True as under Superleague operating rules the players' contracts are protected. This is why when the club went into admin Guilfoyle was able to make everyone except the players redundant. ALso why when the other clubs agreed not to make bids for Bradford players none left.

The result of paying players part time is also totally against operating rules. In fact wooden spoon's only way out scenario is impossible.

]

West Bowling
Wibsey
Bank Top
Queensbury
Birkenshaw
Odsal Sedbergh
Wyke
Clayton
Victoria Rangers

That's 15 open age teams & umpteen junior teams.

Theres also Dudley Hill in the summer comps.

You could also add Drighlington/Keighley/Worth Village/Cowling, who whilst not playing in the Bradford cup do still have a Bradford post code.

I was under the impression with regards to Employment Law that you could serve 90 days notice to a staff member and terminate their contracts.
You can then set up a new contract on what would be reduced terms.
If the staff member then decides to leave then that is their choice and another club would not be expected to pay a fee for the said player.
The Bulls reduce their wage bill and their playing staff of course which without doubt would most probably result in them fielding mainly Acadamy players.

Who owns the land it is built on?

Link?
In any event, this is now a power game not a matter of legal niceties.

The coral Stand is a tangible asset, but I would imagine there are other intangible assets. Such as income from SKY.

The difficulty for anyone loaning money is knowing for sure how much is already secured on the same asset.

Checks can be made, but I assume the reason why lots of clubs get into problems is because they have lots of creditors loans secured against the same assets.

If it is a properly registered charge it will show on the Companies House website - anything from a bank or other finance company would be most likely be formally registered, but you also have the HMRC who don't give much leeway to sports clubs (for some reason?) for overdue taxes - so immediate concerns would be paying the wages, and keeping the tax man happy. I think some time ago good old Ryan confessed to "overlooking" tax payments so OK Bulls Ltd will already be on HMRC's watch list. I really feel for the players and remaining staff - not the way to start the New Year, and wonder how much of the cash from ST sales is left now even before the season has started?

I seem to remember that the Securities company had been sold a pup? Wasn't it reported that RW told them his share represented the capital, whereas in fact he owned 1%?

If RW really did borrow 180K then weher did it go? It wasn't money for running expenses, as i understood it, but to buy OK shares - we seem to be sure RW never paid OK for those shares so does that mean RW still has the money? What then happened to it?

In a hypothetical case, if an employee borrows a six figure sum using his employer's business as a security, and then keeps the money, wouldn't this interest Inspector Knacker? In any case, presumably it would be at least strongly arguable that the transaction was outside the authority of the employee and so was a matter between the lender and the individual?

The Nightmare continues and if it could be possible - gets worse.

New Co must be formed & given special dispensation to play RL out of Odsal/Horsfall/VP in SL.

Clean Slate - Spend 80% of Income only - but will it be done?

At this time of year I would prefer to have a bit of harmless banter about where everyone will finish in the league next season. Would not even dare to speculate on anything related to the Bulls now, but I would speculate that it might not be a good year for a certain RW Esq from what you say above?

Job's knacked basically innit?

I take it we're now beginning to get some leaks from the "make or break" meeting of stakeholders that the Express reported in today's issue.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it reported whitcut took out loans against the company to cover the losses made by the concert? Is it possible these are the loans in question?

Also, didn't ok make whitcut, general manager? Meaning he could of taken out the loans, as if he were chairman, and not tell ok about it?

Are we?