I'd guess (though obviously I've no actual knowledge) that the old management left it largely to the staff to organise; directors come up with the ideas and staff put it into operation.

I suspect that a couple of directors would be pretty overwhelmed with all that anyway, apart from which they are probably better off spending time on pursuing the other investors. If that's how it worked before then the staff already have hands on experience. Much previously was done online though,(the virtual ticket) rather than cash, which despite having to pay card fees they felt was the better way to do it.

If it comes to it I'll gladly join you Btw..

No. Because it didn't.

The £700k was the loan existing from the RFL.

The £1,250k (as now confirmed) was the sale value of the Odsal lease.

So we actually had a further cash injection of £550k from the RFL? Plus the £250k VAT?

They still just don't get it, do they?

Administration gets rid of historic debts that the business cannot afford if it is to continue. Administration presupposes there is a viable business going forward, hamstrung by a big overhand of debt.

Except we do not HAVE any big overhang of debt. This new "six figure loan" is the only new figure to emerge (and I suspect "six-figure" is the usual euphemism for "about £100k"?) and the VAT dates only to January 2012 and we knew about it and the due date (if not the precise amount) at the time of the pledge. The nearest we have seems to be the image rights tax settlement, and if the numbers I heard - £250k payable over three years - are anything like right, that by itself is hardly a justification for administration of a business with costs of £4m or more?

The other possible financial reason for administration would be to get out of an unduly onerous contract. The only contracts I could imagine being large enough to have such an impact are the Odsal short lease with the RFL, and player contracts. And surely the RFL would have a LOT to say about us trying to get out of either?

Our problem - and it comes across loud and clear from what Mr Coulby said yesterday - is that we seem to have a very substantial shortfall of income relative to routine operating costs. Our Wakey friends have never explained precisely how administration would solve THAT particular problem.

Of course. Except, at the time, we all assumed the cash injection in January was actually well over £1m, since we were not aware of the existence of the £700k loan - or of any RFL loan, other than the existence of a floating charge registered in January 2011 when it seems a loan, or at least part of it, was granted.

Where this money all went is the "black hole" that has perplexed me for some weeks now, and that I have referred to regularly on here.

Most of the collection work itself, and the manpower, was organised and carried out by Bullbuilder members at the club's request, not the club. The club did not even have enough buckets.

Lets hope we don't kick the bucket

Detailed refute of the current board claims by Hood in League Express tomorrow.

Simple really and doesn't require a rocket scientist to work it out.
A substantial amount of regular expenses that the Bulls have are paying out are the massive debts that have been accumulated, administration would remove this cost from the NEWCO so therefore require less income in to survive.

Great, a p1$$!ng contest, just what's needed to sort this mess out.

Well hopefully somewhere in between both sides of the story we will hear some of the truth.

And if the black hole is growing it makes it even more difficult to stabilise the club's finances.

I just find it incredible that the RFL were prepared to enter into such an arrangement when they knew the club couldn't repay the initial loan. I could understand them converting that loan into a lease but to advance even more money seems completely reckless, an extreme case of throwing good money after bad..

The arrangement was to enable the club to repay the loan, since they had seemingly repaid none of it hitherto and had no prospect of doing so.

Leakers from Red Hall were seemingly briefing on a "large Yorkshire club" being on the verge of administration last autumn.

People, including Coulby it seems, have been speculating why the RFL sought prompt repayment of te £350k that the club apparently believed was to remain outstanding this year. Maybe you have provided an answer?

But the RFL did not advance more money, beyond our liability now to pay rent. It bought an asset, apparenty on the basis of a professional independent valuation, and as I said at the time quite possibly got a pretty good deal overall given our weak bargaining position?