Hes just a total tw@

Merge them with Halifax.

Lots of excuses no doubt, but it really shouldn't be that difficult to run the Bulls as a break even venture. Big city, sympathetic local media, no doubt a preferential rent on a big stadium, good local amateur players/clubs, recent history of success, solid fanbase.

To get into this kind of trouble time and time again is only the fault of the inept people in charge of the club. Nobody else.

Truly pathetic.

the Bulls will be OK as they have one thing that the Broncos don't, a rent book for an Iconic stadium that the is a millstone round the neck of the RFL

It makes me sad that the Bulls are in this state. Not knowing what went wrong I can't grasp the problem. But what sits ill with me is that the club I support is taking a share of the Sky money that should be going into the Bulls, that is no way to treat our freinds. I would be proud of our club if they gave back the money we dont deserve (I won't hold my breath).

welcome to Bradford luke george and dale ferguson!

As you seem intent on trying to provoke some sort of reaction by directly flaming me, instead of discussing the thread, I will simply point out that so far as I recall, NOBODY - and certainly not I - EVER said " there were no problems, everything was pretty much hunky dory, and the nay sayers didn't know what they were talking about."

I was and remain grateful to OK for saving the club as without him, there would be no club. How the club was (mis?)managed since he took it over is of course a very fair subject for debate but at the risk of ad nauseam repetition, I support my club, not the board, and what certain idiots consistently fail to grasp is that the management of the Bulls was neither a matter of choice for the fans, nor something over which we could exert any influence. It's not as if there was anyone else to choose to run the club. As for the new guys, the position is precisely the same. Yes they talk and seem like decent enough chaps, but if I disliked them, or mistrusted them, or even hated them, - so what? Euromillions win excepted, what can I do?

Finally, I find your suggestion that [ianyone[/i said there were "no problems" and all was "hunky dory" as bizarre as it is inexplicable. If that is really what you think, then it is your head that must have been buried under a pile of sand of Saharan proportions! The financial hole discussed at the meeting may be bigger than expected, but who could have been in the slightest doubt that times were exceedingly hard given the continued Sky money penalty, low season ticket sales, clear and extremely well-publicised cash-flow problems. Or maybe you are suggesting that when the chairman of a club says he has had to arrange for another £900K to be pumped in to the club, hot on the back of the players wages debacle, so we could just pay our basic way for a few months, that would lead people to think the finances were "hunky dory"?

It is very sad (again).

All the money the Club raised from the supporters appeal - what happened to that anybody?
Was that money given as a gift or lent as an unsecured loan or (as it should have been) used to buy shares in the new company?

Wasn't it used to get Hood et al off the hook as they were guarantors to Bradford's debt?

Why would anyone in their right mind donate to pay off someone's indirect personal debt?

Because it was sold to them as saving their club. It was an outstanding achievement but sadly it wasn't used in the best way possible for the Bulls. That half a million would've possibly plugged the funding gap left by the reduction of the sky money last season. It may have even meant Bradford avoided the sad situation they now find themselves in.

Werent the administrators also club directors?

As was explained ad nauseum at the time, though: no.

There was too little time to do anything other than to raise cash at short order, and certain shareholders seemed more determined to use the crisis to settle scores and remove the (poor) board than to actually try and solve the problem avoiding administration. The half million bought two months more, that was all. The actions of Caisley IMO ensured that administration became inevitable.

You can get stuffed we are all right on our own thanks

No. That is not allowed.

If your question was "weren't the administrators appointed by Caisley's cabal, who had ousted the previous board, and whose bidding were the administrators doing?" That could have resulted in a different answer.