Indeed.It is the truth.
I fail to understand it either.
Can anyone interpret it for ME.
For 2 points difference why did Mr Ok bankrupt the club.

What was gained?love by the other clubs?

Don't blame the RFL the suggestion came straight from good old Omar.

That's not quite the case. Trolls from other clubs are showing themselves in a bad light.

Most Bulls fans (and lots of decent fans from other clubs) are absolutely fine.

Wrong.

The punishment (or appeasement of anger attempt) was made By Mr OK in his meeting to put a creditable plan forward to take control of his beloved Bulls.In those far off heady days you could see his abundant joy at achieving his lifetime ambition.
From Chappati walla to respected Bulls owner in 53 years.He"d finally made it.
The chairman simply ratified it and said "thank you very much for that kind £100 grand Mr Omar.

Doubt many will be jumping to pay it back right now as the creditors stand to lose another million.

Madness.
The numbers simply could NOT add up with an act like that.

And that is precisely as things have turned out.

One of the Other creditable bids ,whose projections have turned out to be entirely accurate therefore withdrew.

Not prepared to match OK"s magnanimous and self destructing gesture.

Will the chairmen be ringing him up to help him now?I doubt it.

Naieve and stupid.

Just as Robbie is to put Gale on a 2 year contract when we could be playing championship next year.He"s the director.

These are big contracts by the way.

And you get not much brass in championship.

Wonder if they will bring in parachute payments like the premier league?

To help with precisely that situation

Just when things couldn't get more bizarre everyone switches to writing in verse.

In verse do I write

For the life of me, I cannot see how you could describe either of Khan or Moore/Calvert/Watt "choosing the soft option"! Nor, I suspect, will anyone else. The "Soft Option" would have been to say "I can't be bothered".

None of these people had any involvement with the Hood regime, on whose watch the club slid into a desperate situation, or the majority shareholders (not directors) led by Caisley who forced the Hood regime out after the £500k had been raised, waited two months (and doubtless spent what was left of that money), then called in administrators. Many thought to then be able to pick the pieces up from the administrator cheap, but - and maybe the RFL and the other clubs took steps to stymie that (some believe so, we really do not know), but whatever took place, no-one involved with the club before was involved in taking it over post-administration.

Will you PLEASE explain to us why what happened was the "soft" option, because I for one really don't get it. All I see is blameless new owners hamstrung by a decision by the other clubs to punish any new owners for the sins of the old, with a massive finacial penalty as well as a points penalty that actually allowed your club to make the play-offs instead of ours. Which never happened to London or Crusaders or Wakefield.

If that was a "soft option", I cannot imagine what a hard option looks like?

Well lets hope the hamstrung can find someone with the wallet to take us through to the end of the season in the event 10000 paying fans fail to materialise.

Then come November sense can be made of the ridiculous numbers the Bulls have operated under for too long with a hopefull annual £1.75 million central distribution.

Andrew Calvert deserves unanimous support tomorrow (sorry today).

I am sure he is emotionally and physically drained.

As indeed is everyone

Bring on Richard the Lionheart.

Or others suitably stacked

There's only one escapee from t&a forum doing that to be fair.

You are a liar and seemingly a racist. The half-money penalty was imposed at the last minute on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and to his credit OK took it despite it making no economic sense, the reason being he just wanted to stop the deal from foundering.


Do we need this sort of shiite on the forum?

totally correct so can we please stop having cheeky monkeys talking e about the subject, like the cheeky monkey FA has had to correct, and also Bradford fans moaning on about the Sky money. Without the deduction we would not be a SL team now & I think that would have spelt the end for the club.

My recollection is that the halving of Sky money was IMPOSED not offered. The speculation was that SOME of the other clubs were irritated by the deal previously done by the RFL regarding Odsal. It was a MAJORITY vote reported in the RL Papers as was the vote to share the money withdrawn from the new owners amongst the 13 clubs.
Many Bulls fans came on this forum to express anger-- but much of that anger was directed at the use of that confiscated money to exacerbate the disadvantage vis a vis the clubs funding. It would not have been as controversial with many of us if the money had gone to something beneficial to the game as a whole such as youth development or the amateur game.
Still most of us were just happy we still had a team to support. Last season we started well and had a chance to reach the top 8 . We failed but most agreed that the small size of the squad caught up with us and we could not cover injuries . Players who in normal circumstances would have been rested, were played. But all in all most Bulls fans felt it was a creditable effort.
The coach recruited well given the budget he had but we now see (AND ACCEPT) that the running of the club at that time was at best inefficient. The ownership issues raised their head yet again and a creditor (Marc Green ) prompted another administration.
Our major signing ,Carvell, exercised his right not to accept the transfer of his contract to the new owners but there's further confusion as those owners only have a 28 day license and may not be the eventual owners. A key player is then allowed to leave with every party agreeing that Wakefield's conduct was exemplary.
At the moment our playing resources are even thinner than last season . Our first choice 17 should on paper be able to compete but woe betide the team if we suffer significant injuries to key players.
So we are now in crisis again -- a crisis which should not attract the glee exhibited by some ( certainly not all) rival fans. I for one did not gloat when Wakefield London and Salford went through difficult times.
I just hope that the ownership issue is settled in the next few weeks, the Board ( whichever Board emerges) can satisfy the creditors , any points reduction can be seen to be fair ( without any further reduction in funding) and the coach can recruit a few new players without compromising the financial situation further.
And then we can return to arguing about performances on the pitch and revert to healthy banter between rival fans rather than the rancid insults which some of the posters on here in the last few weeks have expressed--- and that includes some fellow Bulls fans as well as some Wildcats and Black and White supporters.

Wish everyone would learn how to spoke proper,then we could all understand

Latest from Joe Tamani,we have offered Stuart Fielden a 12 month deal if he can prove his fitness.Obviously hoping we don't play on any day he is assisting coaching at the Giants

That is indeed correct Roger.

We really need to get behind the team from today, we can't afford to be arguing amongst ourselves, which includes on, off field and on terrace.

This season is massive for the clubs survival and we need to support to the max.

COYB

My understanding was that removal of the sky money was the only way we retained SL status & as such was an offer we accepted. I agree to then divvy the money up amongst the other clubs was utter bollox

Totally agree with Bets`y Bulls lets get behind OUR team!!!! COYB

This is a joke right?

Its hard to tell anymore

Who knows? Maybe we are getting the awesome foursome back together.

It's best to try not to think to hard about anything anymore.

If I were to say he wasn't joking would you believe me

Think there's more chance of Carvell playing for us today

At the time, I naively assumed that this confiscation from future owners was to be put into a fund to repay the creditors. Sort of "if you want the club, you'll have to repay the creditors one way or another". Very hard on the new owner, but if this was some new process if you wanted to acquire SL status from a financially-failed predecessor, then so it had to be. The sum involved approximated to the creditors (leaving aside a few "funnies"icon_wink.gif.

Some others - including quite a few from other clubs - thought it was to re-acquire the Odsal head lease from the RFL - so the RFL was freed of something it is quite clear a number of clubs were very unhappy with them acquiring in the first place. Again, the sum involved approximated the amount the RFL paid.

WHen the silence on this issue grew increasingly deafening, some speculated that maybe the money would be retailed by the RFL and put in to the grass-roots of the game.

I think it is fair to say that very few Bulls supporters would have found undue cause to complain, had any of these three options applied?

What made us all VERY angry though, was to discover that NONE of those applied. And that the clubs had instead kept the money to be divided up amongst themselves. Thereby enriching themselves at Bulls' new owner's expense AND stymying a superb opportunity for the game to show its worth by ensuring creditors of a failed club were settled with. Or maybe righting the "wrong" as they saw it of the RFL acquiring the Odsal lease. or even investing in the game as a whole.

When folk complain about Bulls fans continuing to go on about the confiscation, they ought maybe to ask whether their own club's conduct in the whole sorry affair (those who voted to take the money for themselves - some I understand did not) stands up to scrutiny?

If you'd have said 3 years ago the bulls would go into admin twice in less than two years I wouldn't have believed you! I'm not sure what to believe any more!!!!

I appear to be the only one who thinks that money was effectively stolen. But there is no doubt.

If there WAS a "surplus" - i.e. one half of what each club would get as a full share - then quite simply the distribution did not take place in the manner which was agreed (in writing) by the parties involved.

As I keep saying, the deal was simple. We get half the distributin of yje ther clubs, for 2 years. That is a simple thing to do arithmetically.

Instead - if what we are led to believe is true - the distribution was not done like that. It seems to have been done in a completely different way. The story goes that each club got its normal distribution - except the Bulls, who go t half that sum - and this then left an unclaimed amount. Which the clubs then voted to divvy.

That was not what was agreed. Under the agreement, there IS no surplus . Under the agreement, the whole of the distribution is divided in defined shares and that's it. Couldn't be simpler.

What difference does it make? Well, and in very round figures, it leaves the Bulls around £40,000+ worse off.

____________________

=#4000BF[size=85Example if you don;t get the point:

4 club league.
TOTAL to be distributed £70,000
AGREEMENT - A gets half the distribution of B,C,D

A gets 1 share, B C and D get 2 shares each. So we need a total of 7 shares, @ £10,000 a share.

A gets £1o,000
B C and D get £2o,000 each. The £70000 has been distributed as per agreement

- - - - - - - - - - -

Whereas what seems to have happened is

£70,000 / 4 = £17,500
Last year A B C D got £17,500 each.
So this year we give them £17,500 each. And we give A half that, namely £ 8,750
And we then have £8,750 left over.
So we give a third of that to B and C and D. Another £2,916 each.

Result:
A gets a distribution of £8750

B C and D get a distribution of £ 20,416.

That is nearer 42% than half. And next year, let's nick some more and divvy it.[/size

Perhaps it may be worth noting, when most seem to be puting the blame elsewhere, that if we had not put ourselves into this position by gross mis-management in the first place then there would never have been a with-holding of the funding in the first place?

It is easy to point fingers at others when fundamentally we only have ourselves to blame for getting into the situation in the first place.

Still, that will be a negative view again I guess.

Who is putting the blame elsewhere? The discussion is about subsequent events. That there would have been no such events without a succession of failures on the various parties involved is so trite as to be meaningless.

People screwed up and therefore everything that follows is irrelevant? Is that really your point? It's not a negative view, it just makes no sense. It's self evident that the way in which situations are dealt with matters.