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




"Us"? Oops, you let it slip, you're a Bulls season ticket holder. Well done you. Who'da thunk it?

I would hazard a guess that the business plan for the 2013 season did not include a £900k shortfall on operational cash-flow when it was presented. Several of the SL clubs are running on very tight margins - so if you get thrashed in your opening home games and the crowd get lashed by freezing rain then you are very quickly onto business Plan B

Plan B? thats very optimistic, I'd suggest we're a fair bit further down the alphabet than that for business plans!

Well since the Python's announced they were getting back together I have been trying to look an the bright side of life. But you are right the fact there are only 26 letters in the English alphabet has probably proved a major headache for the Bull's business planners, almost as bad as the size of the balancing figure!

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.

If I had put money into a business as a owner and heard "customers" saying they must tell us everything about the businesses financial dealings I would be a little puzzled at why supporters think they should give out this private info. Yes, supporters could be explained some things without giving too much detail but some people think they should be told everything. The shareholders should know the detail - the customers get the shortened version. That is how it is unfortunately. Financial and business details should be kept private. That isn't nice if you are a nosey bugger but something we all have to live with or buy shares.