Chris Caisley is still the largest shareholder isnt he?

No idea, thats why I asked, if that is the case, then it is more understandable why they would take this action, maybe if that had been made clearer from the start, fewer people would have questioned it

Yes he is. And I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Yep Caisley is the majority shareholder by some distance.

He is the largest at 26%. Not the majority.

The board collectively hold about 7%.

Not much ' control ' there then, who's got the cash? , the board or the shareholders ?

No control at all. Control as in who can appoint the board is in the hands of directors who retired last year and the Club President. They seem content to back Hood over Caisley.

Do you understand how companies work? Surely with your background you must? Neither got "the cash". The company was the party to the lease with the council, and the company will have received the consideration paid by the RFL. Assuming it has actually been paid and is not a loan from the Bulls to the RFL.

The board control the company. The shareholders decide on the board. But you know all that?

The RFL need to buy them a new team

All very strange, most companies/clubs have the directors as majority shareholders, or of course the shareholders elect the board ( but quite often would vote on issues like this ) in large companies

By who had the cash, I meant, was it the boards to use as and when needed ? ,or paid out as a dividend to the shareholders?

They're saving that for the 2013 season

That would certainly make Wednesday's fans forum a bit more interesting!

Northern/Bulls never have had one individual in control. The board used to have control but no longer due to retirements etc. The extent to which this reflects in the present circumstances is unclear. What is quite clear to me, and has been for years, is that the current situation is unstable and will eventually have to be rectified. In other clubs this has been resolved by the arrival of a sugar daddy or by insolvency. We seem unable to attract the former, just predators who would seemingly use the club as a means to an end and starve it of resources and investment. I was told how much one predator said could be spent of the salary cap. You would be apalled.

The club has already stated publically, and I have been told personally, that the funds will be retained within the business as additional working capital. There could never be any question of a dividend, for a raft of reasons.

So a bail-out then?

Are you being deliberately thick?

if you need bailing out, you have bills to pay that you are unable to pay. So you spend the bailout money.

If you do not need bailing out, you retain the cash in the business for when you may need it. Which might be for investment for the future, even.

The bulls have said the cash will be retained in the business and not spent. And especially not spent on players, they said.

Is there any part of that that is unclear?

Yes, lots of still unanswered questions. For example, if the Bulls didn't need the money why didn't they 'sell' the lease to the RFL for a couple of quid rather than for a 'seven figure' sum?

Because that would not have been a commercial transaction? And open to attack by all and sundry?

Bit like a bailout would be?

Depends on the terms of the "bail-out". A refinancing can be an entirely proper transaction, if carried out in good faith for the benefit of the company concerned.

You're spending a lot of time on the issue and thanks for your efforts in attempting to shed some light on this mess, but can you please clarify your comments about predators getting control of the club for next to nothing. Why would anyone sell out to the predators for next to nothing, it makes no sense morally or commercially? If they loved the club they wouldn't sell and if they didn't care about the club presumably they'd want to get a return on their investment when selling to the predators. We are still a very long way from understanding the circumstances behind this deal.

Mess? Not from where I am sitting.

(I wonder how many times I have said the next bit?)

Because the Bulls would have to move out of Odsal to have a long-term future, following the collapse of the OSV project through lack of funding. The directors (if I understand it correctly) dared not gamble on staying put, because a large unexpected bill could finish the club. Because, while they are adamant there was no requirement for immediate funding, a large cost could arise at any time and the club was living hand to mouth with no reserves.

But, in the present economic climate, the only option that appeared to be available was to move in at Valley Parade. But the only option for that that seemed to be on the table was to allow the club to be acquired by a predator, one of whom at least made it pretty clear they only wanted Odsal and saw it as doing the Bulls a favour. They could see the Bulls dilemma, and sought to take advantage of it.

Had there been a sugar daddy on the horizon, no problem. Had the previous Bradford City rescue fiasco not put paid forever to the hopes of a retail component at Odsal, probably no problem. Don't even get me started on just how badly the Bulls were shafted by the council then.

But no such hopes. So the board - and the supportive shareholders, who were most of the big ones - were looking at a continuing grind into mediocrity with little prospect of a happy ending.

What was the open market value of the club? To a third party looking at a commercial proposition? Like most RL clubs, zero. In the short term, you are looking at putting money IN not at getting a return from whatever you paid for the shares. Why would a predator offer money for the shares, knowing that there appeared to be no-one else seemingly prepared to buy them (or that the main shareholders would sell to) but that the shareholders would probably have to sell to preserve the club's long-term future?

But Bulls were in a unique situation - both as regards the threats and as regards the opportunities. And the solution that has been achieved reflects both, as far as I can see.

At the end of the day, what's the problem?

The RFL have committed THEIR money, they've not stolen it from any other club or individual supporters. The other clubs directors don't appear to have a problem with the arrangement. The only people who do seem to have a problem are the usual chippy posters on here, who would dearly love to see the clock turned back and watch Frank Machin running out at Belle Vue in all its black & white glory.

Some of you need to get over yourselves.

/rolfharris

Can you tell what it is yet?

/rolfharris

Is it an idiotic troll?

Mmmmmmmm

So they sold something to the RFL in case they needed the money to pay for something that might not need paying and put the money into the club cos it has no money. Very smart.

A novel way for the RFL to avoid the embarrassment of giving a licence to a club that has been or is about to go into administration...........

Congratulations!!!! You're the 1 millionth person to purposefully ignore the actual facts and make up some conspiracy theory

Chomp!

T!t