Quote: nestegg "Happy to.
1) Re Chalmers 'pot of money' - AC had no meaningful money to invest. Lowe c/o the NZ based Orcas Rugby League Limited was just a transitional figurehead.
We are aware that most (if not all) of the money came (and we feel we don't even need to add 'alleged' to this observation) from ..... yes you guessed it .. the RFL.
Because of the failure of BBNL in circa 11/16 the HMRC (who lost hundreds of thousand due to Green and got BBNL wound up - c/o a WUP) would rightfully not deal with Chalmers (who was in reality lined up to takeover the Bulls in mid 2016). This was because AC had no meaningful UK track record (other than dabbling with Salford), and no meaningful cash. Spin is not cash.
Anyhow, a sum of circa at least £300-£400K was we understand stumped up by the RFL to the HMRC as a bond/guarantee to cover the HMRC in the event of yet another Bulls failure. Also the banks wouldn't deal with the toxic brand that had become the Bulls, and thus the club had for quite a while to use the, or a, RFL bank account to trade.
How kind of the RFL. That said, it probably helped that AC was (and we believe still is) a close friend of the RFL's former Chief Exec. We also understand the RFL 'loaned' the club circa £350K, but we have no proof of any such transfer of funds.
We are confident that no other prospective owner would have been treated so favourably, nor any other club. That may in part explain why some other clubs don't 'like' us.
Fact is that a certain David Thorne should have taken over the club and if he had done we would now most likely be in good, if not very good, shape. Thorne had major backers and an excellent back history of rugby club turnarounds (better also - allegedly - than CB). Why even the BBNL administrator, the unfairly maligned Gary Petit, vehemently recommended to the RFL that Thorne get our club. The RFL in effect ignored Gary's recommendation; they had we firmly believe (and we have evidence to affirm the same) already chosen the man who was to succeed Green a few months prior to throwing BBNL under a bus. Why was that ? We and others know, but at this time cannot reveal why in a public forum; it can hopefully wait for a court hearing.
2) Duffy - only a short answer necessary. We have been repeatedly informed that he may have some 'dirt' on a certain high ranking person. Regardless of his Stuart's apparent shortcomings (inc as you say 'player welfare'), and the fact that most of the players appear to ignore him, he still stays in post. No owner in their right mind would continue to employ such an allegedly spent force, and in particular businesses that are heavily in debt, as have been the Bulls for many years and through successive owner incarnations. We are aware that Duffy slagged off the aforementioned David Thorne's well meaning and well founded interest in the club, and we are told that Stuart went out of his to spread malicious dirt around about Thorne - is SD a(nother) puppet?. Maybe somebody should ask CB tomorrow eve and on Wed eve what added value Duffy has added to the club in recent years, and is Stuart to be a key/central figure in the club's rebirth (as CB would like to have us believe) moving forward?
We are advised that the above is the best that we can do for now. Hope that helps RichardPLan .'"
Have you fixed your glasses pal?
