stock response of a Bradford Bulls fan when asked a straight question regarding finances....talk about another club and hope the question goes away!



Relegation battle in a fortnights time.........could be the last visit of London Broncos to Iconic Odsal in Super league for a very long time



























(unless you manage to stay up)

Not avoiding the question. Just the hypocrisy for some gets me.

To be honest London are the only team I think we have a chance of beating. I can see Wakey hammering is on Thursday whil Sammut runs rings round our long term half bac Luke gale (who had yet another stinker today)

As has been said numerous times, Glover paid many of the creditiors back and Trinity continued to use the service of several said creditors once he was in charge. Hence why the RFL docked us 4 points not 6. If non were paid we'd have obviously got the full 6.

What is hypocritical is the Bull fans getting on their high horses about Trinity fans, after all mocking and laughing that some did when we wne into admin in 2010, short memories. Some seem to be able to dish but not take it.

You did'nt read any of the recent posts in this thread before posting that, did you.

"Many"? We keep getting assured of this, but what no-one has been able to do is to put any kind of a number on that. Maybe you can help us? Simple question (once again - as has been asked numerous times): what % of the total value of third party creditors did Glover repay?

Without taking anything away from Glover at all - quite the opposite - I suspect the answer is quite a modest %, and none to the principal creditor HMRC? But it would be great to have my guess disproved with some hard facts. Can you help?

I doubt that continuing to use the services of several creditors can have had any effect on the points deduction, because the RFL decided on the penalty within a week of the administrator being appointed. And anyway, so did Bradford.

We paid as many of them as much as possible.

To do this we laid off staff and sold key players.

This seems to have been a principled action, that was beyond the comprehension of the Bulls BoD.

Twice.

1 - "as many of them as much as possible" - I say again...what % by value? 5%? 10%? 50%?

2 - OK bought a business off the administrator in 2012 with virtually NO employees bar the playing staff (that the RFL had insisted had to be retained, and secured an agreement from other clubs not to poach - the little matter of it being mid-season, as well as the circumstances of the administration, doubtless having a lot to do with it) - since the administrator had sacked them all. Including all the coaching staff. Oh, and the RFL took steps to ensure the administrator did not sell players. Else he assuredly would have done.

So your dumbass comment about it being "...beyond the comprehension of the Bulls BoD" is shown up for what it is, since the BoD who took over the club had to go out and HIRE a complete workforce.

3 - Maybe OK could have paid off a similar value of creditors to Glover - or even a similar % - had he not had 50% of the Sky money for the next two years confiscated? And that money withheld used not to repay any creditors whatsoever, but instead to give a nice little windfall to all the other clubs - including your own.

4 - Regarding the current crisis, have you not read how the club DID try and sell off players in the weeks before the administration? But there were seemingly no takers? And did you not see that they had sacked a load of staff, and put others on reduced hours, in the weeks leading up to the administration? And did you not read that they have said they intend to settle with the creditors? In fact, I have heard the intent is to seek to settle all the third-party creditors but, unlike some people, I prefer not to treat things said verbally or anecdotally as irrefutable fact. The proof will be in what actually happens.

So your dumbass comment about it being "...beyond the comprehension of the Bulls BoD" is again shown up for what it is, since the current BoD (who may anyway not BE the Bod in two weeks) have actually taken ALL the steps that you allege are beyond their comprehension.

I think the one having trouble compehending is you.

1. Neither you nor I know that detail, though you want to use that as proof for your assertion, despite it being known that those efforts were made.

2. Thanks for drawing attention back to the fact that the RFL were complicit in you keeping your stadium and your squad.

3. The financial penalty was for your financial mismanagement e.g. because you defaulted on previous payments to the RFL and HMRC...or should you be allowed to run a business in that way?

4. No, I haven't heard about how you tried to offload players...only about how you are ring-fencing players and not having a points penalty.

Come on Adey, stop being quite so defensive.
Although things are always easier in hindsight, your club appears to have waited for far too long before taking some remedial action to plug the hole in your finances, probably 2 years too long.
When exactly did you reduce contract hours and cut player contracts, mid December and when do you think they knew that they were in the poop ?

As I said, easy in hindsight and easier still if you are not in denial.

No you didn't! Justin poore. Paul Aiton, Ben cockaybe, Tim Smith, Ali Lautiti, Danny Washbrook, Peter Fox and a host of other players were bright AFTER you went into admin.

A lot of your creditors didn't get paid though did they. Only reason they didn't get shafted again was because you managed to get a quick sale to MC.

We sold players e.g. Obst when admin beckoned and we, only a few months ago, sold Tim Smith to pay the bills...in the season.

You chose not to sell any players and keep a full squad together KNOWING that it meant you would go into admin.

Is that an ethical or fair way to run a business?

You really are clutching at straws even though this is a "More Bullmania" thread
The players brought in were under the new management.
Are you now proposing that any club that enters admin should have a permanent embargo n any new players until they have cleared all previous debts ??

You should be careful what you wish for.

Yet you want to use the absence of detail as proof of your assertion. How do you know that Wakefield "paid as many of them as much as possible"?Was it not possible to sell more? DId you need to keep them on? was it impossible that Wakefield could have saved another 50/60k on wages and paid that to creditors? Was there some pressing impassable issue that forced Wakefield to put together a squad capable of finishing 3rd from bottom (without deductions)?

How do you know this wouldnt have been available to Wakefield had they had a stadium to keep?

A penalty Wakefield didnt pay.

Thats convenient.

The amount of any payback is unknown. That there was a payback is a matter of fact, evidenced by club and RFL statements at the time and the fact that the points deduction was reduced.

The RFL bailed you out by giving you a loan against your lease, which you failed to make a single repayment against. Subsequently they had to bail you out again, as they would never see anything back.

Wakefield didn't suffer a Sky money loss...but we didn't rip off the RFL either.

Wakefield didn't go into admin BECAUSE they sold players.

Bulls went into admin (again), BECAUSE they refused to sell players.

Smokey is a Rhino, so he's just playing devils advocate/ mischief maker

I see you have not actually answered any of my points.

1 - since you clearly do not know the numbers, you are in no position whatsoever to lecture others. Maybe it was £10k? A sum that would have made no conceivable difference to how Bardford's situation would have been perceived. Probably not, but who knows? You clearly do not.

2 - Thanks for ignoring how I blew your assertion out of the water with facts. I'm sorry for bothering you with the inconvenience of irrefutable fact, but needs must and all that.

3 - Was it? Was it really? Is that something else that you "know" but can't actually produce anything in support of? But, thanks anyway for confiming you have now joined the growing ranks of those who accept that it WAS indeed a penalty, and not this ludicrous "offer" notion that so many of you were pedalling before. And yes of course it was a penalty - allegedly insisted upon by a majority of other SL clubs not the RFL as a condition of the new owner keeping the licence. Yet, funnily enough, your own club had previous for not defaulting with HMRC AND its other creditors, having indeed "run a bsuiness that way" yet were not penalised financially then OR in your second insolvency. But doubtless you will tell us that was different?

4 - Maybe you should read more widely then? And if the club was unable to get any players sold before the administration, and with such a small squad anyway, you would hardly expect the new owners to want to try to sell any AFTER? Not that it has not stopped two from jumping ship anyway.

And can you point me to where the RFL had confirmed there would be no points penalty? Or are you just relying on some half-baked comment from a rookie chairman who quickly acknowledged that he actually did not have the first idea what he was actually talking about? Because if you ARE, how is that so very different to - for example - your supporters' trust firing off an open letter based very much around something your own chairman said?

Look, isn't it about time people cut out all this pretence about the moral high ground and "doing the right thing"? Nearly all the vitriol on the current crisis is coming from a group of Wakefield supporters. Everyone else can see the reason for why that should be so, so why not just admit it? All this "our insolvency was MUCH more principled than yours" crap is wearing thin now.

No what I am saying I find it slightly hypocritical from one or two Wakey fans slating the Bulls and how it's a disgrace that creditors did not get paid.

I'm just pointing out many creditors lost out when wakefield went into admin as well. And instead of signing the above players as mentioned above could it not be argued you used that money to pay off creditors that one or two of you expect Bradford to?

2013 Wakefield paid for a squad they could not afford and if it wasn't for MC you would be In EXACTLY the same situation as us if not worse.

I am not defending actions of the bulls, it's been shambolic quite frankly, but to lectures on not paying creditors by one or two fans of a club who also didn't pay creditors I find hypocritical that is all.

Denial !

Seek help

Someone usually gets done over when companies go into admin and as I have said on another thread, the punishment for doing so IMO should be more severe (and I know that this would have affected the team that I support).
Do you seriously think that Wakefield paid transfer fees for the players that you mention, or rather that they were free agents ??
Of course they were all paid salaries but, this means that you DO think that no players should be signed until any previous debts are cleared.
If we go that way, the capitalist world would cease to exist !

FWIW, I think Wakefield were in just as precarious position as The Bulls but, thankfully, Mr Carter recognised where we were and took some drastic and painful action, to try and prevent the club going into Admin.
As fans of a club that has been through numerous ups and downs, there is no pleasure in seeing any club have the same (or similar) problems but, the problems at the Bulls always seem to be somebody else's fault, which right at the outset (The Iconic Stadium issue), don't seem to have been tackled.

Keeping with what is in the public domain and not hearsay or . Club owner abruptly stands down and announces he is selling the club to gang of four (now gang of three, since it subsequently became clear that the one survivor from his regime was actually a total bandit) at end of September. It was NOT pre-planned (and I can prove that, but not for on here) and OK WAS ill and was told jack it in or it'll jack YOU in, and soon.

New owners - except the shares had not actually changed hands - go through the books and contracts and everything else, and discover things are very much more serious than they understood. At about this time, said bandit resigns as RFL deem him not a "fit and proper person". You don't need to be Einstein to get the significance of that.

Mid-November, new owners (or not-yet-owners, as we later discovered) call fans forum, and tell fans the dreadful truth. And that they had ALREADY started to slash costs and set up a programme of redundancies. You realise of course that there are consultation and notice periods? Which meant the staff cuts kicked in by 12 January. Other cuts were being made from some time before the forum.

The current owners-who-were-actually-not-yet-owners-and-may-not-now-be-the-future-owners looked to have acted quickly and (financially) responsibly. They even thought they had reached a deal with the previous owner to transfer his shares, brokered by the RFL. We were then told that the owner had gone back on that agreement, setting in place the train of events that led to administration.

Now, what in substance is there to fault with the actions of the gang of three? Doubtless plenty in the details, with the hindsight to which you refer. But I see no justification for THEM being charged with waiting too long. Do you agree or disagree?

If you agree (I really struggle to see reason for not), then we have to look back at the actions of the previous-and-stil-is-or-was-till-administration-owner. We were told (and I have evidence for that too) that the business had lost £1.2m in a year, if that. Without going into all the details for the nth time, it is quite clear that things were not at all well managed under his stewardship, especially financially. At best, hopelessly-optimistic assumptions were made, especially in view of the imposed massive financial penalty which, let us remember, punished HIM for the actions of previous managements. And that is at the very best... so did HE wait too long?

Subsequent events and discoveries would very much suggest yes he DID wait too long - but then, maybe not? He WAS actually funding the shortfall, albeit by lending money to the business not investing in it. That funding stopped when he stood down (which HE decided to do, let us not forget) leaving the bsuiness with an immediate funding problem. Had he not been forced by ill health to stand down, funding looked set to continue.

As it happens, I do not think that funding would have been enough, since it plugged the gap in forecasts that were since shown to be far too optimistic. So there is a strong argument that things would have gone tìts up before too long anyway.

What you keep saying is "your club". The "club" has and had no say in the matter. Ever. Who IS "the club"? Because the only people who could ever have actually had any say are the club's OWNERS, who also ran it. Be it Caisley, Hood, Bates, Agar, Coulby, Bennett, Khan... and THEY are the ones at whom you - and we - should rightly be directing your anger. And, in terms of being very angry at the antics of the key players, I bow to no-one.

If the company you worked for went bust because of the antics/incompetance/whatever of its owner, and someone was able to take the business on and keep it going, how would you as an employee feel (let alone new owner) if you were told that you were being held responsible and accountable for what the business' previous owner did?

The "club" is blameless. The various owners, though, are guilty as hell.

Now THAT is utter total and complete bollox. Even by your standards.

Bulls went into admin because the agreement by the former owner to transfer his shares was renaged upon. That triggered a chain of events that led to administration. Selling a few players would have made no difference to that outcome.

Why won't you admit that your real wish is to see Bradford so crippled financially and squad-wise that it looks a dead cert for relegation? Especially when your own club now seems to have found the funds at short order to employ one of the few Bulls potentially saleable players anyway?

1.That there was payback isn’t being disputed, the level of it is. Nobody is suggesting Bradford will pay £0 to creditors (if only because I expect they will wish some supplier relationships to continue)The level of that payback is up for grabs. This would mean they were in exactly the same position. It also leaves for the possibility that Bradfords ‘payback’ maybe of a greater proportion than Wakefields in which case, im sure you would agree, a lesser penalty would be applicable. After all that is the very policy you are arguing in favour of.

What it does confirm however is your original statement that Wakefield paid back as much as possible to as many as possible was complete nonsense. They could have paid back more, they could have paid it to more people, they made a decision on who and how much they felt it was necessary to pay. The same as Bradford.

2. The RFL did know such thing for my club. My club is everything yours wishes it were. My club owns its ground, it makes a profit, it has fantastic youth development, a big name, relatively huge crowds and has seen success and has lifted a top level trophy in the past 50 years. If you are going to start on other clubs, remember the lowly position your club actually holds.

3. Ah yes, this is the idiotic myth that Bradford ripped off the RFL and got a sweetheart deal from them. If you think that losing their asset, paying back the loan AND losing over a million pounds of TV money is a sweetheart deal that Bradford have been blessed to receive, let me know your contact details, i have some really interesting financial instruments you would surely be interested in. (I want a holiday and i think you could contribute a fair amount to that)

4. AND They didnt pay all their creditors back, and they saw creditors go without. AND the refused big bids for the likes of Kirmond, crikey that whiter than white gown you are wearing is starting to look a little grubby.

5. Yep, cutting the quality of your major revenue source is a proven way to grow a business. Sorry, i didnt mean grow, i meant kill.

This one line demonstrates the arrogance of the Bulls mentality!

You dumped your debts through admin, to keep players you couldn't afford in the first place.

If you couldn't afford them before admin, what made you think you could keep them after?

You were still going to rack up the same monthly liabilities as before.

To cock it up once, mugging half a million quid out of the fans in the process, to do it again within 18 months...you really think the Bulls have been harshly treated?

you do understand that one of the major reasons for having an administration procedure at all is to try and safeguard jobs. Is it somehow different for an RL club solely because you are terrified your club might be relegated?

You do also realise that the players would have become creditors had the club not honoured their contracts so the club had a legal obligation to pay those players?

To be honest I think most fans (again apart from one or two) accept its grips mismanagement. Te decision by people made at the top of our club for last few
Years i find disgusting.

I think CLEAR rules need to be written by the RFL. Also never again, ANY club that enters admin should have their tv money cut. This should never have happened even if offered. I've heard some say OK offered the cut, some say other SL clubs wanted it to happen as the RFL helped the bulls through the 2012 season. Either way it should have been rejected and the bigger picture should have been thought of to stop the club getting into the poop again. For a club getting back to its feet, to have its main income severely cut is just daft IMO. Steeper punishments in higher points deduction I think that is the way to go as a deterrent.