I'd have thought that would depend on the terms of the settlement. If they included terms for payment on the drip, and if we could (theoretically) still therefore afford to pay our debts as and when they fell due . . .?

Indeed. MB I think was (perfectly reasonably) putting the case for a settlement payable in full immediately though, which the club obviously could not pay, as a means of triggering administration.

Another point of law: HAD the club said to Leeds "OK gazza, fair cop. Send us the bill for £3.2m" could that contract for settlement have been set aside through a court action by a third party? And could the company have repudiated the contract by saying the directors acted ultra vires or whatever?

It's all history now in any case, and while it might have been a major contributor to the current black hole as far as I am aware all Harrisgate payments have been made, so the battle to come is of more concern.

Several posters seem very concerned about wrongfull trading, and directors personal liability - but the reality is unless they find a few million in a Swiss bank account, or a suitcase full of phoney invoices (a la Rangers) actually in the hands of the villians - the chances of any of the directors actually having action taken against them is rather less likely than Mr Zucherberg handing over all the proceeds from the Facebook IPO to the Odsal fighting fund. Our CPS couldn't even have made the false tax return rap stick on Al Capone. All the past, present and future directors of the Bulls would be more than adequately covered by the" acted in good faith on their evaluation of the information to hand" defence, plus I think it very unlikely that any of them have benefited financially from their directorships at the Bulls - infact they are all probably net cash injectors. Suspect they only current player in the Bulls saga to make any money out of rugby league is CC in his role as a players agent!!!!!!

exactly Nr, water under the bridge and cash gone out of the bank, nor would £300k be worth putting the club into admin for.

Awford gate is more relevant to the clubs current state. FAced with virtually fixed costs Hood and Bennett took the risk of the pledge to kick start an increase on crowds, basically as a loss leader that would lead to the pot of gold at the rainbows end and other metaphors. The risk: that the team did not perform. and it did not. so year two of the pledge was a damp squib compared to what it could have been if we had made the playoffs last year. more customers paying more this year would help to bridge the revenue v cost gap. As someone says, the squad could be cut to match the two. Theres no spare in Admin costs, but moving from Odsal would save money and help to match income and expenditure and minimise any cuts to the players budget. But if the figures for a move do stack up then administration may be needed to eliminate the contingent liability, just depends on exactly what the agreement says/how willing BMC would be to enforce it etc. It certainly is not enough for the review, if it is truly strategic, to simply say what the liabilities are, it needs to identify why they are what they are and ways of dealing with those reasons. One thing is for sure: if Harrisgate is mentioned in the review it will only be in the small print.

The uncertainty that Awford created by his antics before the start of last season is I believe a major factor in the failure of the team and therefore pledge. We ended up with Briggs and Herbert as half backs, followed part way into the season by ben jeffries. No settled half backs (of lower income at VP due to lower crowds leading to lower secondary income)[/i, although there will be SIGNIFICANT INCREASED OVERHEADS as a consequence of the club taking on board the STADIUM RUNNING COSTS.”

at the time he said that, the gate at VP was significantly higher than in 2010 at Odsal. the following graph shows the numbers. The first years are taken from the respective statutory accounts chairmans reports, Caisley then stopped saying what they were, and the later years are my own calculations derived from Wikipedia. and as you can see in 2010 our average gate of 8000 at Odsal was aprox 4000 lower than the VP 2001, but with significantly increased overheads. if as Coulby implied, season ticket costs are going to significantly go up, without any investment an average gate of 8000-9000 is about as good as you could expect. Which will not cover Odsals overheads.


So Caisley knows the score, it has not changed. But if he has suddenly worked out a way to stay at Odsal and get the crowds back up despite not having done so for the last 8 years (and having for the last 6 years delegating the problem to Hood) then I will happily get behind him but most importantly the team. a team that without any help from Caisley has picked itself up and got into a playoff position.

And gained a position of impending insolvency.

Make no mistake, no matter what adverse financial situation Hood took over he is responsible for his period of tenure.
Selling seasons tickets for £100 x 10,000 = £1M was never enough to make a long term contribution to running costs.
It did however cover a short term cash fix back in October, which of course had all been gone by January, leaving an ongoing VAT liability of approx £12,000 per home match in the future.

There MUST have been indications to Hood and his BOD that the business viability of Bradford Bulls was perilous for at least the last two years.
It MUST have been clear to them that the cash flow was perilous for at least the same period.
We hear that when the bank called in their overdraft in January 2012 it was circa £500,000. Whatever the real value it had risen from £111,447 on 31/12/2010 per the Bulls accounts.
That they borrowed shucks of money from the RFL that they could not repay and sold the Bulls ground lease to pay for it is another example of cash outflow.

All leads to a horrendous amount of cash outflow from 31/12/2010.
Hood does have some questions to answer

I don't doubt for second the that Orford caused many problems on the playing front, not only that he tied up a large proportion of our 'cap', but when he was back in Aussie, 'playing silly beggers', it meant we couldn't sign a replacement. He effectively blighted two seasons as by the time it was sorted we were never going to get another (quality) half for the following season. If you look at the, maybe unquantifiable, losses, like the resultant poor performances causing crowds and, as a consequence, income to fall, it probably ranks somewhere up with the more direct losses incurred due to the Harris signing.

There's no doubt though that, if we have any feeling for the club, we'll have to get behind the team and whoever is in the driving seat. Whatever the failings of the past, and there have been many, we have to go forward with what we've got.

It is evident (and long discussed/theorised) that the fiscal commitments to both Harris and Orford have played some part in the current predicament. What is equally apparent, and is conveniently forgotten by some, is our complete mismanagement of both player recruitment, staff recruitment and the overall brand strategy. All have been woefully inept irrespective of both Harris and Orford factors. Of that there is zero doubt and, you would expect, to come under close scrutiny from the review including the conduct of the CEO and senior management, because it was their individual and collective mandate. Let us not forget that this is not purely determining the size of a perceived debt, but it's primary causes.

The other concern, is the alleged legal knowledge and subsequent cause and effect assumptions that some posters on this board have made. They predominantly being that CC, Agar, Coulby etc have some underlying pre-ordained outcome of a lengthy review,which, is consultative in design. I find it disturbing that said posters are perhaps misusing some of their core knowledge of for instance, insolvency, liquidation and administration to suggest that this is a de facto outcome for the review and that their personal "understanding" is somehow actuality rather than opinion. Similarly the "I'll be watching" mantra is equally disturbing, because again, their is the over-assumption that there is some element of wrong-doing or dastardly deeds taking place, when in reality all we have to do is await the outcome and official response.

I have elements of faith in those carrying out the review, given their personal and collective business success, to do what needs to be done. I'm not really sure whether I have greater faith in some board posters belief they can individually do better; since quite simply, "put your money where your keyboard is".

As ever, the most tempered, reasoned responses seem to be from Maiselbugs, Bobsmyuncle and Martinwildbull. Some of the other usual, vitriolic suspects, to me, are way off the mark and disturbingly so. Futile assessments of what needs to be done, may be done or is being done are just that, futile. In the interim I remain hopeful and indeed convinced, that the current review team will put the right structure in place to move us forward as a club. It is surely no more complex than that.

Will you be getting your old job back after this process is over?

Educate me with another spectacularly inaccurate assumption of yours...

It's not inaccurate though is it Simon?

??

As a potential Poirot, you make an excellent part time broadcaster.

Epic fail.