As you please, you can jump to what ever conclusion you choose, i don't need your support to back up or make my point. I know clearly where i stand.

There lies the difference between Wakefield and The Bulls.You seem to admit the ground was sold to the RFL at "undervalue".Of course as things panned out less than 8 months later the company operating Bradford Bulls was in administration and ultimately liquidated with the creditors reported at the time to be in the region of £2 million got nothing.Watch hoods Utube available interview in January 2012 with the BBC.The iconic ground was sold to ensure the Bulls long term survival.If you admit it was transferred at "undervalue" and placed out of the rach of the creditors just 9 months later it has indeed allowed the Bulls to survive.Otherwise houses may now be started to be built on Odsal within a few years to ensure ALL the creditors were paid including Crown.And local taxpayer.Remember Caisley negotiated as deal for the Bulls to return to Odsal with maintenance responsibilities till 2019 and received a very heavy £5.4 million to enable those responsibilities to be off Bradford council and the local taxpayers hands.Look at the state of the place.The Coral stand built at £2.7 million its roof lealed soon after build yet the builder could not be found.The money was blown well in advance of 2019.The reson the sky money was withheld in my guess is the RFL felt complicit in taking that "undervalue" ground for an alleged 1 million (given to the Bulls incidentally with £5.4 million handout)and yet by August 2012 the company still owed £2 million.And now owes 31.2 million and counting.Northern relics earlier post is right.The RFL have a lot to deal with and each case is dealt with on its merits.No two cases are the same.Think I"d better get one of those nuclear protectice suits.Things are getting a bit too tasty.The RFL do not help in ensuring players contracts are protected through hell and high water.The Bulls could have done without 3 on over £100 grand at September 2012.2 have gone anyway with a 9th spot finish.All cases are different but if the Bulls and Hood had not "conned" the RFL into believing that in taking the ground all would then be well the hardline approach so derided may not have arisen.Tghe Bulls were stuffed financially in taking the 3 year super league license at October 2011.They are still stuffed today.If I were the new 4 I would be bricking it as to how to turn this thing round with a falling fan loyalty and contracts to be honoured until November 2014.Which is why I feel Bullbuilder should be building a war chestnow to be able to keep the name going if all goes t I t s up.Banks results show they are still failing everywhere.These are very tough times for EVERYONE.I doubt the fans (and noble other chairmen)will have the rsources to raise £400k in a short time as in early May 2012.Stay focuissed and do not let the emotion of Wakefield fans perception cloud the issues.Big Nige understands it all.He cannot be in there at Odsal daily to assist those that did not understand any of it

I don't & haven't jumped to any conclusions. Don't jump to that conclusion.

Sorry should have read "now owes £1.2 million.But maybe not after last Fridays events.We will have to wait and see.BUt that was in November.Whats the figure at the end of January.Madness.

I contest it is NOT a very different matter, since the background to both clubs looking at administration for a second time was clearly very different. Even from what we the plebs know. Assuming your chairman WAS told what he told you he was told (and he'll not thank you if the RFL were to deny it), maybe the fact that you were broke again WITH full Sky money had a bearing? Maybe your chairman did not offer to pay enough creditors? Bearing in mind no-one knows the details of what the new bulls board proposes yet, so everyone is guessing - and jumping the gun. Maybe all sorts. Maybe a lot of what was discussed and agreed in all these cases was commercially or legally sensitive. Much surrounding the Bulls' current situation will invariably reflect the latter, given the threats of legal action being thrown around.

Maybe you WILL get some further explanation of the various circumstances. But maybe it will not be to anyone's liking, and do no-one - least of all the game - any good?

I suggest you would have been better waiting until you knew what was being proposed by the Bulls, and what the consequential sactions would be, before firing off that letter. The fact that you sent it NOW, and blasted it all round the media, would very much indicate you are seeking to influence the outcome. So let's cut the crap about it being merely a request for clarification, shall we? All it has done is further set fans against each other.

Or ensuring that the matter is considered properly rather than the pre-determined whitewash leaked inadvertently last Friday. Maybe that has backed the RFL into a corner more than any letter from a Supporters Trust.

The ground wasn't sold to anybody. The Council owned it then, and the Council owns it now.

As for the other bit - what? The RFL felt "complicit" at getting the lease at an undervalue, (ie not paying enough) - so forced the new owners to lose 1 year's Sky distribution, with the surplus funds being divided between the other clubs? You'll have to explain that one.

Bullbuilder "warchest"? Is this meant as a serious suggestion?

As I said...seeking to influence the outcome. Thank's for confirming it.

You presumably have proof about this "pre-determined whitewash" that you seem so unequivocal about? And know for a fact that, as may possibly have been the case with your own chairman that time, what our chairman thought the RFL said or meant may not have been what they actually said or meant?

For the avoidance of doubt, I honestly have no idea what the truth or otherwise of any of the above is. And I am not naive enough to think that when we DO get to hear more about what is proposed, it will be to everyone's taste - including my own. Then I will form a view, and should that mean I have an issue with what the club and the RFL have done then I shall decide what to do.

But, unless YOU do, surely setting yourselves up as judge and jury in advance of the facts would be little better than what you are objecting to?

And how much of all that is in "Your guess" ?

Whatever mealy mouthed whinges follow, it's clear that as nothing could retrospectively be done to give Wakefield their points back, all this is 100% aimed at trying to pressure the RFL into heavily penalising the Bulls. Pure special pleading.

If the RFL had already reached decisions, that wouldn't in any case mean that they hadn't considered the matter properly. That is a [inon sequitur[/i. The RFL (sadly) know the whole Bulls (basket) case of necessity intimately, and have not only known what has been going on but obviously been heavily involved in it, what with vetting owners, checking plans etc. If they have the information needed to reach decisions then why shouldn't they make them?

Sorry FA the council own only the freehold reversion.It was a 99 year lease the Bulls secured which to all intents and purposes is as good as freehold.And plenty of houses could have been built on it(as MAY end up anyway if things do not improve)if it had passed into the hands of the liquidater.The £5.4 million was given to Bradford Bulls to "maintain" it.£2.7 million of that was spent paying for cash to bilid the Coral stand.They did not even finance long term the building of that.The rest as George Best once famously said was squandered.Chasing the dream.
What we are left with is 4 very committed individuals attempting to take this club forward with a falling fan base,demoralised playing staff,angry creditors,a 12 month owner ringing all and sundry trying to flog a dead horse for £300 grand cash as recently as last week with all paperwork to be sorted out later (as usual and in spite of the fact that would be illegal and a fraudulent preference given the crown winding up position and other serious creditors)loan sharks involved businessmen with a history of many recent insolvencies (whitcut)and an Mp who appears to have been stupid enough to take a directorship and leave his best bud to manage chaos.Bradford Concil are indeed a stakeholder.Asd at the moment are HMRC at £600k.And god knows how many little men.Bullbuilder may long term prove to be the only hope.But I wish the new 4 every success and dearly want it to survive.Gargoyle scoffed at a fans trust and at the Portsmouth lot trying the same.They are doing very nicely down there on the south coast now.The Bulls are not.Both were in admin at the same time.The difference?They found 10 or so investors prepared to part with £100000 and a shed load of fans prepared to pledge £1000 each.Could that be done in this City?You might be right I'm dreaming.But Caisley could find no great White Knight at the height of Bullmania and success.Adey has pointed out his T 'A interview in that respect in 2004 where he said "WE CANNOT KEEP LOSING MONEY WITHOUT A WHITE KNIGHT EVERY YEAR AS WE HAVE BEEN"...So what hope now.These 4 are very brave souls and thank god they know how to say NO and intend to cut costs.Let us pray

1. Ensuring the matter is considered properly is to be welcomed surely. It doesn't determine the outcome but ensures that everything is given a proper hearing. If you have nothing to worry about, a proper consideration shouldn't worry you.

2. "pre-determined whitewash". Your chairman's inadvertent press release was bizarre, because his understanding of the situation didn't even match precedent, in that dealing with creditors properly ensured a reduction in sanction, not avoidance. The wording of the release did also seem to suggest the matter had been resolved, rather than a hope that it would be resolved in the manner he hoped.

I think we should follow government thinking on the immigration issue and impose basic English as a requirement for posters to this site.

I have tried reading some of these posts standing on my head and still not sure what they were intended to mean. I hope the contributor breaths while typing or we could have the first RAB RIP?

Excuse me if my post is incorrect, this is my view of the recent situation:-

OK purchased the Bulls from the administrator for a small fee with the knowledge that investment (circa £1.5M) was needed for the next 2 to 3 years. I did hear talk of the club being purchased under a share option scheme (the same way the Glaziers bought Manchester United)?

Omar Khan then mortgaged his property empire to enable him to offer the club a loan in order to pay the wage bill.

Omar khan went on the sick and left the club (but was still 100% share holder). OK left the club in the hands of his Director Ryan Whitcut. Ryan Whitcut then arranged a loan with Mr Green which was a floating loan plus a 1% share in the company.

Has Ryan Whitcut’s actions been the downfall for OK, was OK not able to negotiate the shares sale to Mark Moore & Co as he didn’t own the Bulls outright, resulting in administration and Mark Moore getting the shares for a lower price.?

I can see a really big court case coming in the near future.

Really glad we’ve got owners who are really going to look after the club......

I think this was the release, as lifted from another site. Seems fairly unequivocal to me as the outcome. No hopes or intentions but only the determination:

"BRADFORD BULLS officials have this afternoon announced that the club will not suffer a points deduction, as a result of its former operating company entering administration.

OK Bulls Ltd was placed into administration this morning but the club has since been purchased by Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd.

And, on behalf of the new board of directors, chairman Mark Moore has confirmed that the Bulls are to remain a First Utility Super League side and will start the new season on zero points"

It is, of course, it is entirely possible that he misconstrued what he was told, and it is entirely possible that the Wakefield chairman misconstrued what he was told. Seems strange that they misconstrued in polar opposite directions.

Full and proper consideration, with transparency and openness, will clear the matter up, of course, and the concerns of the Supporters Trust will be allayed.

FA I cannot explain why the RFL shared out the withheld sky money to all the other clubs.Tes some of them were creditors of the liquidated company but none for the £50k each is alleged to have received last year and presumably again this year.That does seem very strange.If they had used it to pay the creditors I could understand it.The logic may have bben Bulls got an unfair advantage over the others in not paying the creditors.but to give it then to the others for 2013 season?they seem to have their own little rules which are often in conflict with the law of the land when things go belly up.same in football.portsmouth had to pay ouit all those premier league contracts even though they were destined to play in the bottom division.The game protects the player pretty well.But is you fans that will still be all around when the like of many of them are names you barely remember.And success has eluded for 8 years now with at best journeyman sides.Many could have been offloaded last winter with RFL help.Thats why I value Bullbuilder who natured the like of Burgess Bateman kop and Whitehead who cost nowt were developed and then lost through the shambles it all has become.As with wells at City he was far from the highest paid but was their best.so he has gone now too.Invest in the future invest in Bullbuilder.What did Alan Hansen once say "you win nowt with kids"as Man U stormed to the title with seven of them home grown.

snake hill if you believe that press released claptrap that he Ok released £900k from his property portfolio in August think again.
A lot of old bull.
Nothing at all.All will be revealed.Therte was no money to fund another Gargoyle administration that cost £250000.So quick in and out and the liquidator will probably be the Official Receiver.i see Ok"s lawyers are hardly rushing through emergency injunction proceedings.Dreamer I am afraid.

You are still trying to influence the outcome.

I remember so many of the people on your forum playing merry hell when you were in trouble, and they accused others of doing precisely that.

But, it seems to me, what all this boils down to, is that:

1 - Your chairman said something, that he very probably should not have (whether because mistaken or confidential).

2 - Our chairman said something, that he very definitely should not have (and for which he apologised, saying it was him being naive and misunderstanding the process - according to him, anyway).

3 - Both sets of fans are scared to death at the prospect of relegation, and of other clubs being put at an advantage, as they see it, when faced with that.

Is that about right?

So, had BOTH chairmen had kept their gobs shut, this would be far less of an issue? Right or wrong?

If right, then surely the best option would be to let the two chairmen and the RFL go fight it out someplace, and the rest of us go down the pub?

And, if wrong, then the agenda is really not about one club having a perceived unfair advantage at all, but instead about how to damage the other club to give your own club an advantage?

Perhaps the mods should move this one to Verona and hope true love will heal the rift?

certainly seems likely. same rambling incoherent style, littered with spelling mistakes and presenting his guesses at situation as gospel truth.

No need to apologise, easy mistake to make and you do make a few. The Council own the land. The RFL leases the land. The Bulls took a sublease of the land.

It wasn't a 99 year lease. A lease isn't as good as a freehold, though a 999 year lease comes close, but this isn't one.


Nope. The Bulls had no right to build houses on the land. And unless the Council wanted that to happen, it never will. Unless the RFL wanted that to happen, it won't happen for the rest of the term of their lease. Just because you are a tenant doesn't mean you can get the builders in.


You're confusing the business with the shares in the company. Any shareholder can sell their shares whenever they want to whoever they want at whatever price they want. In this case the sale of the shares was between OK on the one hand, and MM and RW on the other. All of whom are private individuals. The shares won't be worth that much right now, whoever owns them.


Or let's not waste a second on superstitious claptrap. Anyway, even if there was a god, why would he be remotely concerned with the travails of a small northern private company? Surely he'd have more pressing prayers to deal with?

IMHO if the club did fold then there would always be some group of people who would look to carry it on in some way, but keeping a name going would be a pretty hollow 'victory'. I don't see providing for such a scenario as any function of Bullbuilder. Anyway, the Portsmouth Trust had to raise several million to buy, have £8m debts to repay over 4 years, and the first penny after that starts to fund ongoing costs like players and staff. And that's just to be allowed to play in League 2. So no, I don't see anything remotely comparable being achievable in Bradford. Not least because any "investors" (was there ever a more misused word in this context) that might have been interested have had a hundred opportunities to step in and buy at a song for some years now. And could come in and buy a majority shareholding in a SL team today. They haven't. Why would starting from scratch attract the big money men?

All of the above posts over so many pages just shows why these decisions should not be taken by votes of the clubs. That leads to decisions based on self interest rather than what is right. There are very few of us that would not at least be tempted to vote for short term benefit to our club rather than the greater good. I think that applies to Chairmen as much as fans.

To the actual issue, what we have is confusion and fear. Did the RFL tell Wakefield in September if they went into administration they would be relegated, I am inclined to believe they did, Wakefield had a substantial debt to HMRC, avoiding such an obligation should be harshly punished. So I can see why Wakefield (and London) would be miffed, but are there significant differences in the situation?

Yes there is, firstly timing, in September it was entirely possible to promote Fax/Fev/Leigh, a fortnight before the season, that is not really fair. A few folk have pointed to similarities with Rangers relegation in Scottish football but look what happened to Dundee last season getting promoted 2 days before the season started, they never had a chance, that would happen to Fax/Fev/Leigh.

There are rules against insolvency and it seems to me on the limited information available probable that Omar Khan has not been a willing participant in this takeover and is going to lose money. That has given Bradford a competitive advantage and seems to fit the RFL guidelines as appropriate for sanction. What should that sanction be? It must be a disincentive to others but also returning to Scottish Football must not put Bradford in a Hearts situation where they have no chance of survival.

Returning to the dreadful governance of footbal north of the border, loads of bad decisions made as clubs voted in self interest for short term benefit. RL must not go down that line, Nigel Wood, Blake Solly et all have in my opinion made some awful decisions (such as the Odsal buy out and subsequent Sky monies cut by a remarkably similar amount to appease others when that came out). Those decisions though were not made by clubs with a vested interest.

I do worry that this issue will become Bradford's "merger", that issue damaged the Giants badly and we get stick for it to this day Shudds etc. I do not know what should be done, there is surely more to consider than is in the publiv domain, but if there is no sanction the damage may be much worse than the loss of say 4 points which seems to be a precedent for going into Admin but paying off HMRC.

Hi FA I do have to agree with you that the Bulls unlike Portsmouth have had chance after chance to find significant investors and none have stepped up to the plate.I think they all see it for the black hole it has become.My view of Bullbuilder and a war chest would be that they do build up funds so if 12 months down the line the 4 good intentional men cannot pull this round a club can still carry forward at whatever level.Having just been reminded of photos on another forum of Horton Park Avenue in 1980 stage of demolition I can tell you from personal experience that is something that affects many with extreme sadness to this day.

Rather than just throw money into holding back what some may feel may prove inevitable the way the game is going without sugar daddies at least a team in RAB could survive if the worst came about through Bullbilder.

Ok last week was clearly a very desperate man and it matter little what he was trying to get £300k for business or share.As sole owner at that stage lots of hoops would have had to have been passed through for anyone daft enough to have been taken in.The man with the apparent baseball bat would worry anyone and I2m just glad that little episode appears to have been overcome.We hope.

Regarding the land and ground the RFL now have an unexpired long leasehold on it was not my intention to imply the Bulls could just build houses on it.Clearly there are a lot of current stakeholders in that land that not only include the Bulls but the RFL,Bradford Council and not least (particularly if it was undervalued in transfer)HMRC.Plaanning can be difficult but if all thought in the best long term interest Bradford Council now receive moneys direct from central government linked to how many houses are built in accordance with the perceived future need for many many more.A deal may be beneficial to all including the Bulls in the long term.But who knows.all I see is a big money pit that Bradford Council could not wait to offload its maintenance responsibilities 10 years ago.And looks preety forlorn and sad right now with little prospect of The RFl or the Bulls going forward to have the inclination or funding to improve.Things are picking up that way though and Miller and others are starting to build and plan again no doubt with these incentives behind that improvement.Many would be heartbroken to leave the bowl.But the days of 102000 flat caps adorning the old place have gone forever.The modern fan and league seem to expect more these days.The grounds vacation could prove the Bulls salvation if all stakeholders committed to the future of Bradford Bulls in the city.Right now as tenants as long as the Bulls can pay the £70k annual rent (peanuts compared to the approaching £400k BCFC have to find after similarly losing their freehold through insolvency)the Bulls are in a strong position with the RFL as a partner in any potential future development of the site for houses.Personally that's what I would aim for.But the subject is sensitive and would not be universally popular.I look at Park avenue rotting as it has (the football side of it)for over 30 years and bleed.The coral Stand alone which is little more than the school terrapins I recall education in is hardly inspiring at a cost of £2.7 million.with leaky roof and builders that ran.There have been some terrible decisions made these past 10 years or so.The new 4 are inheriting very little.Someone even is suggesting the rent on the training facilities has not been paid in 6 months and a notice to quit has been served.Oh dear.Before anyone jumps on me I dearly want success and survival as all Bulls fans on here.But we are all right to be worried given a ten year history and success at rock bottom for the club and City Of Bradford.They even want to knock Richard Dunn down.

Dunno what Wakefield think they were told, but a straight out ‘do this and you will be instantly relegated’ would be unusual and not within any of the RFLs bye-Laws or Policy Documents. Apparently the Wakefield Chairman is going on the radio tommorrow night and will provide cast iron proof of all his claims.


There certainly are differences...The Wakefield Board of Directors sought to avoid payment of a large HMRC debt, plus another £350k of supplier debt.

.
Why would London be miffed? Just like Wakefield, our BFFs from the South recieved quite a lot of help from the RFL when they had an Insolvency Event(as defined in the RFL Bye-Laws) of their own back in November/ December.


As you say information is limited and only Wakefield fans appear to know the full, gwads honest guv, version of what happened to the Bulls last week. More normal folk will have to wait for actual facts before determining if the Bulls can be deemed to have gained a 'competitive advantage' or not.


Heh, friendly banter makes the game more interesting, and I’ll take your Shuddersfield and raise you an odslum.
On the sanctions issue, I've dont yet know whether the clubs Breach of the RFLs Insolvency Bye-Laws warrants a points deduction...If the RFL board conclude the Newco have gained a competetive advantage and have made no effort to come to terms with creditors of the oldco then I have no doubt a points deduction will follow.

How on earth the RFL could possibly conclude that our current financial situation gives us an unfair advantage is beyond me.

An unfair disadvantage possibly.