I am not fully up on legalities etc but it states in the t and a, that this guilfoyle character , would be the administrator if indeed the bulls went into administration. Given that these administrators make alot of money through the fees they charge ( small fry but farsley celtic would still exsist if not for a 250k admin bill) would it not be in anyway a conflict of interest for him/his company to be running the review ?

its my understanding that its common practice for an insolvency firm to first of all conduct a thourough look at the books, followed by advising the club on its next steps. IIRC, the statement / notice put out last week, enables the club to appoint its own preffered administrators, whereas if we'd had HMRC issue a winding up order, they could have appointed the administrator for us.

This way, admin can be quicker and we can be out of it sooner as the administrator is more familiar with the business.

Well let's just hope that if we do end up in admin, that these investors with the £800k waiting are still interested.

All signs point towards a pre-pack? Probably our best case scenario at this point in time I'd say, although it would be a serious strain on Adey's morals

HMRC cannot appoint an administrator. They would need the High Court to appoint following petition from creditor/s.

I always said I assumed it would be an insolvency practitioner conducting the "Review". Doubtless one reason they strove so hard to keep the identity secret.

This all looks like its playing out to the conclusion that so many felt was per-ordained. I am working on the basis that there is no way you can trust a word of what anyone is saying, in the game that is now approaching the endgame.

Seems increasingly probable to me that we will have half the team next year we currently have. And may well be playing at VP. All those who were so sure of a bright new future under Caisley, a return to the shining city on the hill, doubtless still subscribe to that view, notwithstanding their relative silence of late?

hopefully the RFL can shift the lease on Odsal on at a profit, if not they may not look on the "New Bulls" favourably if any of the existing members are part of the new set up.....

I still find it almost impossible to believe that the RFL would allow us to play in SL at VP having just forked out £1.25m for the Odsal lease. I know that there are scenarios whereby they could sell the lease for a profit. But I just cannot see them taking the flak they would undoubtedly get from fans of other clubs if they were to take that gamble.

I know. Which was why I seriously doubted VP could be a consideration.

But if we see a multi-party deal which sees the RFL clear a profit, then the flak would more likely come from Bulls fans? Bearing in mind that the Odsal purchase was done under Lewis, so they could justify distancing themselves from that decision if they so chose? And given the Future Bulls could well be the runt of the future SL litter, doubt any other clubs' fans would perceive much advantage to us from the Odsal deal?

Is this opposed to the Golden Years we had under Hood's reign. Consecutive season's outside the 8, the quality team of average journey men we had the pleasure of watching, all the best prospects getting sold off...?
If only we had tightened our belts during the last few glory years, we would not be where we are now.
Oh hang on....

£200k a month is only £2.4m per year, which considering the salary cap is £1.65m sounds quite a low figure if Bradford are spending near the cap.

I don't understand though, how a wage bill of £200k per month leaves a PAYE tax of £98k, that sounds very high to me.

I don't see how Bradford would be able to quickly or easily reduce the players wage bill significantly by next season without going into administration. Admittedly some players could be sold, but the players in high demand are Bradfords young academy products that the article said would be retained. There might be the odd one or two who could find other SL clubs willing to pay them a similar salary like Jeffries or Elima, but plenty of the others would require paying off.

I imagine it's PAYE and NIC (both employee and employers) which sounds about right to me.

Ah that could be it, the article just says PAYE and doesn't mention NIC but that could explain it.