan they gave us to get rid of him. And yes the image rights and Awford payment may well have been accrued in the 2010 accounts when you look at the increase in accruals and deferred income due within one year from 2009 to 2010, circa £300K in fact as opposed to a reduction of circa £120k the year before. The Harris settlement had already been accrued in 2008 so just one payment of circa £100k left on that in 2011 which was made prior to the current crisis if you believe the PR. So yes the hit could be the image rights, certainly the withdrawal of the overdraft, but also Awford.

And Juliebull, absolutley right, just how difficult is a review of the finances? I cannot believe that the delay is due to Caisley dissecting the figures, how long does it take to slice up a cup cake? No, its the plan, the way forward that seems to be the conundrum for Caisley.

Hood stated that Caisley had assured him that he had funders lined up, and therefore he would resign in the interests of the club. Hood has resigned and done his part of the deal. So why the wait?

Martin, you regularly quote figures for the Harris settlement. I do not recognise those numbers relative to a specific number inadvertently indicated to us, which included the substantial legal fees. That's not to say that what we heard was any more accurate. There is no way I can see you can divine the numbers from the published accounts - have you gleaned some additional info?

The "Orford Settlement" was no such thing really, as I understand it. We owed him some image rights payments that - as with other players - he had agreed to defer until the tax situation was clarified. I believe that when he broke his contract the club sought to retain those monies in lieu of compensation. In the event it seems the club was unable to enforce that. Can't see what that has to do with the RFL loan, to be honest?

I really don't see that you can deduce these sort of numbers from the accounts - although I know you sure have have tried, to your credit. The biggest component anyway of accruals and deferred income is likely to be the following season's season ticket sales, and its nigh-on impossible to guess what they would be year on year?

The 2011 accounts will be the really interesting ones (if the club survives long enough to publish them...) since we should see the impact on creditors of the RFL loan (like you, I assume it started at the start of 2011 because of the RFL charge) and gain at least some idea of just why it was needed.

I'd just love to see the detailed internal balance sheets. And month by month. As I know you would! I think an awful lot of questions would be answered if we had that information in our possession.

Just to clarify a couple of things:
It is TOTALLY genuine.
It was wisest council not to respond.
CC had made his interest known to both the Club and RFL many weeks prior, that if the club ever went into admin he would be an iterested party in the aftermath.
The investor was interviewed face to face and checked out in great detail. Understand he was acting as a different individual with detailed knowledge of the said individual's finances.
He tabled £2.5 million over 3 years and was to be appointed Chairman with immediate effect.
Think that covers it

So really....
someone came in with an offer of £2.5 million over 3 years?
But they turned out to be a fake?
Really? Is that for real?

You couldn't make this up could you?

So the "plan" was a conman.

Great stuff, wonder when he appeared on the scene?

If people pledged money because this great plan was in place on the back of this conman then all pledgers have a right to be very ed off with the Hood & co.

To be fair i think they said they were exploring a number of potential investors when they launched the pledge.

Guess we should be grateful their due diligence exposed this chancer before it got any further

You'll have to stop this being reasonable, you know!

I understand that the chancer was from Nigeria, and contacted the club by email.

I'm sure they were.

Yours sincerely,
Santa Claus

Could have been worse, we could done a Wakey and ended up with a John Pearman.

Maybe they were overwhelmed with the response they recieved when they sent out those letters to 1000 wealthy people a couple of years back.

Like the rest of us, I suspect NR doesn't have clue whether his hypothesis is correct or not, but it's as likely as any other, so why so sarky? Assuming the tale about the scammer actually has any basis in fact in the first place, of course.

I wasn't intending a dig at that poster specifically, I'm just bemused that anyone takes anything the previous board said during the whole "pledge" period at face value.

Thank you all for your concern - I must have been overcome by the extra day off - sorry tribute to Her Majesty, and gone a bit soft in the head.

From what if have seen the previous BoD just werent very capable and were naive rather than being villians, and I hope my posts have taken a consistent line that there just aren't any big money "investors" out there in Bradford - there weren't any when we were piling up the Trophies - so there certaintly aren't now.

So it is use the fans with a bit of help from that other paragon of corporate ethics Mr Rupert Murdoch!

Previous BoD were lying buffoons! Nuff said

I think pretty well most BoDs of most sports clubs come nowhere near telling the fans anything like the whole truth, tbh. The last BoD certainly did not level with the fans over the Odsal Lease sale - and yes, I believe they lied to us - and certainly to me personally. Whether out of necessity or otherwise is a separate issue. Maybe the history books will record other occasions. I can think of occasions when I have not been told the truth. But the last board was more communicative than the previous one, for those with short memories - so I guess the more you tell the fans the more opportunity there is for not telling it how it is?

Buffoons? It's certainly become so clear that they were hideously under-resourced in key areas, and I suspect in financial expertise and general business nous most of all. I'll certainly grant you naïvity. One guy I would very much like to hear the views of is Mr Illingworth, who stood down as the (non-exec) finance director in July 2010.

Whatever else, can anyone envisage a charge of "buffoons", whether justified or not, being levelled at a Caisley - controlled administration? No, me neither.

After reading todays T & A has anyone got anymore fundraising ideas?

Sell Whitehead & Bateman to Wire?

Stephen Coulby says he's "confident" the necessary money can be raised to avoid administration, so it would seem that they have ideas already. He also says they are talking with investors (more than one 'party' involved, though, as 'party' can be either singular or plural, it it is unclear whether the parties are in one group or multiple groups) and progress is being made. On the face of it it appears hopeful, though it is still birds in the bush at the moment.

His 'ideas' are probably to sell Bateman and Whitehead.

I desperately hope you're wrong, but if it came to that, well better that than no club.

[urlhttp://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/9742415.Hood_launches_Bradford_Bulls_defence/[/url

Ding ding round 2

Just a different spin on the same numbers, he hardley denies the debts were there, just says that they were being funded by advances and a payment plan (on the VAT)

"Cash offers" and "advanced talks" don't pay bills, the monies have to be in the bank

Claim and counter claim, I guess what he's trying to do is to make it clear what the new BOD is claiming and then try to answer those points. From the outside it's difficult to know who's right and wrong and to be honest part of me doesn't really care, what I do care about is whatever is going on is concluded quickly and professionally instead of dragging the name of the club through the gutter.