Re: Bulls Takeover : Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:49 pm
Bradford Badger wrote:
Apologies now for the long post, but might be of interest to some.
In terms of “cutting our cloth accordingly” there are far too many elephants in the room to us on the outside to understand where any cost cutting can be made.
So in summary, from the outside in we are clearly in a mess financially, and I suspect there’ll be a few more skeletons coming out of the cupboard if previous administrations are anything to go by….
In terms of “cutting our cloth accordingly” there are far too many elephants in the room to us on the outside to understand where any cost cutting can be made.
So in summary, from the outside in we are clearly in a mess financially, and I suspect there’ll be a few more skeletons coming out of the cupboard if previous administrations are anything to go by….
as long as a 12 point deduction doesn't come out of the cupboard.
One or two observations (a wild understatement as you can see!). the £670k in the one and only set of accounts was due over one year, and likely to be a bit of a mix of a backer (Orca - which would be Chalmers and Lowe) and possibly the RFL lending us money against the pitiful funding, with repayment spread over a period of time. If that is the case then the £115k creditors due within a year could include one years repayment of that loan unless there was a repayment holiday. And the £115k figure will also include season ticket money already taken. It sounds daft that they are in creditors, but the reason for that is because the Bulls owe those season ticket holders the games. And there is £91k cash in the bank, a fair chunk relative to the £115k. I would expect in that first year, yes it was tough, but little was bought on credit, so by the end of the season there was little owing to trade creditors. Not much paye and NIC given the part time basis. given that cash and the very low pension contributions in that first year I cannot see them being unpaid for three years. Year two there were more full timers and therefore contributions, but it is always the tail end of the season, in case you (not you BB the whole RABble) hadn't noticed that the cash gets short then, so I would be surprised if it was much more than a year. and for nobody to check their pension pot at anytime in the last year is very unlikely. Hence CB's commitment to sort any "late payments" out. It is everything to the pension holder, but overall a manageable amount.
So without knowing the ids of the cuirrent £500k trade and other creditors, the loans seem to have gone from £670 plus a bit, down to £500k. When I first saw the first accounts, my immediate reaction was that the second set would be far more illuminating, all the first set said was that Chalmers had help (maybe from Orca one of his own companies, so his own cash) to get over that first year, so how did he fare in year two. As I have just said, there could have been a repayment of his (Orca) loan to the business in year two ie less than a year, but it doesn't look like it was much, say £50k. Which means that the £670k has gone down a bit, but not as much as the trade creditors have gone up. And it becomes difficult to analyse what is loan and what is trade creditor within that £500k mentioned, which year two accounts would be a big help with. But Chalmers was getting help from CB in March, early on in the season, so he clearly could see that the (Odsal related) trade creditors were going to go up faster than his loan was going to reduce. and therefore problems at the end of the cash flow season.
I know what I would say to the RFL if they asked me to be custodian of the biggest poop hole in Northern Europe, with 12 points deduction etc etc. I would want the inevitable loan I would have to put in as a legally enforceable debt, and repayment schedule.
Lets see, OK wrote off £1.5m of his own funds iirc, Green £900k? Chalmers a maximum of £500k and no penalty points yet to hand on. Thats an improving trend if your pint is half full.
