I wonder if Chris Caisley is the Bedz R Us bloke sleeping partner

The value of the new owners company is not really the point, the question is how much if any of it would he be prepared to put into the club?
From his statements at the time of the change in ownership he was hoping the club would operate on a "commercial basis" - which I would take to mean cover its costs without needing big cash injections from the owners. I must admit I though that was either very optimistic given the finances of the game as a whole or indicating we would have to live according to our ticket and sponsorship money - which would mean we would struggle to maintain our SL status.

Did anyone engage the gentleman in conversation last evening during "open door", and if so would you pl report back.

The book value of the company according to the last audited accounts is £82 (not £84 as I previously stated).

£82 or £82k

I have heard that although Omar has officially left the club, it's still his brass that's been used and will continue to be, hence the confidentiality clause

Way back in 2003 I spoke to Chris Caisley about how the club was funded and he thought the idea that you could make money out of running a RL club was quite fanciful. Obviously Leeds do it but that's because they're more than just a RL club and they're in Leeds rather than Bradford.

As for being self sustaining that's a big ask too IMO. Can it be done at Bradford? The city is still in the depths of recession. The game as a whole is less healthy than it was ten years ago. To maintain a SL team is going to be difficult. I can only hope Mr Moore has his eyes open and is honest and up front with supporters.

There's no real reason why a rugby club can't be self sustaining in Bradford, or anywhere else for that matter. The real problem is the level you are happy to run the club at, and to what extent supporters and sponsors are prepared to 'support' any non aspirational format.

I'd guess the Bulls could be run, with current crowds and sponsors, at a middle SL level, maybe making the play-offs [as they are now configured] regularly. If things work out, and the coach was both fortunate and a good operator it would be possible to improve the level, but this would only be sustainable if it led to greater income [principally higher crowds]which was then invested in the team. Without outside finance we would always be behind those who [iwere[/i fortunate enough to have it though. It goes without saying, of course, that if support dropped then, without outside finance, the level of football would most likely hit the downward spiral, causing etc etc....

I think the city is big enough to support that, but like all clubs support can be fickle. Chris Caisley blamed the Bradford crowds for not supporting the success that he'd brought, and much as I railed at him at the time, it wasn't because he was wrong about the public ['cos he was spot on, in truth] but because publicly slagging off the fans for not turning up was only ever going to be counter productive. One thing is for certain though, and that is that an ever smaller fan base demanding more and more financial input will never work.

What shouldnt be underestimated is the knock on effect, the current good feeling at bradford city, is having at the bulls. When the Bulls were at their pomp 9years or so ago city were going to the wall and therefor the bulls managed to tap into their fanbase, now the boot is firmly on the other foot im sure those forced to making a choice will now be choosing to spend their money on following city rather than the bulls. Sports fans are a fickle bunch, always will be, without the 50 or so percent of hardcore supporters the rest will be there either when it suits financially or when the good times and big games return

There is. The reason is, nobody will be interested in it, cos it will be crap. If you really mean that they actually break even each year, and live 100% off income.




Dunno why you've highlighted the paragraph about Caisley, as your piece pretty much agrees with mine. His moan was about as crass and self-defeating as it gets.

I don't think Caisley's rant was aimed at increasing attendances.

We'd just had the most successful season in the history of the club, after our longest period of sustained success. And still couldn't break even.

I think his rant could be translated into "F*** it, I'm off"

It could indeed. But I'm fascinated just why it is, even in the 21st century, that anyone would think they could get folk to spend their hard-earned not for enjoyment, not for value, but out of some sense of OBLIGATION. If they ever did exist, those days are LONG gone. I can understand if he said "F*** it, I'm off, but cannot for the life of me think, specifically, at whom the remark was aimed, that might be remotely bothered.

That's probably somewhere near the truth, I'd guess.

It was probably more a cry of frustration, if anything. Leaving side all the other things about the money itself, of which I've said plenty in the past, the base fact is that he [and others] had built a super side which [istill[/i didn't attract enough fans to make a profit - indeed, according to the accounts, we were averaging around £500k per annum losses between 2000 [when we returned to Odsal from VP] and CC leaving, which was clearly unsustainable.

There is little doubt that the statement was never intended to bring fans in - whatever anyone thought of CC he was never anybodies fool and would have known full well what effect it would have had. In truth he'd made a calculated gamble [with his spending plans]and come unstuck, and felt the fans - or maybe not the actual fans as such, but maybe those who chose [inot[/i to be fans, were to blame - but you can't press gang fans into the ground.

Yes I think CC was frustrated we could not get more fans even with a winning product. However CC wasn't just involved with the Bulls he was also keen to raise the profile of the game as a whole, so whatever he thought about the people who were not coming through the turnstiles at the Bulls I suspect he was even more frustrated by the lack of vision for game at the highest level in the UK.
Another point on the figures above - if we were needing £500k to fill the funding gap when on the top of the game - the even more frightening figure is that we seem to need twice that in 9th place?