Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:06 am  

rugbyreddog wrote:

Exactly. So now you see my point. The penalty is not clearly laid down as you originally said.

.....and my other point or question is how can it be precisely laid out if you don'the know what the bidders is offering......1 week, 1 month, 5 years to pay off the debts....and it needs approval from creditors. If the RFL are as inept as everyone shouts about, they are hardly likely to be psychic are they. I think with tweets and reports today the next question is not likely to be who is taking over but will the administrators have the money to pay December's salaries.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:10 am  

bowlingboy wrote:

The biggest mistake of all was ever letting the RFL get their mits on Odsal,
It now seems to be the root of all the clubs problems, with no way of escaping as the RFL hold all the cards, they wouldn't let us play anywhere else as they would be stuck with a big useless stadium,

They wouldn't let anyone else make the money from developing it without their cut.

Rock and a hard place come to mind.

Why should the RFL and the game in general just say goodbye to the 3/4 million pounds you were lent 2 or 3 years ago.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:13 am  

bowlingboy wrote:

The biggest mistake of all was ever letting the RFL get their mits on Odsal,
It now seems to be the root of all the clubs problems, with no way of escaping as the RFL hold all the cards, they wouldn't let us play anywhere else as they would be stuck with a big useless stadium,

They wouldn't let anyone else make the money from developing it without their cut.

Rock and a hard place come to mind.

They may have no choice if no one buys the Bradford Bulls and if the company is liquidated, i would expect if anyone starts another Bradford Bulls they will choose to not play at Odsal due to the cost.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:18 am  

[quote="DemonUK"].....and my other point or question is how can it be precisely laid out if you don'the know what the bidders is offering......1 week, 1 month, 5 years to pay off the debts....and it needs approval from creditors. If the RFL are as inept as everyone shouts about, they are hardly likely to be psychic are they. I think with tweets and reports today the next question is not likely to be who is taking over but will the administrators have the money to pay December's salaries.[/quote]


Sorry but I think the punishments are early laid down as far as taking the existing club on. Pay 100% of the debts and get a 6 point penalty, don't pay 100% for 12 point penalty. As usual it's bag the RFL if you can't get your own way.

Sadly the fact it is gonna cost someone 2M is not the RFLs fault.
Last edited by DemonUK on Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

So which is it ?

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:19 am  

Interesting quote from Roberts http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2016-1 ... r-rumours/

Interesting quote from Roberts http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2016-1 ... r-rumours/

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:31 am  

DemonUK wrote:

Why should the RFL and the game in general just say goodbye to the 3/4 million pounds you were lent 2 or 3 years ago.

Why indeed. That would be very odd, seeing as the loan was paid back 100% in full as part of the Odsal deal.

But don't let that stop you making malicious false accusations about it nearly 4 years later.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:55 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Why indeed. That would be very odd, seeing as the loan was paid back 100% in full as part of the Odsal deal.

But don't let that stop you making malicious false accusations about it nearly 4 years later.

The RFL paid the princely sum of £1.25m for the lease and kept back £700k to pay off their unsecured loan. I always wondered why Guilfoyle never looked at that deal as part of his administration. The only asset of value was taken by an unsecured creditor 6 months before the administration. The other creditors couldn't have been happy.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:01 am  

Highlander wrote:

The RFL paid the princely sum of £1.25m for the lease and kept back £700k to pay off their unsecured loan. I always wondered why Guilfoyle never looked at that deal as part of his administration. The only asset of value was taken by an unsecured creditor 6 months before the administration. The other creditors couldn't have been happy.

Maybe he did. The question I presume would be whether the sale deal was a proper and reasonable arms-length valuation. I'm not sure the lease as an asset had much real value as who else would have been (or is) in the running to buy it, and a thing is only ever worth what people will pay.

And of course they didn't "take back" their loan. they never paid the full purchase price, but just "contra'd" it. Which the Bulls management presumably agreed.

The bank were distinctly unimpressed when they found out that the main tangible asset had been sold from under their noses, and immediately called in the overdraft, so all in all it was perhaps not the shrewdest bit of business done by the Bulls. Trebles all round at the RFL though, who moved from having a distant vain hope of ever recouping their loan, to being paid in full and holding a decent enough asset.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:08 am  

Never said it wasn't paid back. It was, not with cold hard cash but with the lease. If the RFL hand the lease to the new owner they are giving away the 750k plus the 500k they did hand to the Bulls. People really do have a bad habit of twisting what has been said.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:09 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I'm not sure the lease as an asset had much real value as who else would have been (or is) in the running to buy it, and a thing is only ever worth what people will pay.

The only time I've ever seen a valuation of the lease was the last time OSV was under discussion, somewhere around £60m total, with Yorkshire forward chipping in £4m & European development fund chipping in £2m (obviously pre-financial crash - maybe 2002?) and I read that the lease was valued at £7m back then, which is what the Bulls were adding to the project.

And I've looked for that article & I can't find it. Which is annoying because I don't think I dreamt it. But that's a fairly big write down of value, but a lot of property/land got hit with the crash.