I've said or hinted in several posts now that I suspect it won't now get to administration. Not least because (and sorry for keep repeating myself) I really can't see how that would now solve any financial problems without creating far more. And anyway, the longer this has all gone on the less likely resorting to administration seemed, IMO, especially since my own guess has been that (and again, sorry for repeating myself) that the pledge cash removed the immediate crisis and we now need to find ways of generating more monthly income.

Mitigating against that is the total lockdown of info coming out of the bunker. That is ordinarily an indication that bad things are coming and everyone has been told it is essential they say nothing. But it COULD mean the opposite.

I hope FW is right. And, in the full realisation that I'll look very stupid if I'm wrong, I'll stick my neck out and say I suspect he may well be proved right.

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ord_Bulls/

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ord_Bulls/

I find this statement absolutely damning of the Hood/Bennett administration

"Peter Hood & Andrew Bennett budgeted to lose over £1,000,000 this year" Stephen Coulby.

Now while Mr Caisley, Coulby & Agar remain quietly confident of raising the necessary funds needed to avert administration, £1,250,000 is serious money.

The skeletons have been exposed.

Losing £100,000 per month. Easy - we only use £600,000 of salary cap next year

Would anyone have put any money in had they known that? I doubt it but if the 500K hadn't been donated we would not be here now discussing it as the Club would have folded, and its doubtful any investment would have been forthcoming in those circumstances. So Peter Hood took a brave decision considering the alternative, The figures Coulby has quoted are probably the original losses from Caisleys tenure which has grown like a cancer!

Once again we see this quote that the Bulls are 'losing 100k a month'. Is this really true or is the situation being exaggerated for some reason. I've largely stay out of the debates on the financials but I can't get my head around how we're apparently losing such huge amounts and what further cuts the club can possibly make to turn this around. Other than have a drastic reduction in the size and quality of the playing squad.. what else is there left to cut, up at Odsal?

I'm guessing this isn't losing £100K a month though, surely thats the c£1m they anounced from creditors pulling their credit plus the £300K thats operating loss thats been reported in previous accounts? If thats the case then this isn't really news is it? We knew this already.

Well the new lot were never going to say that actually things aren't that bad. But it certainly doesn't look great from the figures quoted. Hopefully some of the more clued up financial folk on here might be able to add a bit more infomation.

I'm pretty sure I remember someone posting on here that there was a big VAT liability that the previous incumbents/incompetents hadn't budgeted for, but they were written off as a troll/troublemaker by the usual suspects because they supported another club.

Coulby would be on very dodgy ground coming out with these figures and statements in public if they weren't true, and the whole pledge thing looks more disingenuous to me by the day.

I am equally sceptical that the new lot have a big money backer ready to step in either, these people don't just appear from thin air.

It can be misleading because they readily confuse accounting losses and cash flow. It's likely that our cash flow is very bad at the moment because all of the season ticket money was received up front and been spent. It's quite conceivable that we are paying out £100k every month more than we are taking in.

That doesn't necessarily mean we'll make an accounting loss of £1.2m over the course of the year.

It's pretty obvious how we are losing £100K per month

Almost all of the gate income for the year was front-loaded via the season ticket sales, and presumably already spent. We have virtually no income on a week-to-week basis, yet there is still the outgoings on wages, stadium upkeep, match expenses and so on.

It seems increasingly obvious to me that the initial 2011 pledge scheme was a desperate last throw of the dice to re-launch the club. That failed due to poor on-field performances, among other reasons. The more recent 2012 pledge was a further desperate gamble that has led to us being in the sorry mess that we now find ourselves in.

Moving forward, we're surely going to have to expect season tickets to be considerably more expensive next year. I foresee them doubling in price, with the number sold dropping to about half of their current levels. I'm expecting gates of 7-8K next season. It's the only way to make the books balance.

Which is sort of my point, coming out with statements that we're losing 100k a month paints a worse picture if over the year we aren't losing 1.2M or more. I just want to hear the full truth.

Well - the first pledge was an impressive marketing tool, but it was a "loss-leader" and was a gamble in that it needed on-field success to work properly. The second pledge (with hindsight) was folly. Overheads seem to be about £200k per month and we will lose £100k per month until October when we will get our next lot of season ticket money in.

That will go to a traditional model and our "walk-ins" through the year will recover and spread income throughout the year.

I had been supportive of the las BOD efforts however if these facts are true they dont deerve any respect. the treatment of fans and creditors beggars belief. Sadly they have prooved to be liars and cheats.

Regarding the future I cannot see any alternative but administration. No one in the right mind would invest £500k in the shambles of a business the club is.

Time to wipe the slate clean and get on with rebuilding and accepting we may have a few more painful years.