1-0

LOL

The current owners - I know at the bulls this may change daily

- have not unequivocally said they will pay creditors 100% YET they can agree enhanced contracts (and added costs). If they have spare cash perhaps people owed money should get it first.

It appears some bulls fans think shafting suppliers is normal business practice.......its shameful. HTH

Exactly.

It gets us no nearer to knowing whether or not those creditors will or won't be shafted so in terms of being helpful it's pretty neutral.

The creditors will not be "shafted". Same way Salford's were not shafted.

It really should be quite amusing, standing back and watching folk spouting forth when they actually know jack shìte about what has happened and is actually happening. And why. But instead, its really quite sad, seeing folk who support the Greatest Game revelling in the misfortunes (real or wished for) of others.

If the current directors are sure they can pay creditors 100% why go into admin or why not state that they will get 100%. Instead the directors simply say they will work with creditors while committing firmly to new contracts. A shoddy way to treat suppliers. there is every likelihood that the creditors will include small businesses struggling in a recession....but hey ho they can wait because the directors want to give Gale more money. (interesting that they directors are happy to commit the bulls to new contracts while they are allegedly treading water for 28days.

)

The irony

I have defended Bradford numerous times on here, and really hope that you get back on your feet. However, trying to claim that the last 18 months has been part of some grand, master plan, seems beyond silly.

As much as it must feel like it at times, I don't think anyone on this thread has said they're happy Bradford and their fans have gone through this, nobody wants teams to be struggling in the way Bradford has, just differing opinions on how it should be resolved (for the better or worse of Bradford's prospects).

If Bradford gets a new investor/ lease of life, great, until then can we not draw this sorry saga to a close, at least for a few months?

Exactly. The bulk of bulls fans just want a decently run club with a competitive side.

Sadly some bulls fans are serial apologists for the umpteen regimes who have mismanaged the club. The pattern of blindly supporting a new regime, justifying their questionable behaviours / decisions and occasionally bagging the failed regime much later is all too familiar.

Mate, you have talked good sense - or at least given considered opinion - throughout all this latest tragic comedy. So I can only assume you have misinterpreted what I said?

I never said anything about any "18 months master plan". Where did you get that from? It's been a fekking shambles till OK abruptly stepped down, and since then sorting out the unholy mess. I am pointing out that some of those who are spouting such vitriol really have no idea what is actually happening or what led up to all this. Yet that does not stop them from telling everyone what the situation is and what should be done about it. Folk who maybe DO know a bit more about it are likely to keep their own counsel on public forums, wouldn't you say?

There are clearly some individuals on these forums - I'll name the obsessed Gutterfux and the unpleasant Cripesginger as two, but there are others - who are giving a damn good impression of setting a new level in the [ischadenfreude[/i stakes.

One of the most reasoned comments I have seen on here for a while came from TURFEDOUT, a Wakey fan who backs his opinions with considered reasoning. This is what he said:



He and I will doubtless not agree on all sorts, but he at least supports his arguments with intelligent reasoning. I just wish some others would do likewise. You don't have to agree with someone to appreciate their POV and how they expressed it. And anyway, what's not to agree with in that excellent summation?

But isn't the point of administration to find a buyer for the club, the proceeds of which then go to the creditors? Administration is seemingly ongoing with people other than the incumbents expressing interest. So we don't know at all how they've been treated because all of that is yet to happen. I am far from an apologist for any of those involved . I'd merrily swing a hammer into many of these people. I just think it's weird that people on here want to pass judgement on the outcome of their own assumptions and pretend that it's fact. Maybe they'll get paid, maybe they won't. We have no idea. I'm as curious to find out as you are certain of how it will play out.

The point is to run a club so it does not go into administration and leave countless creditors out of pocket. We do know the current directors are only 'working with creditors' while signing contract extensions with players. Poor show.

This is obviously where confusion has arisen. To me this implies there's a deeper meaning to what's gone on, and there's been some kind of forethought involved in what's gone on. Whether there have been recent moves for the positive, then as I said, that's fantastic news, but it's not because of things that have gone before.

There will always be those who revel in misery, if it's any comfort, the like of gutterfaxs aren't specifically negative toward Bradford - it's just everything! He has his own thread on the London board

I thought it was the audience participation that let it down.

As brevity is not your strong suit perhaps I can summarise your last lengthy post. I do hope it helps.

Nope. It just speaks volumes about you.

When did they tell you that? Can you post a link?


Er, if a debenture holder appoints an administrator, oddly enough, the company isn't allowed to politely decline
What on earth made you think they could?

But they are allowed to challenge the administrator in a court with regard to the nature of the original request for administration.......wonder why they didn't? Probably because they didn't have the funds to eh

...or maybe the inclination, since going into administration, and immediate prepack, removed OK from any involvement with the business? Who knows how many parties that suited?

Just because the likes of Gutterfux say something is so, because it feeds their obession, does not make it so. The reality might well be rather different.

It's not as straight forward as that though is it? Did the directors invite the appointment, did they themselves instigate the procedure?

It's actually quite rare that a debenture holder makes a hostile administration appointment, it is more often driven by the incumbent board (with the debenture holder either consenting or objecting to the director nominated Administrator).

To say this will be forced on them by a floating charge holder isn't necessarily true (albeit it may be the case).

Brevity. Well done.

Do you think people can post links for what they have been told?!! Oh dear.

Exactly.

Despite your wink, your ignorance knows few bounds. If you really do need to "wonder" why the current lot didn't "challenge the administration" then you are a hopeless case. To spell out just one reason (and to add to the points others have made) consider this: you think you have bought a club but the original owner says you haven't. All is in dispute. And anyway, a debenture holder has a charge over all the assets of the club you thought you had bought. So you may end up owning it, or you may not. Legal proceedings are already in progress.

Then, a point comes where to "challenge" an administration, all you need to do is repay the debenture holder something like 200K and he will go away.

Now think about that for a bit, then tell us: if it were you - in those circumstances - would you pay off the debenture holder even if you had access to 200K?

Or would you instead negotiate a deal whereby you could really and with certainty offer to buy the club, from a person who would 100% definitely sell it? (i.e. the administrator) with no baggage or strings?

Of course the risk is that an administrator might just get a better offer - but at least then you haven't done your bollox in, you can walk away with your pockets intact.