Seems pretty worthless really, seeing as though the RFL have already clearly stated no guarantee will be given, and I'm sure they aren't the kind of people to go back on their word...................................

The RFL should just tell them, in simple terms, what the penalty will be for their act of insolvency. I'm not sure how the consortium can make a decent offer unless they know what the future looks like - clearly they're not going to stump up a million quid for the ground AND take on the Bulls hefty liabilities if they're about to be hoofed out of SL.



Unless the severity of the penalty is contingent on the terms of the rescue package, which surely can't be the case, what are they hanging about for?

To be honest I have no real problem with them continuing this current franchise period in superleague providing that they have a written guarantee from the new owners that they will provide a valid business plan confirming they will provide 'x' amount of funding per year (whatever amount is deemed necessary by the RFL) and that for the duration of the licence they will play at odsal. If the lease is sold back then it should be for no less than what was paid for it PLUS extra to cover the tax liabily from the sale. The game should in no way be out of pocket due to the mis-management of one club. If the consortium doesn't like that then tough luck and goodbye. Liquidate the club and start up a newco, building from the bottom up. The RFL have to stand their ground on this one.

This

Why would RFL have a tax liability if they sell it back at the price they bought it??

because bulls had a tax liability on money received and the rfl would have the same liability..tax man wins twice!

Sorry I've had a glass of red or 3, but if I as a company purchased an asset and then sold it at the same price, I haven't made a profit so no tax liability

It's the VAT (unpaid) that is being eluded to as the "Tax Liability"

When the Bulls sold the lease they were liable of a VAT Payment to HMRC of circa £250k, which along with around a further £150k of unpaid PAYE is why HMRC issued the winding up order, these figures still remain unpaid and should the RFL sell the lease back to NewCo for around the same figure than they will be liable for a VAT sum of £250k (that's £500k in total then liable for the sale of the lease), so why should the RFL stump this figure up for the lease of this "Iconic Staium" ?

It gets more bizzare by the day...

[urlhttp://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-league/news/article/480/7920178/fresh-uncertainty-for-bulls?[/url

On Thursday Mr Guilfoyle stated that he had received a formal offer for the club and would be putting it to the RFL; on Friday, the RFL state that they have received no such offer.



Got to feel for Bradford fans in all of this - it's potical.

Is there an actual end date to all this that the Bulls cannot go past without either being bought or going bust?

Initially it was 10 days, now that's extended, when has all this really got to come to a conclusion?

27th July was the last date mentioned after the last extension before the extension of the extension before the extension clear as mud