Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:53 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.

Did I say they had to say goodbye to it?

The could sell the ground back with a profit covering the original debt, which any business man would do..
but to say no its mine like a kid with a Toy is seriously hampering any chance of a recovery.

Are they going to punish the club to infinity and keep causing admin after admin, sticking local business men at the healm and taking points deductions etc every year?

They, us (the bulls), a new owner and the council need to sit down and sort the mess once and for all.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:00 pm  

DemonUK wrote:

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.

Why would the RFL give them it? because its Christmas??
It would be sold to a new owner, if I was them and I paid £1.25m i'd say I want £1.75m to have it back,

With the main stipulation of the deal a Rugby League stadium that is fit for purpose has to be incorporated into any new development, that way odsal is protected, they could move their head quarters there if they wanted and they make a £500k profit for the game.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:21 pm  

bowlingboy wrote:

Why would the RFL give them it? because its Christmas??
It would be sold to a new owner, if I was them and I paid £1.25m i'd say I want £1.75m to have it back,

With the main stipulation of the deal a Rugby League stadium that is fit for purpose has to be incorporated into any new development, that way odsal is protected, they could move their head quarters there if they wanted and they make a £500k profit for the game.

On what have you based the extra £500k?

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:48 pm  

Not disputing any of the above, but adding that to the probable 2 to 3 million needed for the first season is as unlikely as someone paying off the debts AND staying fulltime. The issues must be increasing with each passing day. I actually find it very puzzling that not one bad word has come from any member of staff, playing or otherwise. All you are hearing is positive statements which is surely a little misleading. I have also just noticed on your official site an announcement of a Sale on the Sale items in your official shop. I really do feel for you all having gone through similar several times at Leigh over the past 20 years, and really hope that it can be tied up by the end of December, especially prior to the staffs next scheduled pay day. All I have tried to do is post is my own thoughts and I have never meant to gloat in anyway. Good luck

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:50 pm  

Stul wrote:

On what have you based the extra £500k?

I'm saying as a business owner,
That is what I would do..the RFL bought the lease for x amount of pounds
They should add to that price and sell it for y

That way they make their money back, the initial money lent and a profit
So nobody can accuse them of favouritism.

£500k was a figure used as an example

As FA said earlier the lease is only worth what someone will pay.

But for the RFL to say it's mine your not having it is one factor that could contribute to the death of the Bulls.

As I've said time after time the initial admin was our fault, the RFL have had their hand in the total cluster f@ck that has followed.

The top brass at Redhall couldn't organise a pi$$ up in a brewery.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:52 pm  

Either the staff know something that everybody else does not. (And if that was the case I think something would have come out). Or it is simply a case that for the staff at the Bulls this situation is now seen as business as usual.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:59 pm  

dummyrunner wrote:

Might be something in that tweet, as BPA are to issue a statement surrounding Gareth Roberts apparent bid to buy the Bulls sometime this morning.

Maybe Roberts has no interest in the Bulls but a vested interest in the land and might be willing to work with others in order to secure the best for the Bulls, BPA and also the RFL in terms of the stadium?

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:06 pm  

Is Madjeski out?

Also who was the late bidder if not Roberts..

If there is no late bidder and Madjeski is out it may be time to start panicking.

I think it's time for the administrator to starting publicising some details..now the deadline has been and gone.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:12 pm  

A penny for Frank Whitcombe's thoughts right now. Seems like the only guy on here with a credible source is now....not so credible.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:16 pm  

DemonUK wrote:

Never said it wasn't paid back. It was, not with cold hard cash but with the lease.... People really do have a bad habit of twisting what has been said.

Disingenuous bollox. There's only one person twisting and that is you. You said:

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.

In baby steps, the RFL paid money for the lease, but kept part of the price in their pocket to satisfy IN FULL the loan. That is cash.

You were specifically referring to the £3/4m loan, and asked why it should be "written off". How can the RFL "write off" something they are not owed?

DemonUK wrote:

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.

First, you were talking about the 750k not the 500k

Secondly, the 500k was obviously not simply "handed over". You seem to have trouble with simple concepts so let me try to make it simpler: if you go into a shop and buy some sweets, for £1, you ain't handing the shop £1. You're "exchanging" it for sweets. You get the sweets, they get the pound. Now, they have the pound, but they no longer have the sweets.

Under no circumstances is that £1 ever again any concern of yours.