I think the real issue with the £900k is perhaps being overlooked in the exchanges above.

In it's first year of operation OK Bulls needed an injection of £900k to cover its running costs (mainly wages). Ok injected these funds as a loan but if you look at from the point of view of the company ( and remember OK Bulls is a limited company so an independent legal entity from its shareholders) it was raising finance to cover existing liabilities on the basis it could repay from future cash flow ( loan, mortgage, Wonga - all essentially the same). So if you enter into an arrangement like this the assumption is cash flow will improve ( Sky money, better ST sales, higher gates) to repay the borrowing. If there is no improvement in the cash flow it goes without saying things get a bit messy.

Can't argue with any of that Relic, 'cos your spot on imo, but the [ireal[/i point on which this little sub-section of the thread has been predicated, is whether, or not, OK actually put any money in, rather than the form it took.

Whatever the mechanism OK clearly did make the funding available - and the wages were paid. However it was a loan and not a gift. If and when the annual accounts come out then the intended repayment period will be one of the disclosure items.

Oh absolutely, spot on again NR, though I'm not sure evidence based systems are proof enough for some people....

I think holding an opinion without any evidence is generally described as having faith. With a scientific background I do prefer opinions backed up by evidence, but it is certainly clear from some postings that other contributors- shall we say diplomatically - have misplaced faith in their own opinions

Or a newspaper empire.

Not always true as newspapers do sometimes have evidence - it is just that they acquire it by illegal means

Hold yer friggin horses - where the fekk did you get the proposition we "have cash freely available" from? You been on the waccy baccy or something?


Eh? You're rambling. You've meandered from doubting OK secured any money into the club to some weird idea that we don't need it as we've somehow got pots of cash. I really want some of whatever it is you're on!


But as nobody has said he DID "sink £900k of his own cash" into the Bulls, then whether he has, had, or not, is as irrelevant as everything else your fevered imagination conjures up. The only relevant point is that the club was advanced £900 on the strength, we are told, of being secured against OK's personal assets. Not cash from his back pocket.

I suggest you don't post again until you've come down as you're making no sense.

Exactly.

So, the club has to pay back £900,000 out of its SKY money.

Appears the club couldn't really afford the players it contracted to play last season under the short lived OK regime.

With the £900,000 to be paid back, it appears again that the club can't really afford the players it has contracted for 2014 onwards and so it looks like the new regime may well hit the buffers even quicker than Ok's did. Unless, of course, the new directors can tell us at the Forum that they have obtained agreement to pay back the £900,000 over at least say ten years so the the repayments do not have too detrimental an effect in the short term. It would be interesting to know if the loan is interest free or not.

"Out of its Sky money"?? Why? What on earth do you suggest links the two?


I see. Bulls have provided a detailed business plan going forward, which the RFL has considered, and accepted. So you are telling us that this business plan has a huge shortfall, are you? This means you must have a copy of it. And you can also presumably explain why the RFL has accepted a plan that involves contracting players "we can't afford".

But I expect that you will sidestep that obvious point by moving on to some conspiracy theory

It reads as if the posters on this thread are jockeying for position in the "I told you so" stakes.

Agree with that, life never runs smoothly and the best laid plans can be only too easily thrown into disarray, but of course, the thing about loans or cash advancements is that they only become owing when they hit the scheduled repayment date. As, so we are led to believe, OK hasn't actually given an end date, I can see no reason why the loan needs to be addressed directly in the 'business plan' for a particular year.