In a post ref: the meeting with Blake Solly, where in many opinions the questions were, not asked of Blake Solly by BullBuilder, is backed up by the above statement.
My feelings are that BullBuilder should do a proper interview by the use of a question by: the named representative from Bull Builder, followed by the response by Blake Solly.
If as supporters we agree that BB representative speak for us: We are entitled to ask them to ask the questions we wish to hear asked.
As a member of BB I would prefer that Blake Solly were aware of all the fans fears...After all we have a greater investment in our club, than the SL staff...they are transient(ie they move on to different employment if the prospects are better) whereas we are permanent in our support for Bradford Bulls.

The T&A stated that their source was P&A.

Adey-- I am sorry that my post upset you so much.
There are few occasions when I disagree with your conclusions but this is one of them. I respect your financial experience and acumen
For the record I am not allied to any side in this whole sorry mess-- I do not know and have never met any of the old or new board members and I think you will find I have been consistent in preferring a completely new set of directors.
I am frustrated that I cannot locate the "summary box" from the T & A on which I based some of my comments-- if anyone can help and post a link I'd be grateful. I took a cutting from the isuue of 26th or 27th June but I passed it to a friend who is away on holiday. Otherwise I'd have copied it so people could judge better.
However I am 99% sure of 2 things-- the T&A showed the administrators as the source (thanks to Cibaman for corroborating this) and the 2010 & 2011 season tickets were included as unpaid tax liabilities. I cannot for the life of me believe that BG would risk his reputation by allowing his company to be effectively quoted in the press-- it was not one of those anonymous/unattributable sources but the P & A Partnership.
The consistent message has been that there are around £1.5 million of debts-- I am just as brassed off as the rest of the fans that this has never been properly analysed. But I cannot see why anyone would overstate the size of the debt.
And that was the point of my post-- not to relive or rake over the past but to say "this is where we are and this is the obstacle any rescue has to overcome".
And finally the most likely reason for HMRC moving to wind up is that the Bulls payment record gave concern. One way or another the scale and background of all the debts will be revealed. In the meantime I suggest we accept that the debts are somewhere around 1.5m and hope that the RFL /SL find a buyer.

Biggest reason I can think of for a sudden rise in the debt figure after admin is the cost of the admin itself, plus the cost of the earlier 'review' which triggered the admin. One thing for sure is the administrator and his company won't be going without their slice of the cake. A plague on all their houses..

The odd thing is that had not £500,000 been raised from the pledge and a net cash receipt of £250,000 not been gained from the sale of the lease then the Overall debts would have been at 31/12/2011 not £1.5m but around £2.2M

Bit baffled by the logic of that? If trying to reconcile back from the supposed £1.5m at 26/6/12 to what the creditors were likely to be at 31/12/11, you'd need to make a lot more adjustments than just those - not least for the losses in the 6m since that date, and the creditors at 26/6/132 that crystalised on administration.

We know we had 0.7m owing to the RFL, and 0.25m owing to HMRC for image rights tax. Lets assume they owed 2 months PAYE call that 0.2m and trade and rugby creditors of say 0.3m, and lets say an overdraft usage of £0.3m that gives around £1.75m. But that's really too simplistic, since there are so many numbers we do not know and may never know as few hard numbers have been put in the public domain. We'd have a bettter idea if we knew what comprised the huge "accrued expenses" figure at 31/12/10, although I am assuming that included the final Harrisgate instalment, the image rights tax estimated liability and (you would hope) income in advance for season tickets etc.