I would have to say yes to that, at least it's a start.

It seems that Andrew Calvert has got to the bottom of the problems and has [much as it affects our chances this coming year] made a start in introducing the club to some financial realities, otherwise known as not spending beyond our means, which was, from what we've read, the position earlier.

It's pretty essential they are allowed to get on with the job and I can see why holding the shares is important so let's hope the impasse can be broken.

Its critical.

The behaviour of the board, maintaining disciplines and a sound realistic goal setting strategy will move everything forward, it will to my mind refresh confidence, have a positive influence on supporters of the Bulls and also in the games targeted market areas.

We should feel that the club is now being understood... another vital realisation.

No Mick Gledhill is a porter at the Bradford Royal Infirmary, seen him when I have been for hospital appointments, infact you can't miss Mick can you

On the Bulls front I really do hope that they pull through, they really need to have someone who cares about the sport and not just about making money as a business.

rlhttp://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/bradford-bulls/bulls-coach-hopes-to-keep-stars-as-crunch-talks-loom-1-6355788rl

Looks like Sammut and Nas have turned down London. Maybe a resolution as to ownership on Thursday. More balanced reporting, off both negative and positive stuff, in that one article than we've had in T&A for weeks.

'In the mid pay range' - Interesting choice of words. Who'd be in the high pay range?
Carvell, Kearney, Purtell.....

Obviously the rumours are flying around Carvell but where to? Most clubs have their squads sorted and those that don't are in a worse (if poss) boat than us. Purts is in his last year and would be hard to shift.

If the players/staff refused a pay cut, then why would they agree to move on, as in the case of Sammut and Nas?

Not a slide at London but why would they want to join a team which, lets face it will most likely be relegated next season, they would move down there for a year then have to move back up here if they wanted to join another SL club and i cant see them being happy at having to play part time in the CH and get a part time job to fill the wage gap.

You would think Purtell will be taking a pay cut for his next deal due to his medical history. Clubs won't want to take risk on him so he'll stick it out on higher rate with us as long as possible. Kearney's injured and not due back til after season starts which would make less attractive. Don't think many players will want to go to London due to higher living costs. Car bells obvious worry IMO although seemed to use him a lot in publicity round season ticket collection and heritage shirt which you wouldn't think they'd do if he was going. Think its a case of preparing for worst and hoping for best TBH.

What is actually wrong with Kearney? I don't seem to have heard anything

Had an operation, on his shoulder I think. He tweeted about it a few weeks back think 12 weeks out was mentioned. Don't think club has said anything official about it.

Communication really has broken down if we now have to rely on twitter for news. I know this is the modern method but thought the club or the T&A would have let us know

Gotta love that auto correct

And in latest addition to the bulls game of musical chairs , Moores gone again. So that's both directors OK was taking legal action against out of the picture.

rlhttp://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/10920109.Moore____no_longer_a_director____at_Bradford_Bulls/rl

Hmmmm....how to respond????

or


option 1 has merit and option 2 has a snowballs chance in hell.

Looks like OK will "sell the club" and I would hazard a guess that there may be further reductions in your SKY/pocket money for 2015 and 16 to cover the costs!

Something I'm not quite sure about, maybe someone can clear it up.

Omar is taking legal action against Whitcut and Moore, relating to the monies he was due to receive from them for a share of his stake in the club.
But was it ever said what the split of ownership would be once Moore/Watt/Calvert/Whitcut gained full control?
I am assuming here that Watt and Calvert would end up owning some shares. If that is the case, then who were they paying for their share of ownership? Khan? Or Whitcut & Moore?
Did proceedings never actually get this far? I don't quite understand why the legal action is only against RW and MM.

Perhaps once upon a time I understood perfectly, but this saga has had more twists and turns than a poirot novel and I'm struggling to keep up.