Re: Bidders - how did they stack up : Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:15 pm  

Are we fscked, then?

Re: Bidders - how did they stack up : Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:39 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Are we fscked, then?

Not if the new owner organises things so that expenditure is not more than income.

Re: Bidders - how did they stack up : Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:56 am  

Wooden Stand wrote:

Not if the new owner organises things so that expenditure is not more than income.

Are you saying he needs to cut his cloth accordingly?

I guess you do reap what you sow!

Re: Bidders - how did they stack up : Sun Mar 30, 2014 9:22 am  

Lest we forget Green loaned a basket case £150,000. As hard headed business decisions go...

Re: Bidders - how did they stack up : Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:17 pm  

bullsonfire wrote:

Lest we forget Green loaned a basket case £150,000. As hard headed business decisions go...

Re: Bidders - how did they stack up : Sun Mar 30, 2014 6:13 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

:lol:

It's not funny really; it just means he's got a Super League club for "nothing" and could now beaver away from the inside cutting costs etc to get the money back another way.

Re: Bidders - how did they stack up : Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:35 pm  

Wooden Stand wrote:

It's not funny really; it just means he's got a Super League club for "nothing" and could now beaver away from the inside cutting costs etc to get the money back another way.

1. He didn't get the club "for nothing", he was the highest bidder of at least 3 or 4.

2. On top of the purchase price he has to fund it at least to the end of the season, and he had to provide proof ofthis funding to the RFL

3. According to what was said about the previous "owners" (Moore & Co. - and we can presumably assume it is no different for BBNL - he will also have had to provide a bond of some sort to HMRC

4. The joke made was to do with his folly in lending to a basket case in the first place. So your comments about what it "just means" don't actually make sense.

5. It is black humour, but it was indeed bloody funny.

Re: Bidders - how did they stack up : Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:54 pm  

Provided expenditure exceeds income I don't think we've got anything to worry about.

Re: Bidders - how did they stack up : Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:23 am  

Wooden Stand wrote:

It's not funny really; it just means he's got a Super League club for "nothing" and could now beaver away from the inside cutting costs etc to get the money back another way.

Income for the rest of the season won't cover the clubs stationary budget which is why RFL wanted proof from people that they could fund the losses for the rest of season before ratifying new ownership.

Given the squad is already tread are you're saying they should somehow wrangle out of their legal obligation to make good on the contracts of current players and fall to field a team? Therefore falling to trade as a professional rugby leage club and becoming insolvent?

Income would then not exceed expenditure. Is that what you want cos that's what'll happen.

[Bulliac]

Re: Bidders - how did they stack up : Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:59 am  

bullsonfire wrote:

Lest we forget Green loaned a basket case £150,000. As hard headed business decisions go...

If you lend to a lots of basket cases at large rates of interest, especially when taking out debentures, you can stand a few of them not paying off. Class it as seed falling on stony ground..