Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Fri Dec 27, 2013 7:06 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

A bit of background, picking up on Rarebreed's helpful suggestions.

The Supporters Trust (The Bradford Rugby League Supporters Society Ltd) was established with the sponsorship of Supporters Direct, of which the Trust was a member and various of whose events Trust officers attended. There was liaison with SD over the 2012 troubles period, and agian during 2013 regarding potential supporter investment in the club.

It was very much modelled on the Warrington Trust, various of whose officials provided considerable assistance in the initial stages and came over to address meetings and provide the benefit of their experience. We had more recent involvement with Warrington regarding the Bullbuilder Hardhsip Fund, to which the Warrington club made a substantial and generous contribution. Their finance manager, with whom I dealt at the time, was also involved wirh their Trust, and we had some useful discussions.

The Warrington Trust, through its "Squadbuilder" activity (hence..."Bullbuilder") has primarily been a vehicle for raising additional funds for their academy and youth development. As was Bullbuilder, until the troubles overtook all that, and then that role was not deemed necessary by the OK regime. From talking to some of their people, it was also seen as being there in case things went badly wrong at the club - something they have not expected in recent years, with their club being nowdays on a firm financial footing with a wealthy backer at need.

Picking up on the recent post from bewareshadows (posted as I was typing this) - the issue would not be the initial purchase price, but funding the significant ongoing operating expenditure - just as before. Bear in mind, you'd be starting again from scratch with sponsorship and other commercial income, and who would be available and prepared to run the show (and for free) anyway? Assuming that the club would survive another insolvency and remain in SL, which I personally doubt very much indeed.

The issue has never been about setting up and running a Trust, or what it mght be able to do (and the limitations, as Mild Rover so wisely observed). It has been, and remains, about there being enough dedicated and committed individuals prepared to devote the necessary time and effort and expertise to operate the Trust, carry out fundraising activities, and generally to enable it to fulfil people's expectations of it. And then, for enough of the rest of the fanbase to support its activity - whatever form that might take - financially.

A handful of volunteers, in full-time work, is not enough. Never was, and never will be. Therein lies the challenge, if it is indeed to have any opportunity to make a difference. Its basically down to whether enough supporters are ready, willing and able to step up to the task.

Much obliged Adey, I suppose the fact that we have in place some form of contingency plan with a supporters trust fully operational ,if not yet in action, at least gives us some form of negotiating stance with the RFL and whoever takes the helm at the Bulls. ie BB is a stakeholder of an historical nature. Which incidentaly was an absolute godsend in helping to save the Bulls in 2012. All at Bullbuilder at the time deserved our thanks for the efforts, which is why I say they are still Stakeholders in many peoples eyes.

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Fri Dec 27, 2013 10:37 pm  

I understand that chairmen take flak for trying to run clubs within budgets when others overspend. But I would put in a rider on that. If chairmen are honest with the fans and say they are willing to step aside if someone can offer to run it at a loss. Then they would (I feel) incure less flak.

There will always be the mindless folk who think money grows on trees and their £20 through the turnstyle means that a chairman they do not know and have no idea how much time and money they spend should self finance a wonder team for their pleasure.

But I do feel that there are also fans who if told from the outset, that we cannot run at a loss will be more accepting of mediocrity. I would not say totally accepting as we all hope for better in everything in life. But if the defense was put up from the start that if a big player offered to bank roll the club then they would be welcomed to do so, it would stop most with a brain hurling insults.

Maybe I have high expectations of fans.

I do feel that there should be some way of financially arranging all clubs within SL to be run at a break-even level and no more. I am not expert enough in the legal side or financial side to see how it could be done. But if all clubs could only spend to break even level. Then any additional spending could be allowed on the understanding that the liability and risk is not levied against the club but the (owners/investors/BOD's).

I'm not sure if it is possible or even legal. But such an arrangement would allow for big spenders, without the risk to clubs long term status. If all clubs had to run like this, then there would still be bigger and smaller clubs and smaller clubs could still be financially backed to take on the bigger ones and build them up. But the firewall in the spending would mean less risk.

Maybe something like a joint venture.

For example the Wigan Warriors. The Wigan club owned in perpetuity by the fans. The income generated by the club and spent by the club could only ever break even at worst. However, in a joint venture the Wigan club and Ian Lenegan (et al) could spend what ever they wished so long as the clubs books themselves broke even. If the joint venture make a profit, then that is split between the club and the investors on what ever terms the joint venture deemed suitable.

Is that even possible??

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Fri Dec 27, 2013 10:57 pm  

One day, the clubs owners ( all clubs in both SL and the lower tiers ) will realise that their ' job ' entails giving their coach/football director his budget, in the sensible knowledge that no matter what the coach and team achieve on the field will result in an increase in revenue

From that point on it is their job to then work at increasing revenue outside the actual playing of a game, all too often they think that once they've provided the money for players their job is done and they can sit back enjoying their whisky and prawn sarnies in their corporate box/room and just expect the populace of their towns to turn up

If they behaved in this way in their core business they would be bankrupt in a couple of years

I'd love to know how many clubs dont alocate a dedicated marketing budget before they hand over the playing budget to their coaches?

It is the directors responsibility to grow their businesses, not the coaches or players, they are nothing more than a cost, and should be treated as such

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:07 pm  

Bulls4Champs wrote:

Pro rl in Bradford wouldn't survive in the championship or lower. Supporters would leave in droves, there would be few interested sponsors. The amateur game would die within five years. Our only hope is a rich person taking over the club. Tbh, such is the way the club has been torn apart since 2006 I have almost lost interest in them. Just going from disaster to disaster.

Welcome to the real world, not much of a ' fan ' are you?

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:25 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Well, it's Friday afternoon. What time is the positive news foretold by Mick G going to be announced? Any predictions?

I predict that gullible boy is talking out of his backside, as per usual. Does he still really think that people still fall for his 'inside track' schtick?! The mans a fool and blaggard.

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:21 am  

Nothus wrote:

Some worrying tweets coming from some Bulls players this afternoon...

What's been/being said?

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:11 am  

hindle xiii wrote:

What's been/being said?

Garreth Carvell ‏@carvs81 17h

Ha ha ha ha, well if you didn't laugh, you'd cry

Jam Sandwich ‏@Jarrod_Sammut 21h

Good to see nothing changes!

Jarrod also re-tweeted a message that said: #Aquarius don't want half the story. Tell them the whole thing or don't tell at all.

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Sat Dec 28, 2013 10:46 am  

Adeybull wrote:

Indeed

But maybe the question should be rephrased "how hard is it to find some owners who are prepared and able to put their hands deep in their pockets year on year? And in the face of flak from the supporters - the lack of enough of whom is the underlying root of the problem - when the results are not to their liking?"

Mild Rover got it spot-on earlier. Its bloody hard to run a sports club as a professional business standing on its own feet financially, when the owners a considerable number of your competitors are heavily subsidising THEIR clubs.

Many fans, and most of those of other clubs, derided Caisley when he came up with the "People's Team" epiphet. Personally, I cringed at it. Yet, in the dreadful launch and poor delivery of the message, the underlying message itself was lost: without a rich backer, the club relied on the people who supported it, and the wider community, to pay for it. Caisley played hell at the people of Bradford in late 2004 for not supporting the club in sufficient numbers. As was so often the case, the delivery of his message was counterproductive, but the underlying concern was well-founded. I suspect he had grown pretty desperate by then. In fact, I am bloody sure he had.

It might be worth revisiting some of what he said then, to see if it is still relevant:

...Clearly, the business cannot continue to sustain such losses year on year and there will be a need to cut overheads and/or increase turnover. Of course, the biggest expense is the player wage bill, but in sport it is not just as simple as reducing those costs. The Club needs to remain competitive which requires that it has good quality players and a good junior development structure, all of which comes at a price. Therefore, there will be a push to increase the number of spectators attending games in 2005 and our commercial sales department will be tasked with the job of securing additional inward investment.

The fact remains that if Bradford wants a rugby league team to remain at the top of the sport and the pride of the city in terms of the prestige and the recognition which we bring then the people of Bradford will have to begin supporting the Club in ever increasing, not decreasing, numbers. I suspect that supporters will have to understand and accept that success can only be maintained for so long as the support remains high...

Regardless of who is to blame, we can all see the consequences of it not being a "people's team". And what he said became a self-fulfilling prophecy, with reducing crowds meaning less finance available meaning worsening performances on the park meaning reducing crowds meaning less finance available...

It's 2012 redux. Short of a sugar daddy, I can offer no easy solutions. Can anyone?

It didn't become a self fulfilling prophecy at all. By 2010 we lost 12 out of the last 13 games and a squad operating at full salary cap were playing to just over 6000 fans. There was nothing inevitable about this. It was the result of catastrophic failure of management. That SM stayed in post for over 4 years is the single worst decision in Super League history.

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Sat Dec 28, 2013 11:01 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

It didn't become a self fulfilling prophecy at all. By 2010 we lost 12 out of the last 13 games and a squad operating at full salary cap were playing to just over 6000 fans. There was nothing inevitable about this. It was the result of catastrophic failure of management. That SM stayed in post for over 4 years is the single worst decision in Super League history.

Agree totally, the crowd dropped in 2010 and it was reported on the annual figures that we had lost £750,000 approx in turnover. The game we have now is much better to watch, being more exciting with the hope that we may win. No one likes to keep going to game after game and losing. Lets hope we can keep our team together which we hope will generate further income. and enthusiasm.

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Sat Dec 28, 2013 11:30 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

It didn't become a self fulfilling prophecy at all. By 2010 we lost 12 out of the last 13 games and a squad operating at full salary cap were playing to just over 6000 fans. There was nothing inevitable about this. It was the result of catastrophic failure of management. That SM stayed in post for over 4 years is the single worst decision in Super League history.

That is just the point I made at the time from mid 08 I always argued it had got to the stage where the club could simple not afford to sack SM due to so many people not turning up.