Re: Steve Parkin : Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:44 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

.
This obviously requires cash but what's emerging from the Bulls is that the club are only borderline insolvent. Craven speaks of owing the bank 150k and the tax bill 'looming'. The accounts show wages at approx 200k per month.

.

The picture that emeges from Craven's article is that we dont really have much debt, we just dont have any money coming in. The season ticket money has been received and spent. God knows where we stand with the RFL/Sky money but it appears that's gone as well.

If that is the case then there doesn't seem that much to be gained from entering Administration as a means of clearing the decks, financially. And Administration will not necessarily generate new income streams to keep us going until next year's season ticket and Sky money starts to roll in.

But if that is the case why don't the club push that message for all its worth? I'm much more likely to respond to an appeal where the key message is "We need the money to pay the players until the end of the season" than I am to the current very confused message which appears to be "We need the money to pay RBS and the tax man".

Re: Steve Parkin : Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:48 am  

Theboyem wrote:

.

If the pledge total was at 350-400K by saturday morning do you think the club will still ask for the money or is it really 500K or nothing?

The difficulty would be that they've told everyone that we need £500k as an absolute minimum. If they then said "We'll take £400k" then at the very least they'll be accused of bad faith. If they accept the £400k and we still go bust I would think they could be on very dodgy ground.

Re: Steve Parkin : Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:49 am  

Cibaman wrote:

The picture that emeges from Craven's article is that we dont really have much debt, we just dont have any money coming in. The season ticket money has been received and spent. God knows where we stand with the RFL/Sky money but it appears that's gone as well.

If that is the case then there doesn't seem that much to be gained from entering Administration as a means of clearing the decks, financially. And Administration will not necessarily generate new income streams to keep us going until next year's season ticket and Sky money starts to roll in.

But if that is the case why don't the club push that message for all its worth? I'm much more likely to respond to an appeal where the key message is "We need the money to pay the players until the end of the season" than I am to the current very confused message which appears to be "We need the money to pay RBS and the tax man".

...exactly!!!

They THINK they have said it - by saying they need the money to replace debts now repaid or being repaid, and that going forward they are happy that the business is on a sustainable footing. But they have not explained it the way it needed to be explained. That and quite a few other salient aspects of all this.

I implored them to do so last Friday. Pleaded, even. Others overheard me doing it! It is still not too late, but time is running out.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Steve Parkin : Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:58 pm  

I have a sense of unease about the supposed predators we had circling a bit back. I wonder if we are now in danger of actively courting people that only a month ago we had in the 'predator' bracket.

Re: Steve Parkin : Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:06 pm  

Pumpetypump wrote:

I have a sense of unease about the supposed predators we had circling a bit back. I wonder if we are now in danger of actively courting people that only a month ago we had in the 'predator' bracket.

Weren't they viewed as predators because they were really after the land? Is that still an option after the RFL deal (without the RFL and Bradford Council supporting them)?

I might be naive but I'm struggling to see how a predator could make anything out of the Bulls as things stand.

Re: Steve Parkin : Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:18 pm  

He could eat the players while we still have some.

Re: Steve Parkin : Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:46 pm  

Pumpetypump wrote:

I have a sense of unease about the supposed predators we had circling a bit back. I wonder if we are now in danger of actively courting people that only a month ago we had in the 'predator' bracket.

Do we believe the "predator" explanation though?

In light of subsequent events it seems the RFL just wanted the money they'd advanced the club back, as no details of that had been made public it looks like a nice story to explain away the lease deal without divulging the real reasons.

Re: Steve Parkin : Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:08 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

The difficulty would be that they've told everyone that we need £500k as an absolute minimum. If they then said "We'll take £400k" then at the very least they'll be accused of bad faith. If they accept the £400k and we still go bust I would think they could be on very dodgy ground.

To quote Mr Hood from the original announcement about our difficulties he says:
“If this pledge raised £100,000 or £200,000 then I don’t think that’s anywhere like enough. But if sponsors come forward and we get to between £400,000 and up to £800,000, then it probably would be."

Originally I would've taken from that, that 400k would be enough to see us through until we raised nearer the 800k at the end of the month. However given his announcement today I'm now not so sure.

Re: Steve Parkin : Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:12 pm  

Pumpetypump wrote:

I have a sense of unease about the supposed predators we had circling a bit back. I wonder if we are now in danger of actively courting people that only a month ago we had in the 'predator' bracket.

Parkin lost interest once he realised he would not get Bradford City.

Re: Steve Parkin : Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:22 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

The picture that emeges from Craven's article is that we dont really have much debt, we just dont have any money coming in. The season ticket money has been received and spent. God knows where we stand with the RFL/Sky money but it appears that's gone as well.

If that is the case then there doesn't seem that much to be gained from entering Administration as a means of clearing the decks, financially. And Administration will not necessarily generate new income streams to keep us going until next year's season ticket and Sky money starts to roll in.

But if that is the case why don't the club push that message for all its worth? I'm much more likely to respond to an appeal where the key message is "We need the money to pay the players until the end of the season" than I am to the current very confused message which appears to be "We need the money to pay RBS and the tax man".

I thought the RFL dripfeed the Clubs money and pay them monthly? I would think it highly unlikly the RFL gave Clubs Skymoney from the RFL in one lump sum in case they spent it all.