Re: T&A Reporting : Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:30 pm  

SombreroBu11 wrote:

I had a quick look. Could it be that they're the guys who provide our Stewards? I mean, to give them 1% share in the business, so they get a 1% of any profits as part of our payment for thier services doesn't seem like an entirely impossible idea to me. I am, of course, just speculating.

I am relieved though to see they are an actual Security company, and not something to do with finance or anything.

Must admit, the same thought occurred to me. As you say, it's just speculation really, but I was thinking along the same lines of them providing the stewarding/security/cctv services.

Re: T&A Reporting : Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:54 pm  

Highlander wrote:

So who is this security company that has 1% then?

I think the Companys Act may have changed recently but you used to need at least two shareholders in a company.

So in a case like this if there were 100 shares - 99 would be in the name of the owner eg OK - and 1 held by a nominee company. So the security company would just be the name of firm providing nominee services - and would exercise no influence on the company.

Re: T&A Reporting : Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:59 pm  

Highlander wrote:

So who is this security company that has 1% then?

I think they're the ones that change the locks every time we get a new management.

Re: T&A Reporting : Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:27 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

And even given all that, as it has seemingly been confirmed beyond doubt by both sides that this is a dispute between individuals, and NOT one that involves the club, the chosen headline "Battle over Bradford Bulls" is to me misleading. The battle seems to be entirely over the terms of a deal between OK and two individuals - one of whom isn't even associated with the club any more. OK has made it clear he is NOT battling for ownership of the Bulls, on the contrary has stepped aside. I suppose "Battle over terms of share sale deal" isn't as sensational.

.

OK might have said he wants no more involvement in the operations of the club - but as the owner - which as you point out he still appears to be - he has power over the Executive Directors of the club - at least one of whom is involved in the case. So not sure how you could say a dispute involving the ownership of the club does not affect the club? Say OK wins and takes a wedge from Moore - less money to put in?

I would speculate that an amount was agreed for the shares, perhaps with limited due diligence, then the potential owners saw the true state of the finances and tried to renegotiate. The interesting thing seems to be that Ryan - despite seeming to have some difficulty shall we say with figures - was both responsible for the money under OK, but also one of the potential new owners - an interesting potential conflict. I suspect some lawyers will be happily rubbing their hands with glee. Lets just hope it does not distract the team who hope to be the new owners from the already difficult task of running the club

financials and blame game : Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:39 pm  

I did wonder when this would come out. Things are getting a wee bit messy
Safeguard Security Group Ltd of Leeds hold a Deed of Debenture over OK Bulls Ltd dated 30/9/2013.
It represents a fixed and floating charge over assets and is payable on demand.

*A ltd co can legally have 1 shareholder. OK Bulls did

Re: T&A Reporting : Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 pm  

Adeybull, on 29/11/13 wrote: My take on what I have read. No inside info, nothing other than what I have read. In particular, though, the wording of the OP's post - which may or may not be a bit mischievous but certainly IMO encourages jumping to conclusions - does not necessarily say what some of you guys look to have assumed it means. 1 - Yes, a new company Bradford Bulls (2014) ltd looks to have been incorporated. Forget all the waknerage from commercial sites, just go look at Companies House http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk for free. 2 - No, this does NOT in itself necessarily signify ANYTHING. For example, it could just be to protect the Bradford Bulls company name (although I suspect more than that). 3 - I cannot conceive that there is any intent by the new board to put the CLUB (note emphasis) into Administration AGAIN. Were they to do that, it would surely be goodnight Vienna for everyone - including themselves. After all that has gone on, I think anyone would hesitate to totally rule out the possibility, but it would surely have to be a desperate last resort tied up with the situation with OK rather than the club finances? 4 - OK Bulls Ltd has a big liability - secured by a charge on its assets - to OK. We were told c.£900k, IIRC? 5 - If I was the new Board, I would do my best to move the assets and all the non-OK liabilities into a new holding or subsidiary - or even just a connected company, if OK had not put anything in place to prevent it - to separate them from the liability to OK. That way, OK Bulls Ltd becomes a company with assets of loan to/shares in/whatever Newco, and a liability to OK. Everything else is in Newco. And OK's position is not compromised because the charge on the assets of OK Bulls ltd will include on the loan to/shares in Newco. 6 - Most definitely, if I was the new Board I would want to quarantine the club going forward from anything OK and the previous owners did or might have rendered the company liable for (known or unknown to them). For example, if it transpired that OK Bulls Ltd owed someone heaps (or someone had a big claim against it) that no-one knew about or some supposedly injured party came up with, a new liability that could bring down the club, you protect against that by shifting the club into Newco. Then, should OK Bulls Ltd go bust, that does not automatically bring down the CLUB. The administrator would presumably sell the interest in Newco for the most he could get, and the CLUB - being Newco - continues. Ok, my take on what I have read. Given the ongoing tragic comedy that has been the Bulls for the last two years it would be foolish to rule anything in or out. But maybe the possible scenario I outlined might demonstrate that this could quite easily be a very positive development (unless maybe for OK) and not necessarily indcative of anything negative?

Adeybull, on 29/11/13 wrote: My take on what I have read. No inside info, nothing other than what I have read. In particular, though, the wording of the OP's post - which may or may not be a bit mischievous but certainly IMO encourages jumping to conclusions - does not necessarily say what some of you guys look to have assumed it means. 1 - Yes, a new company Bradford Bulls (2014) ltd looks to have been incorporated. Forget all the waknerage from commercial sites, just go look at Companies House http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk for free. 2 - No, this does NOT in itself necessarily signify ANYTHING. For example, it could just be to protect the Bradford Bulls company name (although I suspect more than that). 3 - I cannot conceive that there is any intent by the new board to put the CLUB (note emphasis) into Administration AGAIN. Were they to do that, it would surely be goodnight Vienna for everyone - including themselves. After all that has gone on, I think anyone would hesitate to totally rule out the possibility, but it would surely have to be a desperate last resort tied up with the situation with OK rather than the club finances? 4 - OK Bulls Ltd has a big liability - secured by a charge on its assets - to OK. We were told c.£900k, IIRC? 5 - If I was the new Board, I would do my best to move the assets and all the non-OK liabilities into a new holding or subsidiary - or even just a connected company, if OK had not put anything in place to prevent it - to separate them from the liability to OK. That way, OK Bulls Ltd becomes a company with assets of loan to/shares in/whatever Newco, and a liability to OK. Everything else is in Newco. And OK's position is not compromised because the charge on the assets of OK Bulls ltd will include on the loan to/shares in Newco. 6 - Most definitely, if I was the new Board I would want to quarantine the club going forward from anything OK and the previous owners did or might have rendered the company liable for (known or unknown to them). For example, if it transpired that OK Bulls Ltd owed someone heaps (or someone had a big claim against it) that no-one knew about or some supposedly injured party came up with, a new liability that could bring down the club, you protect against that by shifting the club into Newco. Then, should OK Bulls Ltd go bust, that does not automatically bring down the CLUB. The administrator would presumably sell the interest in Newco for the most he could get, and the CLUB - being Newco - continues. Ok, my take on what I have read. Given the ongoing tragic comedy that has been the Bulls for the last two years it would be foolish to rule anything in or out. But maybe the possible scenario I outlined might demonstrate that this could quite easily be a very positive development (unless maybe for OK) and not necessarily indcative of anything negative?

Re: T&A Reporting : Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:50 pm  

bobsmyuncle wrote:

I did wonder when this would come out. Things are getting a wee bit messy
Safeguard Security Group Ltd of Leeds hold a Deed of Debenture over OK Bulls Ltd dated 30/9/2013.
It represents a fixed and floating charge over assets and is payable on demand.

*A ltd co can legally have 1 shareholder. OK Bulls did

ouch - suppose the only positive thing you could say is it's kind of pointless demanding repayment if there is no cash? Still debenture holders would not normally get involved unless some covenant of the loan was breached - repayments missed, borrowings too high etc.

I wonder if the rfl have checked if Safeguard are fit and proper owners of a club

If this was in a book you would not believe it. Looking forward - with some trepidation - to actually having some rugby to talk about in the New Year - the rate we are going you are more likely to see reference to be Bulls in the Lex column or the Times legal review

Re: T&A Reporting : Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:58 pm  

Northernrelic wrote:

the rate we are going you are more likely to see reference to be Bulls in the Lex column or the Times legal review

Or as a multi-episode script for one of the popular soaps...?

You might need to clarify for some of our readers who don't read the Pink One that the Lex Column is in the Financial Times... but I doubt it would appear there, since the editor would probably decide it was a review of some fictional novel fallen in his tray by mistake and so move it to the book reviews...

Re: T&A Reporting : Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:27 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Or as a multi-episode script for one of the popular soaps...?

You might need to clarify for some of our readers who don't read the Pink One that the Lex Column is in the Financial Times... but I doubt it would appear there, since the editor would probably decide it was a review of some fictional novel fallen in his tray by mistake and so move it to the book reviews...

Shame it's too late for this year's soap specials - player suspected of being a serial killer, game abandoned after airliner crashes on ground ( Concrete declares in his day they would have played on!), dodgy dealings with agents ( oh sorry we have already done that), shareholders with pistols at dawn - Omar Sharif in the title role, Dirty Den as Ryan, Robbie as himself

Re: T&A Reporting : Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:55 pm  

These days it seems that everything to do with the Bulls ownership and finances is just too murky to arrive at even a semi informed opinion. I've long since stopped trying to work out who are the good guys and the bad.