I think most people would agree with you there but your complaint here is with insolvency law and not Bradford or the RFL,

I don’t think you will find anyone whether Bradford fans or not, the RFL, pro/anti anything who thinks Mr Guilfoyle is more deserving than some of the creditors.

Absolutely!
While the path to hell is proverbially paved with them, I don't doubt the good intentions of the RFL. They tried to come up with a system that would satisfy as many of their stakeholders as possible and it looked okay (or at least as okay as the alternatives) on paper, until it was overtaken by events. Amending the rules to save Crusaders and now bending over backwards to save the Bulls can be viewed in a positive light - saving clubs is desirable. On the other hand it does feed a sense that the RFL has favourites, when they should be above the fray.
This goes way beyond the Bulls. Recent events have brought us to a crossroads. Do we want to admit that the pro and semi-pro game, which have been growing apart for some time should get a divorce, go their own ways, do their own things? Or should we try to reconcile them, bring them closer together? Licensing can't seem to make up it's mind - is it a [ivery[/i loose and flexible framework of guidelines that essentially facilitates the former or is it rigid structure for working towards the latter? They're now forced into a position where they have to decide and one group of stakeholders or another is going to be disappointed and even angry. But for the good of the game, I believe they must. I don't envy them the choice, but putting it into the long grass with a mini-round is a delay, not a solution.

The point I’m alluding to is, if another club gets into abject financial difficulties will it receive the same amount of assistance as Bradford has from the RFL?



So the RFL are not complicit regarding the paltry amount paid for Bradford?

No, they arent the insolvency practioner, they arent responsible for the creditors, that was Brendan Guilfoyles job.

I am half-considering forming (or at least suggesting) an Apopalypse (in-joke spelling error) Preppers group for Rovers. £150k is an achievable amount to raise (as a guide, admin costs may vary I know). The Bulls themselves raised half a million. The important thing is to be ready.
Now, I don't want us to go bust and if we did it'd be much better if a white knight rode to the rescue. But if we had a feasible plan to run at or very close to break even, then death doesn't have to be fatal.

Assuming no rules get changed in the meantime (and this has happened before) then they should IMO. But what may or may not happen in the future isn't really relevant to what's happening now.


The RFL had no say whatsoever in the price the Administrator accepted for the assets of BBH. To suggest otherwise would effectively be accusing both the Administrator and the RFL of breaking the law, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to do that.

Your blind faith of the RFL in this whole sorry saga is incredible.

This is an organisation that lent a club a substantial amount of money & didn’t get a penny piece back.

They then threw some more cash their way under the guise of protecting an “Iconic” R.L ground. The cynic in me would say it’s more likely they were protecting the lease from the Administrator when it all went down.


As a tax payer I don’t give a monkeys that the HMRC have been stuffed, in a corrupt society the amount is peanuts.

But, such as the young cheerleaders not getting a penny piece for dancing about on a miserable match day, is out of order. All due to the length of time the administrator has taken to conclude matters, ably assisted by the RFL.

More than having a say on the price, the RFL were kingmaker in that whoever bid, had to be accepted for membership by the RFL. Any bid would be conditional on the buyer being accepted by the RFL. Now, as we know the RFL examined all bids throughout the process, to say they had "no say" in the price, while strictly true, isn't really the whole truth.

Once the SL clubs made it clear they wanted the Bulls to remain in SL , the RFL and the administrator would have supplied the relevant bidders with the minimum requirement to be accepted , this would be close to the administrators fee's

That IS what has happened

If nobody was willing to pay more, what do you want the RFL to do?

Realistically any extra money paid by OK to buy the bulls now, would most probably be swallowed up by BG, by HMRC and by other large creditors. The chances of the cheerleaders getting anything is very very low. Though it wouldnt be a bad PR move to throw them something.

Well, what I would have liked the RFL to do was, not keep drip feeding money to Bradford therefore bringing the debacle to an early conclusion & reducing the Administrators fees considerably.

I know about all the guff regarding the need to see the season out, blah, blah, but I still maintain someone would have come in to save the day, even back in June.

Yet the RFL came up with the conditions issue, and whilst I agree regarding the sale of the lease, the next two years licence should have been a gimme.

So you wanted the RFL to force Bradford into liquidation because you believe someone would have come in and paid more or the same money they have now, but less of it would go to Guilfoyle? Seems a very risky strategy, especially considering the fees for BG are relatively low and there is nothing to say that had the conclusion come quicker, he wouldnt have charged a higher amount. Especially considering even at this point, the offer which has been accepted doesnt cover these relatively low fees.

that one way or another they had to keep the Bulls in SL

So privatley conditions dropped , privatley promises made , and suddenly , we have a buyer , however this then makes the actual licence system seem ' toothless ' , so how can you deflect criticism ? , have a contest that makes the Bulls look like the only obvious option , almost blaming the possible alternatives for failing to reach essentially unatainable standards

Hey presto , everybody is happy , " Whats for Lunch "

No, I wanted the RFL to not put in a silly condition regarding the licence, when it was glaringly obvious there was no plan B, thirteen teams, Halifax blah,blah.

I’m sure that if they’d said back in June “Who wants to buy Bradford with a guaranteed licence for a further two years for £150k” it would have been snapped up.

Then the Administrators, who you think are working for a snip, wouldn’t have dragged it out for over two months, thereby eating the whole of the pie.

We will never know, but if it had, would have been accompanied by howls of protest from all the usual suspects at how ludicrous it was that the RFL had 'given away' the Bulls, and how incompetent they were, anybody knows it was worth ten times as much etc etc.


I would fundamentally disagree with the comments about them working for a snip, they charge plenty, and for every minute; they have eaten plenty of pie, and without having a go at them in particular, these firms that come in as insolvency experts inevitably charge an arm and a leg, to be sure. But they have certainly eaten nowhere near all of it, on any view.

God this is so funny.
I feel for BB fans, but you couldn't make up the sorry events, the deals that have evolved and the integrity the sport has lost.

This turd of a thread leads me to think about the next round of licensing in 2014.

What a crapshoot that's gonna be




Rugby Football Licensing - The Greatest Game.

The £150k is about £149,999 too much

It's certainly a guaranteed license, guaranteed to lose money

Looks cheap, depending on any liabilities that have been taken on.
If there are 10,000 loyal bulls fans, willing to pay the going rate for S/T's, then its a steal !
(dont know about the £6 million investment though, that is serious money !

Apologies if this is not the case, I was basing my assumption on what certain posters had informed me.

So, out of the £150k, how much of it has gone to the Administrators?

Regarding working for a snip, the comment was a side swipe at Smokey, who obviously lives in different circles to me.

The administrators' fees is a known and published figure (£172,551.90 ), but what everyone posting is overlooking is that for that money, and completely apart from the money OKB are paying now, the administrators via keeping the club up and running, have generated a significant amount of income during the 2 months they have been there. They have also received advances in one form or another from the RFL. So it is far from just the purchase price that has come in.

(Everybody is also ignoring the fact that this payment is not necessarily the whole purchase price, there was reported a [url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/9906492._We_ll_invest___6m_in_Odsal_Stadium_over_three_years_/?ref=mrfurther payment of 100K to be made at a later date[/url, but as it doesn't suit most people's whingeing agenda, they are all ignoring that. And that is not seemingly the whole price either, as various reports confirmed that as well, the newco will forego certain central funding, which is, if you think about it. the same as keeping all central payments and paying a higher purchase price. )

Therein lies the problem. How anybody can think they are helping the club by buying a season ticket that costs only the equivalent of a few regular entry fees is beyond me.

I know people who use other people's junior season tickets when they aren't being used, despite the fact that they are much too old. I challenge them, and ask why they, as supposed loyal fans, are happy to see the club (not saying which particular club I'm talking about here) lose money.

Leaving aside the fact that very many fans certainly did NOT pay a low season ticket price (self included); those who did the best deals (as well as the rest) mostly ended up paying another £100 or more into the Pledge. So I'd suggest the total amount ultimately paid by ticket holders in 2012 ended up being a sum pretty much comparable to what it would have been if a less discounted price had been fixed in the first place. But you hadn't thought of that, had you?

Anyway, leaving that as I said aside, can you explain to me in what way any such thought ("I am helping the club etc"icon_wink.gif would even arise in the mind of a fan? Wouldn't you think it entirely fair for any fan to simply accept that the businessmen running their club had done their sums, and decided on a price structure that worked, depending on the volume of sales? Or do you suggest each fan should pre-purchase engage an auditor to report on the deal?

For any fan, buying a season ticket is helping the club. The price paid is the price asked. Are you trying to argue that each purchaser walked out of the office gleefully thinking, "great, I've harmed the club by buying this ticket"?

I agree. Its not the fans fault that the people in charge were not able to run a club. Why wouldnt the fans accept what the people running the club say, afterall they were awarded a B licence from the RFL.

Fair enough, it shouldn't be the responsibilty of the fans to question the price of season tickets, but it must have occurred to people that the club was going to raise less money by selling the season tickets heavily discounted.