Re: Winding up order ? : Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:28 am  

bulldogbull wrote:

Regarding your question about using the payment plan.The answer is yes you can, I set up a plan earlier this week and paid the first £60 there and then and 2 payments of £60 will come out on direct debit (November and January I believe).Plus i also got my free away shirt that day as well.

Thanks for that, at least that's assured me a little.

Re: Winding up order ? : Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:30 am  

bullinenemyland wrote:

Think there is someone else who needs a reality check on here.

Indeed you do.

I've read many a post from you this year and it seems to me that you are one of a few who really have a problem with the owners and appear determined to stick the knife in at any given opportunity.

I'm not entirely sure why... I have my own suspicions why but i'll leave them off this forum.

Come on then, share your suspicions. What do you not have the cojones to accuse me of?

The deal with the one hour sale was misguided but similar ploys happen in business all the time (I've booked tickets for shows only to see them slashed days later... just one of those things).

The sacking of the shop manager.... we don't know the full facts, Jay Willey.... we don't know the full facts, you get the message (or maybe you don't???)... YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS!!!

Correct. I do not know the facts. Just commenting on what was reported in the local media (in Gawthorpe-gate) but subsequwntly not denied by the club. In the case of Jay Willey, I did, of course, merely comment about her length of tenure, not the ins and outs of the case. We know the length of her service so it is indeed a fact.

Why is this "stick" deserved when you actually know very little about the true facts. You seem to know very little about the real world at all in fact.

Don't be so silly. What you know about me in order to enable you to make such a claim is curious. Like you say, stick to facts.

Ryan Whitcut has complained at the false speculation and bad press (yes something you've been very good at this last year) and has moved to put an end to this. He also says that his door is always open, something I've found out myself when I've been concerned by a few things. Its amazing what can happen when you ask. I wonder if you have given him or others an opportunity to put their own side forward before spouting what can only be described as unfounded and nauseating bile.

Ryan Whitcut would be better served getting his job done properly rather than spending time on social media. If he was not so distracted by what others had to say then he maybe would not forget to pay the bills.

I've said it before and i'll say it again... You're either a fan (and if you would like me to given you a definition, please don't hesitate to ask for one ) or you're not... which one are you???

Ok. What exactly is your definition of a fan?

PS, I see you ignored the "Inconvenient Truths" about the club I posted. Is this what a "real fan" does?

Re: Winding up order ? : Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:00 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

Nice selective quoting there FA. You did, of course, omit the final sentence of the paragraph,

These fans deserve better than what they get.

And indeed you do.

No it is NOT selective quoting, it is specifically referring to the thing I specifically intended to object to.

But, you suggest that the extra bit you emphasize makes it somehow better. It doesn't. It makes it worse by adding "bloody patronising" to the mix. You are in no way mitigating your insult that all these fans are just "gullible folowers" who will sign up because they because 'believe all they are spoon fed'.

For your information, pronouncements by the board of Northern / Bulls have NEVER played any part in my decision to keep going to games and supporting my team, and never will. And before you start, I don't claim to be in any way some special case. I would bet the vast majority of diehard season ticket holders would say similar.

Re: Winding up order ? : Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:56 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

If you believe everything you read in the press, more fool you. Sorry, yes you are.

You said he had been bulling himself up, I asked you to show me where he himself said anything, you have come up with nothing.

Sutcliffe simply stated he was not a sugar daddy. That is not bulling him up, friend or not. it is clearly a statement of fact. It warns people that he does not have limitless funds of money and so things could get tricky in the future. and yet somehow you have turned that into Gerry worshipping Ok for putting billions into the club.

No, as I have to do that myself it is not usual to forget about tax bills. But I also refer to the fact that the court case was a dismissal of a case meaning settlement of the debt. I was not blaming football for the bulls going under owing £500k. What football, through raising a footballer who may already have several million pounds in the bank to the level of preferential creditor over and above HMRC and other creditors who may not have been paid for debts of a lot longer standing than the fall-over boys, have made sure that HMRC jump are oversensitive to sports clubs generally.

As previously stated, I was wise months ago, before all this, yes as OK has stated through Gerry, he is not going to solely fund the problems, so of course I am concerned. But nonetheless I prefer facts to nonsense.

and on that note, nothing from the gutter press yet.

Believe everything in the press? Who is doing that? Where did you read the quotes you attribute to Sutcliffe?

The simple fact that Khan has had his bag carriers making a great fuss over his investment in his own business. Are the reports of these people printed in the T&A not to be trusted?

Is only what the club puts out on it's website or through social media to be believed? So when Robbie Paul tried to gloss over the wages being unpaid as an administration error, he was being truthful?

When the club declined to announce it had been subject to a winding up petition by HMRC, it was being open & honest with fans?

No one forgets about tax bills. They ignore them because they haven't got the money to pay them. The club had spent what it should have put aside from income received. This is a business less than 12 months old & already it's governance & financial probity is in serious question.

You blamed football for the HMRC pursuing unpaid tax bills. I simply pointed out that the previous Bulls went under owing HMRC £500k & within just a few months the new incarnation has left HMRC waiting so long it issues proceedings.

Ryan Whitcut has claimed another administration error & claimed that the winding up order being made public is an attempt to destabilise the club. I'd say it was the club being exposed as being very badly run & those responsible trying to deflect the blame, wouldn't you?

The new regime at the Bulls is as rotten, more so with the political tie ups, as the old one that fleeced fans for £400k.

Re: Winding up order ? : Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:16 am  

Your crusade to save us is noble, and we the meek thank you for making us see the light. All the heathens will burn.

However, it still doesn't change the fact I like to go watch the rugby, and if it all crumbles down again then I'll go watch them play Rochdale or Keighley.

Re: Winding up order ? : Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:20 am  

BiffasBoys wrote:

The simple fact that Khan has had his bag carriers making a great fuss over his investment in his own business.

Thie terms you use just prove that you are a disingenuous stirrer, with some axe to grind, since we al know that pouring your own money into a sports club, especially a rugby league club, is no kind of "investment", and running a SL club is not the kind of "business" that a businessman "invests" in in order to make himself a profit.

BiffasBoys wrote:

The new regime at the Bulls is as rotten, more so with the political tie ups, as the old one that fleeced fans for £400k.

"Rotten"? Explain your use of that word. It doesn't seem to relate to anything so far discussed. Why is it "rotten"?

"Political tie-ups"? What might they be, and in what way do they make the regime more "rotten"?

Re: Winding up order ? : Thu Sep 05, 2013 10:27 am  

Just to be a bit pedantic of something earlier in the thread, JCT600 also dropped City a few years ago. Perhaps the new Bulls regime got a record breaking sponsorship deal that was worth more with Provident. Perhaps JCT600 didn't drop us at all.

(I'll leave aside what Provident do, as that was done to death at the time)

Re: Winding up order ? : Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:03 am  

hindle xiii wrote:

Your crusade to save us is noble, and we the meek thank you for making us see the light. All the heathens will burn.

However, it still doesn't change the fact I like to go watch the rugby, and if it all crumbles down again then I'll go watch them play Rochdale or Keighley.

You're a big boy & can make your own decisions. I'm not looking to influence what any Bradford bulls fan does. This is about the clubs owner & those he has around him.

Re: Winding up order ? : Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:25 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Thie terms you use just prove that you are a disingenuous stirrer, with some axe to grind, since we al know that pouring your own money into a sports club, especially a rugby league club, is no kind of "investment", and running a SL club is not the kind of "business" that a businessman "invests" in in order to make himself a profit.

"Rotten"? Explain your use of that word. It doesn't seem to relate to anything so far discussed. Why is it "rotten"?

"Political tie-ups"? What might they be, and in what way do they make the regime more "rotten"?

Disingenuous? I think I've been quite specific & to the point. Stirrer? For dealing in facts? Pointing out relationships between those running the club?

What axe to grind?

khan bought the assets at Odsal & has a 30 year sub lease on it from the RFL. The Bulls are just part of the equation at Odsal.

The assets have & will be used to make money. Who has the hospitality catering contract, for example?

Pop concert & Mela profits didn't go to the Bulls as they were run by a separate company that took the profit.

Sutcliffe's whines about not selling enough season tickets... trying to guilt trip fans into making sure Khan could avoid further investment than his purchase price.

You need to go into the offices at Odsal & see the pictures of Khan & Sutcliffe going back many years. Khan has funded his political career.

Whitcut is Khan's long time right hand yes man. he does & says what he's told to.

Bradford is a Labour council. Sutcliffe is the Labour MP for the constituency the club is in. His office manager is also a Bulls director. Former Bradford Labour leader Greenwood is also a director.

Bradford Labour council provides an unsecured £200k loan to OK Bulls.

Vipin Joshi is also a director. Check out the Bradford regeneration organisation Khan, Greenwood & joshi are linked to. Got millions of Bradford Council money & is under investigation.

Re: Winding up order ? : Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:31 am  

hindle xiii wrote:

Just to be a bit pedantic of something earlier in the thread, JCT600 also dropped City a few years ago. Perhaps the new Bulls regime got a record breaking sponsorship deal that was worth more with Provident. Perhaps JCT600 didn't drop us at all.

(I'll leave aside what Provident do, as that was done to death at the time)

Perhaps JCT600 saw City as better value for money & providing more of a profile? 2 Wembley's & a huge amount of TV coverage across all channels?

You only have the word of those at the Bulls that the Provident deal is record breaking. Perhaps they were 'Bulling Up' what they had got?

Why would a sponsor offer a record breaking deal to a club that had not seen the play offs since 2008?

Provident were lined up to sponsor the Challenge Cup, but they instead chose to offer record money to the Bulls?