Re: Phoenix from the flames? : Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:19 am  

Cripesginger wrote:

Dragons would be subject to French visa rules.

I do not know about the Crusaders several years ago, I thought they were in admin not liquidated. In recent years there have been changes in the UK re visas. The Govt want legitimate Uk companies to go through formal procedures before they start bringing in people from outside the EU. This takes time, it is not instant.

At the time of their demise, Crusaders were under investigation for allegedly breaking the visa rules by players having the wrong type of visa. And Toronto will of course be acting under Canadian rules....

Re: Phoenix from the flames? : Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:36 am  

bowlingboy wrote:

If I were Rohan I would be on the Blower to Scott Moore lining him up for when a deal is done..
Should the three listed leave we would be struggling just down to shear numbers of playing staff.

We already know that there has been a meeting with one potential owner, I would have thought the coaching staff have been intouch with any potential owner all the way through the process letting them know what they need staff wise.
If a potential owner hasn't done this they are no good as they should want to know what they are buying and try and protect that investment / make it a success from the word go.

With regards to loans Hull FC have already pledged a helping hand, and I would have thought uncle Tony would too.

One point though, when the new Bradford RL team gets the green light its a new company with unknown finance i'm not saying we will be signing NRL first teamers, but we should be able to bring some new blood in at championship level to survive.
Then next year a clean slate a few more signings and we re off again, if we get a 12 point deduction and survive I would take this as a victory that should further galvanise the squad.

what time is KO Sunday?

He would do a very good job for you, on the pitch he is a good player, off it not the full shilling by a long way.

[Bullseye]

Re: Phoenix from the flames? : Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:56 am  

Salford show that you can have an owner with a load of cash but it’s not a magic bullet if he’s got a screw loose or doesn’t have a good team around him. Similarly you can have some good people in charge that are level headed but without the resources the result in the end is always the same.

With Lamb he talks an awful lot but without really saying anything of substance. He may be our man but I’m not sure where his money is coming from. Irvine has a decent track record in RL but again where’s his money? We all know a Bradford club playing out of Odsal will make a loss unless someone is prepared to pay for the ongoing upkeep of the stadium. That inevitably means deep pockets or some sort of deal with someone else who has.

As for this Agar chap I wonder if he’s related to ex director Roland? He had a bit of brass but not at the levels needed to fund a club on his own.

These three can all talk a good game on twitter and may actually be alright, however none of them have the money required IMO unless someone else is behind them we don’t yet know about.

Same applies to that Thorne geezer that came up last week. Alone he’s possibly just another chancer who talks a good game. With Richardson’s millions behind him that’s a different ball game.

In the end I’d like to see someone who can cover the Odsal costs and can keep the academy running. The first team can be a mix of part and full time if needed. We just need to retain aspirations of improvement. I can cope with years in the championship steadily improving and paying bills on time so long as we’re gradually building up the club. That means bringing through our own juniors with a view to doing well in the playoffs if they’re still doing the middle 8s by then.

Re: Phoenix from the flames? : Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:59 am  

HamsterChops wrote:

Aside from the Gledhill thing, which is indeed deeply troubling!

My issue with him is that I don't believe him to be anything but an "all mouth no trousers" type. Makes all the noises, but doesn't seem to do a whole lot. Made noises during the last admin, pulled out. Made noises about putting a bid in to administrators this time, pulled out.
Then you take into account this fan involvement thing. To me, everything I've seen points to him being someone with no real money himself, but wants to look like he has some, all the while trying to get the fans or someone else to pay for everything. We've had enough of that with Green, and I don't for one minute think Lamb will be any different to him.

If Lamb does get it, there would be nothing I want more than him to prove me wrong and do a belting job of it. I'll wish him well, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But for now and until he does prove me otherwise, I just don't believe all the guff he's come out with as he has yet to back up a single thing.

Mark Moore is very much in the same boat by the way (in my opinion naturally).

All fair enough. I guess the only thing is whether he's had the chance to 'do' anything - he's just had a couple of bids that haven't been successful, so given that he doesn't have millions to invest (give away) then I'm not sure what more he could have done.

To be clear, I'm not a cheerleader for him or anything like that, I just don't see that he's done anything particularly wrong. Yet!

And like you, I want the best for the club and will give the benefit of the doubt to whoever wins the new club. I am definitely one of those that the RFL is referring to in their tender document who will transfer allegiance to a new club, provided that it has Bradford in the name...

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Phoenix from the flames? : Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:05 am  

In League Express “Uncle Tony” made it clear he would help Warrington, then Rochdale, then maybe Bradford in that order. That didn’t sound like a particularly promising route to players.

Re: Phoenix from the flames? : Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:13 am  

Madjeski was mentioned with Irvine originally?

I think everyone is in agreement Odsal needs to be addressed, it is done as far as a Sports stadium goes.
The site needs developing with a new stadium there or over the road anyone that is putting a bid together and the RFL /Council must surely know that.

A newly formed business can't crack straight on with maintaining the place its shot at.

Re: Phoenix from the flames? : Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:17 am  

Bullseye wrote:

In the end I’d like to see someone who can cover the Odsal costs and can keep the academy running. The first team can be a mix of part and full time if needed. We just need to retain aspirations of improvement. I can cope with years in the championship steadily improving and paying bills on time so long as we’re gradually building up the club. That means bringing through our own juniors with a view to doing well in the playoffs if they’re still doing the middle 8s by then.

Exactly this. And im sure whoever gets the gig will say the/ right things on day one, competive squad/re-engage with fans/spend wisely etc etc. But we've heard it all before and the devil is in the detail, and like you say who is really funding the operation and to what level.

The new owners can only be judged on their actions after day one i guess. At this point im still just hoping we get a new owner and the rfl don't "help" us too much to pre guarantee admin 4, the sequel no one wants.

Re: Phoenix from the flames? : Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:18 am  

You are clearly going to need to bring players in. Do you think that the RFL should relax the maximum of 5 players on DR or loan for the new club?

Re: Phoenix from the flames? : Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:21 am  

DemonUK wrote:

You are clearly going to need to bring players in. Do you think that the RFL should relax the maximum of 5 players on DR or loan for the new club?

We clearly need a better idea of where we are before we allow you to entice us into asking the RFL to change the rules for us. We have enough hair shirts as it is.

Re: Phoenix from the flames? : Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:26 am  

i'm sure they'll bend the rules for us. After all we are their favourites.