Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:18 am  

Regarding points deduction changes I seem to remember this was something that was agreed with RL and HMRC at the time. HMRC needed assurances that the RFL were doing something to deter rugby clubs going into admin and the HMRC losing out.

It appear that people think it's acceptable as a business not to pay taxes and the HMRC want organisations to pay their dues, not use tax money to pay other business costs.

I keep reading people saying we can't do that because, we can't do this because......etc. But say there isn't a person willing to take on the rent, players full times wages and also pay off the debt what is the alternative.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:26 am  

Did I also read Green has already received the RFL funding to survive. I take it that either you honour the season tickets or Green has just used that money too and the fans will have to buy one again. As I see it very little money to run the club will be coming in so much as you want to pay the debt, pay the running costs plus wages it will need someone who loves the club and is prepared to lose £3m this years and probably £1m per year after that with no real chance of the big super league money and if that were to happen break even is SL would be only realistic thing.

So young propects and a 3 year plan outside SL gradually building is best. I expect a number of wannabe owners coming forward and wanting the club with no means to finance this.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:42 am  

Dannyboywt wrote:

Did I also read Green has already received the RFL funding to survive. I take it that either you honour the season tickets or Green has just used that money too and the fans will have to buy one again. As I see it very little money to run the club will be coming in so much as you want to pay the debt, pay the running costs plus wages it will need someone who loves the club and is prepared to lose £3m this years and probably £1m per year after that with no real chance of the big super league money and if that were to happen break even is SL would be only realistic thing.

So young propects and a 3 year plan outside SL gradually building is best. I expect a number of wannabe owners coming forward and wanting the club with no means to finance this.

No, you read someone giving their opinion on the matter as fact. There's nothing been released to actually confirm or deny that Green has had the Bulls cut of central funding from the RFL

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sat Nov 19, 2016 9:48 am  

Is Odsal unworkable outside SL ?

As simple question fundamental to a complicated situation

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sat Nov 19, 2016 10:00 am  

GUBRATS wrote:

Is Odsal unworkable outside SL ?

As simple question fundamental to a complicated situation

I would say yes.

[Bulliac]

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sat Nov 19, 2016 10:16 am  

GUBRATS wrote:

Is Odsal unworkable outside SL ?

As simple question fundamental to a complicated situation

The cost of the lease and the sheer size and age of the place mean it would need far bigger crowds, or other income sources, to finance the costs, imo. The current situation does nothing to make me think that projected income over the coming months will be any larger.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:25 am  

GUBRATS wrote:

Is Odsal unworkable outside SL ?

As simple question fundamental to a complicated situation

And probably in too.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:49 am  

vbfg wrote:

And probably in too.

Beat me to it!

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:51 am  

vbfg wrote:

And probably in too.

In that case , ultimately you need to lobby local government , it will be your only option

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Sat Nov 19, 2016 12:36 pm  

Indeed. And that is why we're screwed. *All* parties are at the end of a very long history over exactly this point. Political will was burnt by commitments made in the mid 80s about the funding of the place. The whole move to VP (and back) was about shedding the council of a little over ten years ago from financial burdens imposed by the council of twenty years before that. That was the one opportunity for a new stadium, never to be repeated. Tesco were paying for it in its entirety. We moved back with nothing to show for it beyond cleaner toilets. The government had stepped in because it was far enough away from the town centre to qualify as an out-of-town shopping development, and they were putting a stop to those at that time. And a good job they did, otherwise we might have ended up with a city centre that was little more than a hole in the ground from that time up until basically last Christmas. The world has moved on. Supermarkets in the latter half of 2016 aren't dropping that kind of money to establish a presence. They're having price wars with suppliers to keep the tills turning over when there's a much reduced currency. There's no will in an enormously underfunded council to look after the Sunday afternoons of a couple of thousand people. In the city alone there are close to 270,000 other people, and there's another 100k plus in the rest of the district falling under their remit. The only way anything even remotely like it will happen imo is with the right owner with the right contacts, and that includes with the soccer club, to secure the necessary private investment. And they will have to see the profit in it. Lawn would be the closest bet. All of that might be possible if Valley Parade wasn't a shrine. But unfortunately, for very large numbers of people, it really is. We will either share Horsfall Stadium with Park Avenue, or we will "share" Valley Parade with City. I don't see any other options.

Indeed. And that is why we're screwed. *All* parties are at the end of a very long history over exactly this point. Political will was burnt by commitments made in the mid 80s about the funding of the place. The whole move to VP (and back) was about shedding the council of a little over ten years ago from financial burdens imposed by the council of twenty years before that. That was the one opportunity for a new stadium, never to be repeated. Tesco were paying for it in its entirety. We moved back with nothing to show for it beyond cleaner toilets. The government had stepped in because it was far enough away from the town centre to qualify as an out-of-town shopping development, and they were putting a stop to those at that time. And a good job they did, otherwise we might have ended up with a city centre that was little more than a hole in the ground from that time up until basically last Christmas. The world has moved on. Supermarkets in the latter half of 2016 aren't dropping that kind of money to establish a presence. They're having price wars with suppliers to keep the tills turning over when there's a much reduced currency. There's no will in an enormously underfunded council to look after the Sunday afternoons of a couple of thousand people. In the city alone there are close to 270,000 other people, and there's another 100k plus in the rest of the district falling under their remit. The only way anything even remotely like it will happen imo is with the right owner with the right contacts, and that includes with the soccer club, to secure the necessary private investment. And they will have to see the profit in it. Lawn would be the closest bet. All of that might be possible if Valley Parade wasn't a shrine. But unfortunately, for very large numbers of people, it really is. We will either share Horsfall Stadium with Park Avenue, or we will "share" Valley Parade with City. I don't see any other options.