Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:57 pm  

A plague on all their heads!
If the 2 bidding groups we are told have submitted offers have reached their bottom negotiating line, they should publish the broad terms of their final offers in the press for all to see. There's no need to publish names.
I disagree fundamentally with Mick Gledhill. He may have had a point a few weeks or even days ago but any decent journalist should be publishing what they know given the apparent sounding of the death knell.
Potential directors names and security of funding are irrelevant AT THIS STAGE. If the bids had been acceptable they could have been a provisional agreement SUBJECT to those conditions being met.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:59 pm  

mat wrote:

Was there ever any suggestion that Wakefield wouldn't be allowed to compete in SL in 2011 ( the final year of their license)?. I can only remember there being uncertainty over whether they would be awarded a license for the next licensing period, which is the same situation every club is in, at least theoretically. So we aren't in same situation as Wakefield at all.

Wrong there was loads of uncertainty when they went into Admin there was no buyer like yourselves but our buyer had two plans one forSL and the other for license loss that was expected in the round of licenses. What he did though was put all his effort into retaining the license and some will say we stayed because of the Crus demise. The other bidder for Wakefield is like yours that one wanted assurances for SL prior to the licenses being awarded HTH

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:13 pm  

The Devil's Advocate wrote:

Bang on, it’s pointless.

However, if you had your original bid rejected & it was pointed out why, would you leave in the same stipulations at the second attempt?

I wouldn't.

They didn't.

[Bullseye]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:16 pm  

Sit tight people, this saga has a way to run yet.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:16 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Eh? So if I was the bidder, and made it crystal that I ONLY want a SL club, and am not interested in running a Championship side, perhaps you can explain to me why on earth I would prepare an alternative business plan for something I am not under any circumstances going to do?

You're looking at it the wrong way round.
ABC: 'Can we be guaranteed Super League Status?'
RFL: "No. Subject to ratification by the member clubs and the terms under which you negotiate the administration/liquidation.'
ABC: "Can we buy the Odsal?"
RFL: "We paid £1.25 million for it. That is a matter for separate negotiation? Do you want to buy the Bulls?'
ABC: "No."

They won't buy the club without agreements the RFL either cannot guarantee or don't know the detail of. So they don't want to buy it.

[Bullseye]

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:19 pm  

Well we can speculate til the cows come home. Hopefully some other buyer will materialise soon....

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:41 pm  

REDWHITEANDBLUE wrote:

Wrong there was loads of uncertainty when they went into Admin there was no buyer like yourselves but our buyer had two plans one forSL and the other for license loss that was expected in the round of licenses. What he did though was put all his effort into retaining the license and some will say we stayed because of the Crus demise. The other bidder for Wakefield is like yours that one wanted assurances for SL prior to the licenses being awarded HTH

Yes he had two plans, one for SL and one for license loss AT END OF LICENSE PERIOD. That's point I'm making! It was never suggested that you wouldnt be allowed to complete your existing license. Fact you came put of admin a week into season is immaterial, there was never any doubt about you starting season in SL provided you were bought.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:42 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

You're looking at it the wrong way round.
ABC: 'Can we be guaranteed Super League Status?'
RFL: "No. Subject to ratification by the member clubs and the terms under which you negotiate the administration/liquidation.'
ABC: "Can we buy the Odsal?"
RFL: "We paid £1.25 million for it. That is a matter for separate negotiation? Do you want to buy the Bulls?'
ABC: "No."

They won't buy the club without agreements the RFL either cannot guarantee or don't know the detail of. So they don't want to buy it.

The final "no" is plainly wrong, though. If they didn't, why would they be wasting time effort and money? Just how keen remains to be seen but in principle that is a "yes" not a "no".

Next, in the world of corporate law, negotiations which involve more than one party are hardly unusual. You talk to one party, agree something in principle, then talk to the other, agree something in principle with them, and then the lawyers write the magic words so all the agreements are given effect at the same time. So nobody is sold a pup, they all know what they are getting.

The thing which has caused most confusion is the ROFL's use of the phrase "we will not accept conditional offers".
(1) as regards the Bulls SL licence, it isn't an offer for the ROFL to accept or reject. It's a question. (Whether they are prepared to accept the buyers and their plan is of course a different matter, but even then, that would be more like "approve the bid/bidder" than "accept an offer".
(2) as regards the lease, that is a matter entirely between the bidders and the ROFL, who will (presumably) have had a direct offer (subject of course to all deals being signed simultaneously). The RFL need only respond whether they would, or would not, sell the lease, on those terms, or at all. So it can never be a "conditional offer" from the POV of the RFL. It's an offer, of a purely one-off nature, for a purely one-off deal. Take it, leave it, or negotiate it.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:43 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Well we can speculate til the cows come home. Hopefully some other buyer will materialise soon....

Harrumph. THEY were supposed to come out of the woodwork yesterday, so I am presuming that's another non-starter.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Wed Aug 01, 2012 5:44 pm  

the rfl are doing the correct thing in standing there ground, there should be no guarantees like with wakey an widnes. Also I feel the fact that bradford have been able to keep hold of there best players is a bit of a shock especially with the overheads you have.