as long as a 12 point deduction doesn't come out of the cupboard.

One or two observations (a wild understatement as you can see!). the £670k in the one and only set of accounts was due over one year, and likely to be a bit of a mix of a backer (Orca - which would be Chalmers and Lowe) and possibly the RFL lending us money against the pitiful funding, with repayment spread over a period of time. If that is the case then the £115k creditors due within a year could include one years repayment of that loan unless there was a repayment holiday. And the £115k figure will also include season ticket money already taken. It sounds daft that they are in creditors, but the reason for that is because the Bulls owe those season ticket holders the games. And there is £91k cash in the bank, a fair chunk relative to the £115k. I would expect in that first year, yes it was tough, but little was bought on credit, so by the end of the season there was little owing to trade creditors. Not much paye and NIC given the part time basis. given that cash and the very low pension contributions in that first year I cannot see them being unpaid for three years. Year two there were more full timers and therefore contributions, but it is always the tail end of the season, in case you (not you BB the whole RABble) hadn't noticed that the cash gets short then, so I would be surprised if it was much more than a year. and for nobody to check their pension pot at anytime in the last year is very unlikely. Hence CB's commitment to sort any "late payments" out. It is everything to the pension holder, but overall a manageable amount.

So without knowing the ids of the cuirrent £500k trade and other creditors, the loans seem to have gone from £670 plus a bit, down to £500k. When I first saw the first accounts, my immediate reaction was that the second set would be far more illuminating, all the first set said was that Chalmers had help (maybe from Orca one of his own companies, so his own cash) to get over that first year, so how did he fare in year two. As I have just said, there could have been a repayment of his (Orca) loan to the business in year two ie less than a year, but it doesn't look like it was much, say £50k. Which means that the £670k has gone down a bit, but not as much as the trade creditors have gone up. And it becomes difficult to analyse what is loan and what is trade creditor within that £500k mentioned, which year two accounts would be a big help with. But Chalmers was getting help from CB in March, early on in the season, so he clearly could see that the (Odsal related) trade creditors were going to go up faster than his loan was going to reduce. and therefore problems at the end of the cash flow season.

I know what I would say to the RFL if they asked me to be custodian of the biggest hole in Northern Europe, with 12 points deduction etc etc. I would want the inevitable loan I would have to put in as a legally enforceable debt, and repayment schedule.

Lets see, OK wrote off £1.5m of his own funds iirc, Green £900k? Chalmers a maximum of £500k and no penalty points yet to hand on. Thats an improving trend if your pint is half full.

The other glass half full would be over 3 years we’ve built up £600k debt - so about £200k per year. Over the same period we’ve spent about £400k (being conservative) per year on Odsal....

Highlander - Intrigued to know who ever told you, or even suggested, that we will benefit from a £500k annual saving from not being at Odsal.

From the numbers we have seen mate such a saving sounds OTT, or to be frank, utter tosh. The repair and maintenance obligations for Odsal were/ are down to the holder of head lease; the RFL. The Bulls hadn't even invested in a lick of paint at Odsal since Chalmers was put into place by the RFL/ the puppet master.

The annual rent for Odsal (taken by RFL out of central funding) was circa £65K. The annual rent for Rams will work out to be virtually the same albeit we understand based on a pay per home game deal, but Bulls may save a bit on utility costs.

Despite likely being responsible for it, can't see the Rams paying for stewarding, at circa £600 per game.

So if CB is possibly banking on a £500K annual saving from not being at Odsal then we sense he and all us fans will end up being very disappointed.

Well said.

Moreover, if anybody thinks that CB is a new broom, then pl think again. Nice guy yes, A numbers man, yes. A puppet ..... well you make your minds up.

Snowie mate - what makes you think CB would put anything in, other than hard work? There appear to be no backers with a decent 'nestegg'.

Anybody would think that there are some (us not included) controlling CB's strings who in reality want us to ultimately fold, and they can then concentrate their minds on the land we left last month.

Based on the above mate the endless alleged drivel from the nesteggers posts could cost us a bloody fortune. Nice idea though.

As we've said before, we understand that four of the top 5 or 6 creditors are likely to include:

1. Hudson Energy - circa £80K
2. ISC - circa £60K (we are told). and
3. Kappa £50K plus. In discussion with them later today, and
4. Unpaid senior staff costs - £50K plus

There'll be a myriad of other creditors, and CB is desperately trying to do a deal with them, but some may act, or may sadly have already pulled the trigger.

Remarkably, 1) and 2) above were also substantial creditors when BBNL folded. What ever happened to the saying once bitten, twice shy?

That said Bulls fans have been now bitten 4 times in 6-7 years. All things being equal CB could be very good for the club, but sadly things are still (allegedly) not equal or transparent in the Bulls world.

Like it or lump it we are a toxic brand. Our credit rating is e, and god forbid what folk will think of our soon to be announced annual accounts (well lat least they should be soon released) for the year end 31 Jan'19. Hopefully, this time somebody will audit them! If like Mark Sawyer, one was a betting man, what guesstimate would you put on our losses and level of debt in our forthcoming accounts? As for the latter we'd hazard a guess at £780K plus, and things will have likely only got worse since end Jan' 19,

Apologies for sounding despondent, but we may well face another £150K plus financial hit/ scandal that CB nor AC will not have accounted for. and of which CB will most likely not be aware. As stated previously we for legal reasons sadly can't say at this juncture what said 'hit' may, or may not comprise.

The cynics and nestegg haters may once again refer to the above as utter twaddle, but pl kindly wait 3 months or so, and then re-visit what is said or postulated above.

A tried and tested method that it was quoted that both Michael and Chris both put their houses on the line and also they said that the club would have to run on its own feet, sounds like all you want is someone with money to spend with no idea of how to run the club

Quite.

And they'll keep rabble-rousing and undermining anyone that isn't their current patron.

To be fair we would love someone with money who can run a business, who wouldn’t? In the absence of a money man a good business team will be brilliant and we have to hope and back them to stabilise the club which is what we have lacked for many years

The numbers (or ball park) I have are rent £72k. Business Rates low 6 figures. Permanent and match day staff low 6 figures. Utilities & public indemnity insurance mid to high 5 figures. So that's about £350k. Maintenance is the one I've no number on. You're saying it's zero. If that's not true, and if the 30k plumbing bill from a few years ago isn't an urban myth, then we could get to £500k quite quickly.