By quoting what the club said? How is that a pop at the club?

I am fairly sure that if the chance of sponsorship (of any meaningful amount) was available then we would have got it secured by now.

Also, as an aside, given that the club have already released the home shirt for next season, I wouldn't have thought that any potential investors would be too keen on the idea of their logo not being on the shirts that have already been sold. Another "barricade" up there perhaps?

haha, I held back from detailing how you must live in a grey house, with grey walls and a grey windows as every one of your posts carry a tone of boredom and misery?

Cheer up Mystic, it's not too late to change the big man's mind, a succession of good deeds and I'm sure you will be off the naughty list!

You can't , Wakey are still using them

From today,s T&A
The Bulls squad are poised to meet with players’ union League 13 today as they seek answers and advice regarding the club’s latest financial crisis.

If we have to cut players I would rather we cut any of the backs before Sammut. Gale seems the obvious choice. Wouldn't have thought we would be getting Evans back now.

Has 400k gone missing from the club or have the previous regime just set budgets that were 400k to much for the season and that would be what we would be down by if we were to continue with the current budget?

What I find hard to fathom out is that when the wages we're paid late, Omar "released" funds from his property portfolio and "proved" to the RFL that there was actually capital in place to ensure the smooth running of the club for 2 years.

A lot can happen in 6 months!

OK certainly did ensure funds became available to cover the cash shortfall last year and I wondered at the time how he had done this - whether he had written a cheque for £900k and loaned it to the Bulls, or secured an overdraft against his property holdings.

Given he seems to be trying to recover money from Ryan & Co for the money owed to him for his shares and not the OK Bulls company for the loan I would suspect he used the second route - so he would be at risk if the Bulls default on the terms of their facility with the bank.

The problem for all our recent and current owners seems to be they spend up to or above what they have budgeted for costs ( rents, salaries etc) but that the revenue never comes up to what they expected from ST sales or fans paying on the gate. Though the current problems do seem to rest in OK and his team being financially clueless I think I shared his view that after rescuing the club at the end of 2012 more fans would have turned up last season - when infact the gates went down. That's why I think if we weaken the squad much further the risk is even more fans take their bats home and we get into a spiral of decline from which there is no escape. So if you don't make some investment in 2014 Bradford will drop out of the top league.

edited for accuracy! is the way of the world, and the pigeons regularly arrive to roost on a recurring basis at all of them.


I agree


Doesn't follow, though; if we had a better squad last year (we did) yet gates went down, this kinda disproves this theory. Also disagree with "making investment" - you will never get more (or even as much) extra income I[iN[/i as you "invest" going [iout[/i. It's like an obvious and certain case of diminishing returns.

People criticise clubs regularly (we are in the brunt of it now, but it could be anybody) for being over-optimistic in budgeting - "yes we will spend £X on squad improvements but that will mean we will get £X + £Y in extra revenue". Can anyone disagree that this rarely if ever follows?

I know a lot of things also fell into place in a relatively short period of time, but peter Deakin improved our revenues enormously without ever spending a penny on the squad. Sadly Deakins are rare as rocking horse sh?t.

History certainly suggests that when you get into a decline it is very difficult to get out of it. Our decline started in the mid 'noughties' and clearly hasn't ended yet and the only really significant difference can be provided by some new money, either from sponsors or new directorships, being put into the club. Without it the downward spiral is only going continue imo.

Permanently?

Because the problem with that is that we all know you can't fund a SL - standard squad in the Championship; so even if you managed to come straight back up, you would be the next version of the yo-yo clubs. Unless, of course, you came up and bet the house by buying up all the most expensive players you could find to cobble together a SL - standard squad: welcome back to Square One.

This is the bit I'd like clarifying too, I might have just missed it. Is it (trying to simplify here) that the expeniditure and income forecasts for 2014 are out by 400k? (accepting that we have debts, but if we ran at break even we could manage the debt over time) we we're looking to drop our expenditure by 400k to only spend what were earning.

So if we assumed we had the missing 600k sky money would the books balance? And if that were the case is there not an argument to ask to defer (not cancel) our second year punishment until 2015, or even maybe half of it until 2015 giving us an extra 300k this year and allowing us to make more manageble cuts of 100k+ or whatever we need over the short to meduim term? Then new board can set out realistic player/staff salary targets for 2015 and beyond for the long term in a managed way rather than a firesale way in the first P&R year since licencing.

The press (not T&A) have apparently heard that the players have rejected the offer of a 10% pay cut.

The source may be questionable, but it's not the first time I have heard the players will not take a cut (and why should they?)

rlhttps://www.dailystar.co.uk/rugby-league/355084/EXCLUSIVE-Bradford-Bulls-in-crisis-after-players-reject-paycutrl