Sorry mate....but you have been undone!









Sorry......but it's just too beautiful to not re-post!

Adeybull, on the point of not punishing current owners - surely you accept that the current owners have to accept some of the blame for the liabilities to HMRC which have gone unpaid for months during their stewardship ? This in itself is a serious breach of the Operational Rules which can bring a misconduct charge from the RFL. To say they should be completely absolved is a little disingenuous - they are at least partly responsible for those non-payments.

By "previous owners", Bulls fans want us to think only of Khan.

The 3 current directors were there prior to the latest crash and were responsible for the running of the club.

How did Keith Mason get in on this thread?

Partly responsible but I'd question how they were supposed to pay for them? Given that once they got access to the books they realised the level of shortfall, announced this to the fans, started making cuts, stated that players could leave (but none did) and made people redundant. If there is no or little cash the choice is then to either not pay wages or put their own money into a business they didn't and might never have owned.

Important point you raise, although we maybe risk confusing two separate issues?

My point is that the business going forward should not be punished - by points deductions or financial penalty - for the sins of the previous owners.

We hit an unusual grey area in the Bulls' case, because we had 4 months where we had people running the business who did not own it.

What we do not know is what PAYE or VAT has not been paid, and for what period. Given that HMRC take strong action with clubs, especially ones with a track record like Bradford's, very quickly now once payments fall overdue, I doubt we are talk proctracted overdues. What I am fully expecting is that, because the board stood down before Christmas, they did not/could not/would not pay the November PAYE, due 22/12, triggering the HMRC action in mid-January. That will surely be the mimimum. Given that the ownership impasse continued in January, and the board will surely have fully appreciated the implications of trading whilst insolvent and preferring one creditor over another, I'd fully expect to see December PAYE unpaid too. But its all conjecture.

Do you actually KNOW the liabilities have "gone unpaid for months", or is that conjecture? I ask because I really do not know.

Given the RFL seem to have been heavily involved throughout all the process, I'm sure they will have been be fully aware of whatever the position was. And I cannot believe they would sanction or support anything that looked to lead to loss to HMRC - because they DARE not. After the Crusaders debacle, and the threats to sports and other bodies about loss of public funding should they not have strong processes in place to try to stop such defaults. Again, conjecture.

I have been taking the prospective new owners - who ran it as stewards since October, at their word when they intend to settle with the (third-party) creditors. My understanding is that they intend to settle them all, but we will have to see by actions not words.

IF they settle the HMRC creditor, and provided they can demonstrate that they had no option other than the one they took regarding delayting payment until all this mess was sorted, and assuming the RFL concurred, then I can't see why there should be need for any future sanctions. On the club or on them. IF.

If they do NOT subsequently settle the creditor, then UNLESS they can demonstrate they were blameless in the default, acted in utmost good faith and that the RFL had concurred with their actions, then - under the existing precedent - the ongoing club will have to be hit with penalties. And, given the same people are involved, you would expect quite severely. And rightly so.

That is my view, anyway.

Since early October. If they acted in good faith, with the correct intentions, took the only realistic course of action as it seemed at the time, and worked with the RFL and with its concurrence, then I see no problem.

If it is shown that they did NOT do these things, then it won't just be us who will be down heavy on them. The administrator will have an intersting report to write to the authorities, and they could be facing personal liabilities.

So far, everything I have seen points to the first. Should it ever become apparent that it is more the second, be in no doubt of my reaction. Write that down someplace.

Accepting good faith, we then have to question competence.

Pretty sure all these characters were involved with Bulls throughout last year, not just since Autumn.

Thanks for the reply, I agree with much of what you say.

In terms of liabilities to HMRC, I am of course just assuming like you, but I would estimate at least 3 months worth of unpaid dues as no doubt January's (due about now) will have gone unpaid too.

I would expect that Operational Rules A3:1 and A3:2 would be in force in this case, although it is clear that not all special measures have been imposed as the club is still able to register players (which, incidentally, when Whitehaven went into administration owing HMRC they were not allowed to sign any players for 9 months).

BTW, I saw a list of the assets which transferred to OK Bulls from Bradford Bulls Holdings the other day - what/where is York House (GBV of £1.07m, NBV of £880k) ?

Mark Moore was involved with the club before Mr Khan stood down at the end of September although it's not been stated in what role but he wasn't a director. Hi company had been a sponsor before that.
Ian Watt and Andrew Calvert became involved after Mr Khan stood down.

I'd love to see the thinking behind this decision. If indeed thinking has even come into it.

RHP was there long before, as CEO and I believe is now a director??

Is the suggestion that he didn't know what was going on?

Robbie only became CEO after OK relinquished control. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... le/?ref=rl Within weeks all the 'hole in the budget' stuff came out.

Robbie only became CEO after OK relinquished control. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... le/?ref=rl Within weeks all the 'hole in the budget' stuff came out.

Interesting piece in todays Yorkshire Post www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6450687 RHP suggesting that there'll be another TUPE 'window' if any bid other than BB2014 is accepted, and that more players may decide to leave Scaremongering? Or genuine?

Interesting piece in todays Yorkshire Post www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6450687 RHP suggesting that there'll be another TUPE 'window' if any bid other than BB2014 is accepted, and that more players may decide to leave Scaremongering? Or genuine?

He joined as business development manager at the end of June, with the aim of marketing and bringing in sponsors, and was appointed CEO when Mr Khan left at the end of September. So he'd been there 3 months when Mr Khan left. What he did or didn't know can only be speculation but I doubt he had full access to the accounts.

[urlhttp://www.loverugbyleague.com/news_13408-robbie-hunter-paul-appointed-ceo-at-bradford.html[/url
[urlhttp://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12213/8797759/Super-League-Bradford-Bulls-legend-Robbie-Hunter-Paul-back-at-Odsal-in-business-role[/url

All three were involved as sponsors or similar, or had been in the past. Calvert and Watt are long-standing fans. Moore and Watt I know and saw were providing unpaid help and support up at Oddal, like high-level volunteers, before end September. I think Watt with the sound sytems and the like, and Moore with things like merchandise and some other marketing areas. I could see, from my own observation, that none of them seemed to have had any management or direction role in the business, certainly up to mid-September. That seemed to be the exclusive province of Whitcu*t.

RHP was never a director of OK Bulls, either before or after the ownership-change-that-was-then-was-not-not-but-then-was-but-then-was-not-again. The title CEO did not of itself confer any board role. From my own observation, RHP looked to be primarily involved in marketing and business development and PR work before the changeover, and Whitcu*t was pretty well running the show operationally. He was not a director either, until the changeover. And then briefly till he stood down shortly after.

RHP was appointed a director of the new company at the end of January.

Quote ="paulwalker71"Interesting piece in todays Yorkshire Post www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6450687 RHP suggesting that there'll be another TUPE 'window' if any bid other than BB2014 is accepted, and that more players may decide to leave Scaremongering? Or genuine?'" If the business is transferred to yet another new company, if any other bid is accepted, then the transfer of employment and TUPE happens all over again. This ongoing uncertainty is highly damaging. I very much suspect that we have seen the law of unexpected consequences set it, or at least Red Hall will have. If anyone else other than the current incumbents does get the club, I can only hope and pray that he has a plan, that can be implemented very quickly and with minimal further disruption, and will bring more to the future of the club than the current incumbents could. A load of money would be a good start, of course...! It does very much concern me though how anyone who has not already had pretty extensive involvement, could simply turn up and the club carries on with minimal further disruption and uncertainty, unless they worked with the current incumbents. Does not sound like that is on the cards as yet, from RHP's comments though.

Quote ="paulwalker71"Interesting piece in todays Yorkshire Post www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6450687 RHP suggesting that there'll be another TUPE 'window' if any bid other than BB2014 is accepted, and that more players may decide to leave Scaremongering? Or genuine?'" If the business is transferred to yet another new company, if any other bid is accepted, then the transfer of employment and TUPE happens all over again. This ongoing uncertainty is highly damaging. I very much suspect that we have seen the law of unexpected consequences set it, or at least Red Hall will have. If anyone else other than the current incumbents does get the club, I can only hope and pray that he has a plan, that can be implemented very quickly and with minimal further disruption, and will bring more to the future of the club than the current incumbents could. A load of money would be a good start, of course...! It does very much concern me though how anyone who has not already had pretty extensive involvement, could simply turn up and the club carries on with minimal further disruption and uncertainty, unless they worked with the current incumbents. Does not sound like that is on the cards as yet, from RHP's comments though.

Wrong. Not in any management capacity. See my earlier post.

Quote ="paulwalker71"Interesting piece in todays Yorkshire Post www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6450687 RHP suggesting that there'll be another TUPE 'window' if any bid other than BB2014 is accepted, and that more players may decide to leave Scaremongering? Or genuine?'" He is right, but definite scaremongering. If a player had a desire to leave, he would have done so by now, using the original TUPE window. If we have a new buyer, I'm not as worried about players leaving as I was the last company change. I suppose Robbie also has quite a bit to lose if the new bids are accepted.

Quote ="paulwalker71"Interesting piece in todays Yorkshire Post www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6450687 RHP suggesting that there'll be another TUPE 'window' if any bid other than BB2014 is accepted, and that more players may decide to leave Scaremongering? Or genuine?'" He is right, but definite scaremongering. If a player had a desire to leave, he would have done so by now, using the original TUPE window. If we have a new buyer, I'm not as worried about players leaving as I was the last company change. I suppose Robbie also has quite a bit to lose if the new bids are accepted.

Yes, I'd assume the same. January's was not due till 22/2, of course, in the normal course of events. (Normal? Bulls? If only...!)



I think the prohibition on signing is, and remains in place? The only "registrations" during this crisis I think have been short-term loans? Only for a month? Which I am presuming is the maximum that will be sanctioned in the circumstances? And I presume their employing club retains their registrations? (Anyone able to improve on that, please do.)



I have not seen any such list, so I can't add anything there beyond saying I don't recall seeing any such-named asset in either the accounts of BBH or in the particulars etc that the administrator issued. If you have any more details, PM me? Cheers.

Not sure what your point is. But (1) it's not up to him (2) NOTHING can happen unless the new owners (whoever they are) agreed to this in writing.

(3) It occurs that any new owner might be inclined to agree to that, since as I pointed out before, they would only be losing some money for the rest of this year (ie the rump end of the old Bulls' penalty) and wouldn't be receiving any additional new "half money" penalty of their own. I wouldn't be complaining, but some may ask, if the penalty for admin for the previous lot was 2 years on half distribution, why not the same for the next admin?



Also the amount is defined in a written and clear agreement. The amount isn't somehow changed by anything anyone - Blake Solly or anybody else - says in some off-the-cuff remark.

Sammut has shown that you don't need to use TUPE to walk away from your contract, you just have to ask to leave. So as you say, players would have left by now if they wanted to. Hopefully!

Well not quite the hole story though, you need somewhere to leave to, and it needs to be a place which will pay the requisite moeny to your existing club to secure your transfer. Sammut hasn't "walked away" from his contract, it's all been done in a proper and above-board manner.

What I meant was, he had a contract, he asked to leave and the club didn't stand in his way. Whether it was above board or not, it just shows that players can leave now if they want to, TUPE or no TUPE. The only difference a new TUPE scenario will create is that the club won't get any transfer fee. I'm trying to cling on to the hope that no more player will leave if we switch owners again!

Clarified.

Its part of the cost of the Coral stand. It and next item on list, total original cost c.£1.9m.

The muppets at BBH in 2002 listed those two items under the names of those who billed them (York House were the builders...) not under what the asset actually was. Wassocks.