Can't really arguu with that, if your turnover/profit doesn't afford you to spend 1.6 mil then you should not be spending it simple.

Couple of things from that though.

If the bank had security over the lease, how was the club able to sell it, seemingly without reference to the bank? Suggests to me that the overdraft wasn't (validly at least) secured.

And why can't a bank wind a club up?

But if Bradford have income of £3-4m as reported in the T&A then they would qualify to spend the full salary cap under the 50% of income rule. It would probably need to be around 30% of income to try and ensure financial stability.
It also shows what can happen when clubs have no significant assets. It's fine when things are ok, not so fine when things go badly.

Bradford aren't asking any of their players to take a pay cut are they?

Relying on the fans is stupid and ridiculous.

I don't think they have 5,000 players to take a £100 pay cut, I'm not sure they have 500 to take a £1k pay cut either. Maybe all the squad and youth team could take a £10k pay cut?

Bearing in mind the money is needed within a few weeks, even if the players all gave up every penny of their pay, it wouldn't get them anywhere would it?

No fixed charge. Only a floating charge. And the lease was anyway of no value without council consent to any change. I think the bank was being disingenuous in its public statement, and more likely used it as an excuse to reduce its exposure.

A bank can't wind anything up. What it can do, as with any other creditor, is petition the High Court to grant a winding up order.

The bank can't. Bradford had a pot of money of X amount, part of that is their overdraft. That pot would just pay their tax bill and their monthly outgoings. Once the overdraft was withdrawn they have until 6th to raise their tax bill or under the tax laws be forced into administration.

The idea is the money raised covers the money lost by the overdraft. That would allow the club to continue to bounce along the bottom of their account until the next problem comes up .... then rinse & repeat.

Sorry, didn't realise we were in the realm of pedantry and semantics



Kind of like saying a rugby team can't score tries, they can only put the ball over the line. It is the ref that decides to give the tries.

It might not be The Sin Bin but it's still RLFANS.

Listening to the TV last night they suggested they may not get paid next month

The administrator will make them take cuts when he gets his feet under the desk

As a matter of interest, if the Bulls receive £500,000 from their fans it will presumably be taxable income, won't it?

Donations are not ' Vatable '

Bring back Rodney Walker and the team who oversaw the RFL getting in to enormous amounts of debt after the 2000 RLWC? As far as I'm aware, the RFL these days is a profitable organisation ... I could be very much mistaken with that, mind you, so I'm ... open (not happy) .. to being corrected on it.

Which is very commendable , unlike 95 % of its member clubs

Which is similar to most ' major ' sports governing bodies , so is that good management , or just a sign of the times ?

One article I read seemed to indicate that RBS were/are unhappy about the lease on Odsal no longer being used as a security on the clubs' debts, which has resulted in a 'altered credit arrangement', [ithat[/i kind of thing [ican[/i happen overnight. Even so, if the club had used the Odsal lease as security with RBS and then sold that lease on without realising it would cause problems down the line, it still shows a level of incompetence that is unforgivable.

Nine consecutive years of pre-tax profits (up to the end of 2010), record turnover, record amounts paid out to member clubs according to the last Annual Report.

The RFL cannot be held accountable for individual clubs failing to obey basic business principles of not spending what you either don't have or can't afford to borrow.

For those that are continuing to talk about leases and so on that the RFL supposedly own...

According to a quote from a local councillor in this article the land was signed over to the RFL by Bradford council. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from that they only own the lease.
[urlhttp://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/9615800.Politicians_call_for_talks_with_struggling_Bradford_Bulls_over_cash_crisis/[/url

Well it would be wouldn't it



I think you protesteth to load, so I reckon I'm on the right lines.

VAT aside, only profits get taxed.

I suspect that's a local councillor paraphrasing a situation rather badly.

The council, as owners of the freehold, allowed the lease on the land to be signed over from the Bulls to the RFL - at least that's my understanding.

So the council own the freehold, the RFL own the leasehold and the Bulls are their tenants.

I know that but it is still taxable income to be offset against expenditure.

Are ' donations ' vatable ?

but bradford are running at a loss, aren't they? Corporation tax won't come into it.

Some one ealier said no. I couldn't say for sure but would reckon not.

I certainly hope that Bradford recover from this and continue in the League.

However I can't help but feel that the RFL have known far more than is being let on. In January they suddenly become the leaseholder and the Bulls their tenant. Then the monies owed to them are expected to be repaid as Bradford people indicate this was not their expectation. So while Bradford are in a financial pickle (one of liquidity rather than anything else) the RFL appear to have done a smart bit of business and safeguarded their resources before the till was closed. Also not a lot left for the others to pick over. Meanwhile if the Bulls did go under the lease with the Council is unaffected as this now sits with the RFL. RFL is likely to be more sympathetic to a reconstructed club ensuring a location is available for the future. You'd almost think that might have been the plan.

Anyway good luck to those seeking to raise the money.