News to me. Obviously not being given our Sky money has left a gap to be filled. Hopefully the current team running the club know what they're doing.

The Bulls like all other SL clubs are businesses, they need loans just as regular businesses do to cover cashflow issues or add investment etc.....

We applied for one loan, it was considered and approved on a commercial basis, what exactly is your problem with that?

Whilst the rest of the SL clubs happily spend half the Bulls' money, what exactly do you expect the Bulls to do?

I have no problem with it. Just hope it doesn't start you on the slippery slope again.

rlT&A Storyrl

Looks like there's an angry councillor who's upset that the council won't lend money that it would be unlikely to get back by saving the Bronte Birthplace.

Given we're at the back of the field because of our Sky money being handed out to the rest of the league, it makes sense that the club look for other income sources.

It also makes sense for the council as they're LOANING not GIVING the money and will be getting interest back on top of the money loaned. I thought I should just highlight the difference between loaned and given as some people don't seem to be able to grasp it.

Is it coincidental that the gap between the money we have reportedly lost (about £600k) and the money gained from new sponsor (£400k) is about £200k?

Dunno but it does just underline how stupid the decision by the RFL was, when they are trying to allegedly get all clubs to work on a commercial and self-sustaining basis, that they would at the same time rip us off half our income. Given that it obviously takes all the clubs AT LEAST the money including that full Sky income to be in the financial place they are - which, Leeds apart, seems to be not great - what was the plan?

"[iWell, we know you, like everyone, need every penny of that money, and we know you, as a new broom, have no connection with the management that failed, so to keep a level playing field, what we'll do is take away half your money. Because? Well, just because. And you, alone of all clubs, will be able to break even at least, even without half your Sky money. Whereas other clubs will run at a loss, despite full Sky money, and boosted by their cut of what we rip you off. Because there's magic which will mean Bradford can make do on less money than everyone else.[/i"

Wasn't provident deal over five yrs so 300k/yr and that's offset by losing whatever were getting from jct and tetleys. Think we've saved at least 200k on player salaries by amount we are under cap too.
Suspect loan is more to tide us over while we, as a new company, build up a credit history and also get revenue coming in from monthly sky payments ( albeit smaller than they should be), merchandise sales,hospitality etc. as long as we are repaying back with interest don't see that it's a issue at all.

Would it not also be fees-able that the loan is for brand promotion as i am sure Kate Hardcastle said that would be one of her main goals.

Who cares they got a loan and they are paying it back with interest big deal - not the only company in the UK to ever get a loan are we !!

Is that the Bulls Brand promotion or the Kate Hardcastle Brand promotion - not clear from your comment

Bit much of a suggestion innit? What have OK done to deserve that? Also does the Council normally lend to companies who the banks won't touch?

I think the council tax payers should be told.