If he hasn't signed a new contract with the new company than Bradford don't need to be approached? (As is the medias suggestion)

Slagging off? No, it's just funny!

You break/bend/ignore as many rules as you can - or even worse take a morally suspect route into admin, stitching up however many small suppliers for a second time in 2 years, then cry that others should have a sense of fair play!

Irony overload in the Bulls boardroom.

Are you trying to say that it isn't!

The letter which featured contributions from a poster who described one of Wakefields recent attempts to enter administration as "an example of good management and foresight of the BoD" and in which duh Trust! described themselves as "the governing body of our game".
Not sure how duh Trust! will react to Bren declaring their impotent rage is based on an act of misdirection.

Apologies Sesquipedalian, think I misread your comment. No, I do not believe the sport or the people who run it are inherently corrupt or biased.
Joe.

No me neither but they are clueless incompetent, lacking any insight into the game, directionless, poor decision makers, easily influenced and susceptible to pressure from other parties.

Apart from that they're doing OK

You mean this year we're going to be a ran? Yay! Things are on the up!

For clarity - I'm not suggesting any deliberate misdirection; personally, I would have stayed away from the threat of relegation and concentrated on a fair and consistent application of the rules. That's just me though, and I'm sure the Trust board won't lose too much sleep about my opinion.

tbf, you could also use those exact words to describe the Club owners, especially at Super League level.


They're doing ok at some things and not so good on others....same as it ever was.

Oh I dunno, I think deliberate misdirection describes the situation perfectly; Wraps to you for coining it.


But, despite fruitloop postings from duhhh Trust!, theres been nothing to suggest the RFL arent being anything other then fair and consistent.

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

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

"Iconic" to the rescue again!

Broncos, you can learn from this. Dig yourselves a massive hole somewhere then consult some very clever scientists on how to create some kind of weird atmospheric inversion layer so that the temperature inside said hole is somewhere between the Antartic and the surface of Pluto.

The "28 day temporary SL licence" is something I've not seen before.
What was the plan had this new guy not come along ?

"And monies recently advanced to them by the RFL"
How much have they had off the RFL this time?

£300k, every club got it.

Though the Wakefield supporters trust is writing a letter to the RFL because Bradfords was paid by BACS where as Wakefields was paid by cheque and they demand an inquiry in to this unacceptable favouritism and an end to this conspiracy against them

So why, according to the article, was it an advance that would have to be paid back to the RFL, or is this in addition to the £300k that (you say) each club got ?

"It is understood that in order for Mr Lamb’s bid to be accepted, he would need to work to pay back creditors and monies recently advanced to the club by the RFL."

Why would any advance be paid back?

Its just a poorly structured sentence.

If money advanced needs to be paid back, it suggests it's a loan, not part of any due sky money

Then it would be a loan not an advance wouldnt it. But it says it was an advance and we know the clubs got an advance.

What i assume that sentence is trying to say is that he will need to pay back the creditors and work with the fact that some of the TV money you would budget for has already been paid as an advance.

I agree, but as all clubs received the £300k, how much of this years sky money after that have they already been advanced? And how much can they need now? Sponsors and season ticket cash should be brimming their coffers now plus the sky £300k! It's later in the season when money gets tight as there's a lot less income then but wages and stadium running costs still need paying

But i dont think they are asking for more cash or saying they have a cash flow problem. The current owners/directors seem pretty confident they will be fine on what they know is to come.

I think the point the author is trying to make is the same as yours, that whilst the cash flow situation is fine now a lot of the income is has already come in, and the new owner will need to deal with that.

"Advance monies", something that they would have received at some point, but paid in advance.
Don't make such an issue out of it. Pedantic or what ?

More importantly, what happens when the 28 day temporary licence expires, which will of course be after the start of the season ?

SmokeyTA making things up that that have not been said. Read what the RFL said. Don't forget, the new guy is looking to put in an offer for OK Bulls Ltd not Bfd Bulls (2014) ltd. He will get it (and the Bradford Bulls club) if he offers the Administrator more than the owners of BB (2014). The latter only have the club and SL LICENCE ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, PENDING the Administrator looking for better offers over a 28 day period. So, if the new guy's offer is accepted, he will have to pay off any remaining creditors of OK Bulls ltd AND pay back the £300k that the RFL has given to BB (2014) Ltd and which they will have spent by the end of the 28 days. This is because, if the new guy's bid is accepted B Bulls (2014) ltd will end up with no rugby club and no assets.

Im not being pedantic and you are agreeing with me.

From that article it seems the 28 day licence was put in place to allow other parties to come forward. So after it expires it will revert to a normal licence.

according to this nonsense though they have got a free £300k. Genius move from the BB (2014) Ltd.