I think the real issue with the £900k is perhaps being overlooked in the exchanges above.

In it's first year of operation OK Bulls needed an injection of £900k to cover its running costs (mainly wages). Ok injected these funds as a loan but if you look at from the point of view of the company ( and remember OK Bulls is a limited company so an independent legal entity from its shareholders) it was raising finance to cover existing liabilities on the basis it could repay from future cash flow ( loan, mortgage, Wonga - all essentially the same). So if you enter into an arrangement like this the assumption is cash flow will improve ( Sky money, better ST sales, higher gates) to repay the borrowing. If there is no improvement in the cash flow it goes without saying things get a bit messy.

Can't argue with any of that Relic, 'cos your spot on imo, but the [ireal[/i point on which this little sub-section of the thread has been predicated, is whether, or not, OK actually put any money in, rather than the form it took.

Whatever the mechanism OK clearly did make the funding available - and the wages were paid. However it was a loan and not a gift. If and when the annual accounts come out then the intended repayment period will be one of the disclosure items.

Oh absolutely, spot on again NR, though I'm not sure evidence based systems are proof enough for some people....

I think holding an opinion without any evidence is generally described as having faith. With a scientific background I do prefer opinions backed up by evidence, but it is certainly clear from some postings that other contributors- shall we say diplomatically - have misplaced faith in their own opinions

Or a newspaper empire.

Not always true as newspapers do sometimes have evidence - it is just that they acquire it by illegal means

Hold yer friggin horses - where the fekk did you get the proposition we "have cash freely available" from? You been on the waccy baccy or something?


Eh? You're rambling. You've meandered from doubting OK secured any money into the club to some weird idea that we don't need it as we've somehow got pots of cash. I really want some of whatever it is you're on!


But as nobody has said he DID "sink £900k of his own cash" into the Bulls, then whether he has, had, or not, is as irrelevant as everything else your fevered imagination conjures up. The only relevant point is that the club was advanced £900 on the strength, we are told, of being secured against OK's personal assets. Not cash from his back pocket.

I suggest you don't post again until you've come down as you're making no sense.

Exactly.

So, the club has to pay back £900,000 out of its SKY money.

Appears the club couldn't really afford the players it contracted to play last season under the short lived OK regime.

With the £900,000 to be paid back, it appears again that the club can't really afford the players it has contracted for 2014 onwards and so it looks like the new regime may well hit the buffers even quicker than Ok's did. Unless, of course, the new directors can tell us at the Forum that they have obtained agreement to pay back the £900,000 over at least say ten years so the the repayments do not have too detrimental an effect in the short term. It would be interesting to know if the loan is interest free or not.

"Out of its Sky money"?? Why? What on earth do you suggest links the two?


I see. Bulls have provided a detailed business plan going forward, which the RFL has considered, and accepted. So you are telling us that this business plan has a huge shortfall, are you? This means you must have a copy of it. And you can also presumably explain why the RFL has accepted a plan that involves contracting players "we can't afford".

But I expect that you will sidestep that obvious point by moving on to some conspiracy theory




"Us"? Oops, you let it slip, you're a Bulls season ticket holder. Well done you. Who'da thunk it?

I would hazard a guess that the business plan for the 2013 season did not include a £900k shortfall on operational cash-flow when it was presented. Several of the SL clubs are running on very tight margins - so if you get thrashed in your opening home games and the crowd get lashed by freezing rain then you are very quickly onto business Plan B

Plan B? thats very optimistic, I'd suggest we're a fair bit further down the alphabet than that for business plans!

Well since the Python's announced they were getting back together I have been trying to look an the bright side of life. But you are right the fact there are only 26 letters in the English alphabet has probably proved a major headache for the Bull's business planners, almost as bad as the size of the balancing figure!

It reads as if the posters on this thread are jockeying for position in the "I told you so" stakes.

Agree with that, life never runs smoothly and the best laid plans can be only too easily thrown into disarray, but of course, the thing about loans or cash advancements is that they only become owing when they hit the scheduled repayment date. As, so we are led to believe, OK hasn't actually given an end date, I can see no reason why the loan needs to be addressed directly in the 'business plan' for a particular year.

If I had put money into a business as a owner and heard "customers" saying they must tell us everything about the businesses financial dealings I would be a little puzzled at why supporters think they should give out this private info. Yes, supporters could be explained some things without giving too much detail but some people think they should be told everything. The shareholders should know the detail - the customers get the shortened version. That is how it is unfortunately. Financial and business details should be kept private. That isn't nice if you are a nosey bugger but something we all have to live with or buy shares.

You could argue that at this stage of the season ST holders are not only customers but creditors of the club as well- as they have advanced their ticket money to the club in exchange for a seasons worth of thrill and spills. So to use the modern terminology ST holders are stakeholders in the business and as such entitled to a general idea of how their investment is performing. Also once filed the accounts of the business are in the public domain and can be downloaded by anyone for £1

Nah. You couldn't sensibly argue most of that at all. Whilst I definitely have an [iemotional[/i stake in the business, it ain't a cash one. I'm not a creditor as I'm not owed any money, and what I paid is no sort of "investment" at all; though i suppose I'll get to know how it's performing each time we play!

ST's are deposits, if the club decided to pull the plug now and go for a solvent liquidation before the start of the season then the ST's would be refunded - so as it stands a clear monetary obligation (creditor) on the balance sheet. Believe me the definition I have used for stakeholders is a lot narrower than that in some bodies I work with - though admittedly they mostly get lip service.

Ah good...we're getting down to semantics....everything must be lovely in our garden if there's no nitty gritty to argue about..

Yes yes, and Starbucks doesn't make a profit, that's how much notice I take of accounts. "Solvent liquidation", my arris. You know and I know that in the world we inhabit, there is zero chance of there being any such thing, and that I am never going to get a penny of that money back, ever.

The point I was trying to make though was that we as supporters are not going to get the financial details of a business we spend our money at because we are not really entitled to it. We pay our money to get into the ground - not the board room when they are discussing internal private matters. If you were one of those directors and a supporter came up to you and said "you must tell me all the financial details of the club as I am a supporter and bought my ST", what would your comment be back to that supporter?

We just have to trust the people who own the club and respect their rights to some privacy where it concerns them and not us.
I like most other people would love to know exactly what goes on but I know that as a supporter I will not be told as it is literally not my business.

The trouble is, the club has a hell of a lot of work to do in order to regain the trust of a lot of the fan base. The damage done under the end of the Caisley/Hood era with their terrible mis-management which lead the club to administration, the the Omar Khan era seemed to start out with optimism which was eroded by the loss of two of the club's brightest young players as well as a huge uproar over wages.

So we're into our 3rd lot of owners in as many years going into 2014, and it clearly seems the new owners are looking at moving the ticket sales at the club into season tickets rather than walk ups. Clearly the idea of making tonight's event a ST holder only one is to put the emphasis on the importance the club wants to put on the ST going forward.

Has anyone thought that the new regime are covering their back with the formation of a new company, in case anything unethical has gone on with the previous lot?

A few people called Mr Whitcut out on his business history on here. Then there was the whole matter of the RFL refusing him permission to run the club, seemingly AFTER it'd already been granted.

I don't know the first thing about running a business, but could this have been done on the off-chance of a sh*tstorm flying towards OK Bulls?

Yes accounts are undoubtedly boring I certainly agree with you on that, but in the Bulls accounts ST monies taken prior to the season [iare[/i creditors of the company. Sure the cash as already probably been spent but that isn't the point I was attempting to make rather that the Bulls as a company do have a formal obligation to its ST holders.