Re: Khan leaves the bulls! : Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:51 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Very good point.

Surely it must be? Would you buy an off-plan house before planning permission to build it had been granted?

Oh absolutely, I'd be sitting and waiting too.

But do we know of any insolvencies? "Dissolved" ain't the same as "gone bust".

I might enter into a contract to buy an off plan house if I could include a condition in the contract that I can pull out if planning permission is refused.

Many business sales/purchases are announced subject to conditions being satisfied. The most common being shareholder approval if that is required. But also if approval of a regulatory body is needed. Usually the parties involved will try to obtain regulatory approval before announcing a deal but often regulatory bodies will refuse to approve a deal until its been made public, to gauge any reaction to the deal.

However it would be unusual to announce a deal that is subject to conditions without making it clear that it was conditional.

Re: Khan leaves the bulls! : Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:58 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

it would be unusual to announce a deal that is subject to conditions without making it clear that it was conditional.

They did say it was conditional : Subject to popping round to the RFL the next day (19th September) just to have it rubber stamped.!

Re: Khan leaves the bulls! : Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:55 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

I might enter into a contract to buy an off plan house if I could include a condition in the contract that I can pull out if planning permission is refused.

Well, quite; my response was to your question "could the sale still be conditional on the new owners being granted a license?"

Cibaman wrote:

However it would be unusual to announce a deal that is subject to conditions without making it clear that it was conditional.

99% of contracts are never made public and it is basically no-one else's business. Here the fans of the Bulls obviously have an interest but I think any fan who thought about it would assume that any deal was conditional on the Man from Del RFL he saying 'Yes', and in those few cases where public announcements are made, I would say the fine print is never publicised, nobody is interested in it. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Re: Khan leaves the bulls! : Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:46 am  

BartonFlyer wrote:

Makes a change

Hey.....I only speculate when speculation is warranted

Looking like the RFL will need some allies in their "negotiations" with the big bad nasty splitters.....given they own your ground and you owe them money, I take it the bed bloke and the barman will side with fat Nigel?

Interesting goings on in Bradford. Maybe the RFL will lend you some more money or buy you another ground where you can book Sheena Easton and Rick Astley?

Re: Khan leaves the bulls! : Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:13 am  

Surely we can ban / bar the areshloe above? Repeating the same unfunny joke is getting boring now.

Mods either "grow a pair" or watch this Forum turn into more of a joke

I remember when there used to be genuine debate on here..........

Re: Khan leaves the bulls! : Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:45 am  

He might be an asshole but he raises some very relevant issues, his style might not be to everyone's liking however I suggest you go to the Wigan bored if you want everyone to toe the party line.

Re: Khan leaves the bulls! : Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:56 am  

I agree with you regarding the relevant issues, but it`s the childish banal same attempt at a joke time and time again that gets in the way of the relevant issues. He`s more suited to joining the clowns on the T&A forum.

[Bullseye]

Re: Khan leaves the bulls! : Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:17 am  

Gutter’s sense of humour clearly isn’t his strong point given the boring repetition of the same gag but we can’t all be as witty as tigertot and myself. If I banned someone for having a crap sense of humour there'd be nobody left in hours.

As for the repeated self-aggrandisement and sarcasm he’s in good company on here and on any other board.

Mods will be keeping a close eye on the thread for the usual legal reasons. As you know RLFANS can’t afford fancy dan lawyers like FA so anything near the knuckle will be deleted and the poster warned and/or banned.

In the meantime, carry on as you were…

Re: Khan leaves the bulls! : Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:39 am  

I recommend the built-in luxury method of automatic trash disposal. The rubbish disappears before you even knew it was ther

[Bulliac]

Re: Khan leaves the bulls! : Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:42 am  

mat wrote:

Interesting points I saw in article were need for all three owners to pass fit and proper persons test. Does this imply they all have an equal shareholding as I though just majority shareholder had to pass test. Also comment about RFL possibly looking at another consortium to take club forward, suggests someone waiting in wings should things not proceed with current owners (CC?).

The mention of "final version" suggests to me that they've maybe been adding the new shareholders to the business plan as they've gone on and this hasn't had the expected effect of simply making it stronger but has caused the RFL to look at the whole plan afresh and so wasted time.

I guess it gives the slimeballs something to moan about...