In a post ref: the meeting with Blake Solly, where in many opinions the questions were, not asked of Blake Solly by BullBuilder, is backed up by the above statement.
My feelings are that BullBuilder should do a proper interview by the use of a question by: the named representative from Bull Builder, followed by the response by Blake Solly.
If as supporters we agree that BB representative speak for us: We are entitled to ask them to ask the questions we wish to hear asked.
As a member of BB I would prefer that Blake Solly were aware of all the fans fears...After all we have a greater investment in our club, than the SL staff...they are transient(ie they move on to different employment if the prospects are better) whereas we are permanent in our support for Bradford Bulls.

I think the action of BullBuilder in speaking to BS was the right thing to do, even if he is just like the others and only saying what he wants us to hear.

My only thoughts are that we know nothing of what they are going to do as owners. Will they take an active role in running the club and take on the responsibilities of a board, for their short period in charge? I ask because the next month (and previous one, come to that) or so is a critical time if we are to have a club next season. They have mentioned about our players being allowed to leave, which is only right and proper, but they have said nothing about players coming in, new contracts for coaching staff etc. If SLE/RFL want to sell the club as a going concern (with just the possibility of continuing in SL) they need to have a 'running ' company to sell and without coaches and players for the coming season it won't be a 'running' business. They can't sell it on as a going concern without doing some basic housekeeping.

Much as I fully appreciate they probably - even certainly - would prefer not to have to be too involved with the nitty gritty, [isomeone[/i needs to be. Without some active involvement it leaves the RFL in the position of a builder buying a house to sell, but instead of doing a quick paint job he rips out the fixtures and fittings and tries to sell the house for the same money, as fit for purpose. If they truly want to leave open the possibility of SL next season they should be honest, or if anyone feels that is unfair, more open, about their intentions.

If there is to be any chance of continuing as we are we need a quick sale, that is for sure, as without a more active involvement there will be little left to sell in terms of taking up the SL membership.

The RFL/SLE bid if successful will have done one thing only, ensure that the Bulls see out the season and stop running up any further payments to the Administrator. As for next season they can't contract players or staff as that would be a massive conflict of interests that the SL club owners/chairmen have most likely agreed cannot happen. Imo if no-one comes forward in the near future with an offer to fund the Bulls going forward and some commitment to honour the historic debt then the Bulls will be in a lower league next year.

Yes, we reached this conclusion a few days ago

From what I've read on here and in the T and A he appears to offered some explanation of the reasons the SL license has been revoked but made no mention of the RFL's position on the lease.

On the SL license are we now to assume there is some kind of 'financial fair play system' in place?

Did he have any explanation or comment to offer on how a SL club appears to have recieved £1.5 million from the RFL, 500K from supporters, the entire season ticket income plus whatever we got from Andy Lynch alongside compiling what we're now being told is £1.5 million in debts over a period which included a Super League licensing process?

Your last paragraph Maisiebugs, hits the nail fairly and squarely on the head. Where indeed did it go

I think it's fair to say a combination of poor management, huge internal squabbles, some historic debt, a fall in income due to poor onfield performance and the general effects of a recession sent the club over the tipping point. However, this didn't happen in a fortnight. A quick tot brings us to £3-4 million plus £100k a month losses going forward from what we've been told and the RFL appear to confirm. It's equivalent to 1 years entire turnover.

As RFL's director of licensing who now feels able to take a 'moral' stand on the club's position with regards to debt there is one huge, obvious and until now unanswered question. Where were YOU while a whole series of events occurred that should have had deafening klaxons going off in Red Hall?

To be honest I've felt all along that seeing out the season was always the major concern of the RFL. If they are buying the club then they must look after their asset, dunno what they have offered for the club but selling a Super League club will get them far bigger return than selling lower league team.

Could you expand on that number please? For the avoidance of doubt? Genuine question.

£1.5m (inclusive of VAT) from RFL for purchase of lease.
£1.5m debts now referred to by Blake Solly of RFL. I'm assuming this included the VAT from above so not to count twice.
500k raised from pledge

I haven't figured in the season ticket, Christmas merchandise or sale of Andy Lynch which could be considered had also gone by March nor have I projected the supposed 100k a month liabilities going forward.

£1.5m included the £250k VAT, so you will be counting twice.

What you appear to be demonstrating, if I read it correctly, is what the income shortfall must have been?

As I said earlier, I remain to see a breakdown of this £1.5m - I see you do not also refer to the £1.1m that has also been quoted. In particular, how much comprises creditors that crystalised only on administration.

Let us assume that a fair pre-administration figure was £1.1m, comprising VAT 250k Image Rights tax 250k, PAYE (May and June) £180k say, and other rugby and trade creditors and any remaining bank overdraft unpaid, net of any cash in bank, of £420k. Can't see trade creditors being that high given the club's poor credit standing.

Let us then consider the period since 1/1/11 to the date of the intervention, since this is the period since the last audited accounts on file.

Using your numbers, as amended by me above, we need to explain where the following went:

- £1.25m from the RFL for sale of lease Jan 2012
- £0.25m VAT on the above, unpaid, Jan 2012
- £0.25m Image rights tax, unclear when crystalised.
- £0.2m PAYE clocked up May and June 2012
- £0.4m other creditors unpaid at date of appointment.
- £0.5m pledge monies (0.4k from fans 0.1k from other sources) Easter 2012
- £0.1m for Andy Lynch (grrr...) say, late 2011.

Total £2.9m - OK still a pretty big number and close to the bottom of your range.

NOT including season ticket monies or RFL monies since to do so you also need to include all operating expenditure as well.

We can deduct from that the equivilent liabilities at 1/1/11, since it is only the MOVEMENT in those liabilities that need concern us.

Lost of guesses involved here, but lets say the equivilent liabilities were maybe:

- £0.1m PAYE (accounts)
- £0.25m image rights tax (goes back a long way - Hood said thge original claim was for £500k)
- £0.2m (say) to Leeds as last instalment for Harris.
- £0.3m other trade creditors (accounts)
- £0.1m bank overdraft (accounts)
- £0.05m of the £1.26m "accrued expenses" at 31/12/11 (I have only taken a tiny part, but key to part of the problem is just what was in there?)

Total a nice round £1m (and I'm hardly being heavy there?)

So that is £1.9m net operating cash outflow very very roughly - we need to explain. Not £3.5m, but still a pretty big number!

If I had to guess, I'd say that if the club lost £311k in 2010, it sure as hell will have lost a fair bit more in 2011. Whether at the rate of £100k/month who knows, but I bet we see a 2011 loss of maybe at least say £800k? Scary...

And lets say the club lost £100k/month Jan-June 2012, that's another scary £600k.

Take those two together, and you get £1.4m - leaving £0.5m to explain (and very very roughly, cos loads of guesses in there).

Now I preferered to come at it from another angle: we got £1.5m (incl VAT) for the lease. We apparently repaid an RFL loan of £0.7m, and had a bank overdraft to repay of around £0.3m, total £1m. That leaves a "black hole" (as I have called it for months now) of around £0.5m.

Either way, what you end up with is that RFL loan almost certainly funded the 2011 losses, and the previous board sold the lease to repay that. Selling the family silver is not a sustainable way to run a busines! The pledge effectively funded the 2012 losses up to around May, so again it was paying off losses already or to be incurred incurred. The board therefore clearly neded to find more monies (the additional £500k!) to fund the losses for the rest of the season from around May. All stacks up. Except we received $1.25m to repay £0.7m, leaving my £0.5m "black hole".

Which leaves me with two key question I would ask of the previous board, and indeed have asked on here for months now:

1 - The 2011 and 2012 monthly losses were clearly unsustainable. Recognising that you can't cut most costs overnight, what steps were you intending to take in 2013 to eliminate the losses?

2 - I am struggling to account for up to maybe £1/2m of the lease sale money - what happened to it? If indeed the maths make any sense (and I could be way out) then what liabilities was it used to settle?

And, to an incoming owner, I would ask the same question 1.

My understanding was the bank overdraft was higher than £0.3 million. I can't remember if that's been stated or I deduced it from the fact the club recieved 800k for the lease and almost within a couple of weeks the overdraft was withdrawn and the club had no cash at all, suggesting the 800k was swallowed by the overdraft. I could be mistaken.

Moving on, while it's certainly the case the prime responsibility lies with the club I don't see WTF the RFL have been doing. What sort of (licensing process) audit doesn't see those kind of numbers? Did Solly have anything to say on this?

I wasn't in the meeting.

I DID hear a figure of £340k mentioned, but then was told a lower number. I certainly continue to struggle to understand where all that £800k went at short order - £500k after the overdraft, the "black hole", and that remains the question I would really like to see answered to be able to form a more objective view of all this. I can pretty well account for an understand (if not like) everything else.

If it was just the RFL then I think there would be serious questions indeed. Although the licence aplications were submitted earlyish in 2011, so maybe matters had not come to anything like a head by then? It does sort of all point to things going seriously wrong second half of 2011, I reckon. But were the financials etc not reviewed and scrutinised by KPMG? That would surely let the RFL off the hook, depending on KPMG's term's of reference?

Make that TWO questions I would like to see answered - what was the nature and scope of KPMG's involvement, especially with reviewing the forecasts?

And I speak as someone who is in the middle of preparing the budgets and forecasts for a prospectus as we speak, and the reporting accountants will be conducting a pretty thorough review of the asumptions and methodologies I have used and employed. If there was anything like THAT level of review, something sure went wrong somewhere either at the time or through subsequent events?

Even allowing for the possibility of things worsening in the second half of 2011 the request of 700k loan and then later, the failure to repay any of it were two seperate points at which further checks should have been authorised. As you say, had the necessary reviews taken place at any of these stages there is a strong chance with the support we have that the patient was treatable. Not only did they not intervene they kept the situation secret.

Slightly OT but:
How much did the BB bucket collection raise yesterday?