Did you eat his liver?

...but that would just play into the hands of those who do not wish us well, of course.

I doubt any of us can form a really objective view from what selective or limited info is put in the public domain. By all parties. Some doubtless limited in what they can say, some maybe quite the opposite. Its all too easy to jump to conclusions based on limited information - indeed, been there done that got the scars.

Despite how all this looks, I'm still moderately optimistic that we will end up with a resolution that - if not necessarily satisfactory (we'd need the Sky money de-confiscating for that) - is something we can live with. Its too easy to assume the worst every time something new comes out. So I'm not about to chuck any towels in just yet, and am carrying on doing my bit through Bullbuilder. And hope that we see an end to all this crap, once and for all, in the near future.

As a point of order, we have not had any Sky money confiscated. OK Bulls obviously did, they had to agree to that as a condition of getting their SL licence. Nobody seems to know why, or where it came from; it had never happened before. However if a new body does ever get the SL licence transferred to it, then it will be entitled to the same share of Sky distribution as any other licence holder.

Unless of course such new body is similarly cohersed into agreeinga similar term. Having seen what it did for us, I'm fecked if I can imagine ANY new owner falling for that one so it will be interesting to see if the RFL insist on this as a new "usual" requirement, and if so, whether it proves to be a deal breaker.

Of course, if you believed what you read in some quarters, we had already been given the nod re the SL licence, just the formal announcement to be made later. Though personally I'm finding it increasingly hard to believe a single word emanating from any quarter whatsoever.

One other thing - if this new chap is so keen to be an owner - why isn't he working with MM & Co to get aboard our ship? Why does he want his own ship? Just curious.

I read the new sky deal provides for £100000 to fund charitable trust function of which surely bullbuider should benefit from.To keep finding and developing the future Bateman Burgess Whitehead or Kop.And sky funding may uplift to nearer £2 million annually as opposed to the current £650000 sanctioned payment.
Whilst I doubt the Legal threats will progress the whole thing could get messier.Who Knows what else remains to come out of Whitcu*t and Ok"s tenure.Bullbuilder should have a very significant role in ensuring this club survives long term.As indeed it already has if fees were attained for Bateman,Whitehead,Burgess et al.
There is a future if survival is achieved to the end of this season.So its not all bad.Just mostly.Feels like a game of pass the parcel has been going on in over two years where we can only hope the last to rip the brown paper away will not reveal a poisoned chalice but a silver lining.Survival should have been the talk of 15 months ago.i still have confidence that big Nigel will pull out that White Rabbit.I worry how much of this seasons sky award is already spent given the new intrested buyer will have to find enough for the creditors and apparent RFL recent funding according to T'A.A hundred years ago the country was bankrupt.Two world wars later and were still here mostly poor but alive and kicking.The British Bulldog fights back.The Bulls will survive.Even if the RFL HAVE to dip into their big reserves and commercially long term loan.As a last resort with stringent financial conditions and control procedures.Keep the Faith.That White Rabbits coming.

The £100k will go to the Bradford Bulls Foundation - a registered charity. And, for other clubs, to their equivilent charitable foundations.

Who owns the Bradford Bulls foundation or perhaps one should ask its legal formation status and was wondering how that may have changed or not with all the comings and goings.Did Bullbuilder not administer the Trust or have a role in it?Or is Bullbuilder a separate trust with a historic different role.Sorry to ask.The brain is working overtime.The BB Foundation must surely for charitable status be at arms length from whoever is currently "owning" the club.

[url=http://justinggoogleit.com/Link to find all BB Foundation info[/url www.bullsfoundation.org/

[url=http://justinggoogleit.com/Link to find all BB Foundation info[/url www.bullsfoundation.org/

We aren't being deducted any sky money this season. We were deducted ALL our sky funding last year. However OK took half of this years funding a year in advance last year to minimise the impact. So the deal OK agreed will still cover whoever the new owners are as we've already had 50% of this years funding under previous owner.

No, it was half money over 2 years.

Plenty of articles have said was one year but split over two to lessen impact. End result is same. I'll try and dig one of articles up later.

The Foundation is a company limited by guarantee. No share capital, and is non-profit making. Does not have owners as such. It has its own board, and its own objects totally separate from the club it is affiliated with. See its website. It is a Registered Charity. As well as being subject to the Companies Act 2006, it should also be subject to the Charities Act 2011. The latter, as well as its own Articles of Association, govern how it has to operate as a separate entity, at arms length from the club.

The Bradford Rugby league Supporters Society Ltd (operating style "Bullbuilder", and in the role of a Supporters' Trust) is an incorporated, mutual co-operative society, owned by its members, registered under the Industrial & Provident Societies Acts 1965-78 and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. It is non-profit making, but not a registered charity.

FWIW, I was a director (one of 13, and secretary too for a while) of the BBF from inception, for a couple of years or so from 2005 to 2007. So I have some historic backround, but not in the last few years. For my sins, and clearly being a glutton for punishment, I currently hold the same roles (with nine other board members) with Bullbuilder.

Does that mean that if half this years money has been used last year, if we get a points deduction for this year can we apply half of it last year

It would have come to the value of one year in total, of course, but we definitely were not deducted all last year's money. We got half the distribution. [size=85(Or did we? Possibly not - see below)[/size

The end result is not the same. If, for example, in 2014 there is an increased distribution due to the new Sky deal, then we would have lost out again as the deal was we would get half what other clubs got, last year, and again this year. Whereas if the amount we were being penalised was fixed to the value of the 2013 distribution, but spread over 2 years, then we would have received our FULL share of any INCREASE in the 2014 distribution. But it wasn't fixed.

I also suspect that OK may have been carved up the way the distribution was done, IF reports as to what happened to "our half share" are correct. (The reports said the clubs decided to divvy our half share between themselves). Had it been done as it was agreed, there would not have BEEN anything to divvy. There would just have been a simple arithmetical division of the total distribution by 27. We get 1/27th, everyone else gets 2/27ths. Nothing left over. Nothing to divvy. Nothing to discuss.

sorry that should be well done adey I hope your still there when the cows are finally getting shafted by the Bulls again.All this wakefield nonsense.My best pal was asked to have a look at their books and figures a couple of years ago in their earlier troubles.He walked a mile away after smelling the same as what appears to have gone on here.Seems people one knows little about get sucked in.Marwan was sat on a plane journey next to Big Nigel.Will he stay the long haul if Macs fail to respond to his massive investment and expectation?Who knows.But your like and all on here will be there still even if it takes 10 years for the Bulls to start shafting the cows again.Build up that war chest and let the new boys borrow and beg.Their free time is only as good as yours and I would go as far to say yours was probably far better

So I wasn't a million miles away what I posted two week ago,at the same time I was also told there would be no points deduction,only time will tell

I was wrong about Brett Hodgson before the usual couple of people try to remind me.I was right about George and Gaskell,but the same couple of people choose to ignore that bit

I have been told the Mark Mexico deal has hit visa problems, same as the PNG players that had signed for Hull KR.

I have also been told the Bulls have offered a contract to a Australian prop who London thought they had signed a few week ago.

As last time, if this is wrong don't shoot the messenger, if it's right I will take the plaudits

It would be good if we can tempt the "meat and potatoes prop" prop Ben Ross. Certainly fits what we want right now, bulk (6'3" and over 17 st) and experience, if Evans is also an option then that would mitigate the loss of Carvell for me. However theres got to be something on the table to tempt him away from his role of Welfare Manager with the Men of League Foundation, after his experiences it sounds like a real commitment he is making. So even if true - and Roger does have a much better than average hit rate, I'm hopeful but not optimistic.

Let's not forget Braith Anasta roger

Not the bloody Ben Ross rumour again? Hasn't that been done to death yet?

Haha,no I haven't forgot that one.That was a Joe Tamani special, he kept insisting we were getting him

If/when Carvell does go and Mexicos visa problems are right,we should have enough cap space to go get somebody from overseas who could do a job for us,somebody who might not be getting enough games elsewhere,somebody like Nick Zisti,obviously he wasn't a prop, don't really know what he was

what sort of euphamism is that? You need the cash to be able to pay it!

Doesn't take long between owners for the fans to start "spending" money again that the club doesn't have.

Keep calm and don't overspend again

Did anyone notice this bit at the end of the latest gale article;

[i"Meanwhile, Richard Lamb and other prospective buyers of the Bulls will meet with the RFL on Friday.

Lamb has already passed the governing body’s ‘fit and proper’ test and is now waiting on information from David Wilson, the appointed administrator of OK Bulls Ltd.

The London-based businessman said he is waiting for Wilson to release to him the Creditors List that led to OK Bulls going into administration – but there are believed to be at least four other groups interested in buying the club." [/i

[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/11003103.Gale_spells_out_England_ambitions_after_signing_new_Bradford_Bulls_deal/gale and owners stuff[/url

So thats 5 seperate groups interested in buying the Bulls before the end of the month? Can that be right? Anyone have any info on these new (or are they new?) groups? The circus continues, roll up, roll up!

I'm interested as well, make that 6

And once Bullbuilder gets it's £2m war chest together in the next couple of weeks, it'll be interested too. I believe Rochdale did it....
So thats 7!

It would be better if you even knew what a euphemism was, let alone how to spell the word. You don't need the cash to sign someone, you just do need space under your salary cap. If you wanted to sign someone on a 3 year contract but had to have the cash up front for 3 years - or even one year's wages - before signing them then few players indeed would evr be signed by any club.

What you will need, after signing that player, is sufficient cash FLOW month on month to pay for everything.


Actually, the fans can't spend any of the money. Which other clubs let the fans spend the money? How do they do that, then? In our case, it is more common to call for the fans to PUT IN extra money, not the reverse.

When I was a kid there used to be a children's programme on telly called the Wooden tops - now I see where the name came from....though I think even they were a bit brighter..