Carvell move to Hull confirmed now
What effect will this have on the Bulls?

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/26117699Already spent some of the savings![/url

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/26142952Oh yes indeedy!![/url

Just taken a young forward from Warrington on loan for a month.

Club in "Just completed transfer of ownership to new owners so now we can sort out contracts that were on hold until then" shocker.

Club in " unwilling to guarantee payments to shafted creditors yet able to offer enhanced contracts to players" shocker!

By enhanced do you mean longer, on more money or both? Longer is in the articles linked but do you have any evidence for the more money bit?
While you're at it could you link to the announcement of which creditors would be 'shafted'?

If you think Gale has signed a longer contract with no increase in payments so be it. I could not care less.

Whether you like it or not creditors of the bulls are waiting for payments and have no guarantee of being paid what they are owed. This is a dreadful way to treat people. So I say shafted. Maybe to some in Bradford such treatment is normal.

You mean creditors like Luke Gale who had a contract which has now been renegotiated?

The absolute s

Except shafted in this context can only mean that they will not get what they are owed.

1) There are (as far as we know) two prospective buyers of the club. Neither party has either confirmed or denied the extent to which they will pay existing creditors.

2) We do not in any case know which party will be successful, though we do know that the party which most honours those debts with creditors will be successful.

3) We do know that the extent to which creditors are not paid has a significant effect on the number of points deducted in this a relegation season.

So you can say shafted and pretend it's not a synonym for wild speculation which you cannot backup but choose to believe anyway, but that would be silly. Not that that makes you stick out like a sore thumb or anything.

Ok, where's your proof that the club have been unwilling to guarantee any payments to any creditors?

Administration.......if you were guaranteed payment of what you were owed you wouldn't press for administration.

1-0

LOL

The current owners - I know at the bulls this may change daily

- have not unequivocally said they will pay creditors 100% YET they can agree enhanced contracts (and added costs). If they have spare cash perhaps people owed money should get it first.

It appears some bulls fans think shafting suppliers is normal business practice.......its shameful. HTH

Exactly.

It gets us no nearer to knowing whether or not those creditors will or won't be shafted so in terms of being helpful it's pretty neutral.

The creditors will not be "shafted". Same way Salford's were not shafted.

It really should be quite amusing, standing back and watching folk spouting forth when they actually know jack shìte about what has happened and is actually happening. And why. But instead, its really quite sad, seeing folk who support the Greatest Game revelling in the misfortunes (real or wished for) of others.

If the current directors are sure they can pay creditors 100% why go into admin or why not state that they will get 100%. Instead the directors simply say they will work with creditors while committing firmly to new contracts. A shoddy way to treat suppliers. there is every likelihood that the creditors will include small businesses struggling in a recession....but hey ho they can wait because the directors want to give Gale more money. (interesting that they directors are happy to commit the bulls to new contracts while they are allegedly treading water for 28days.

)

The irony

I have defended Bradford numerous times on here, and really hope that you get back on your feet. However, trying to claim that the last 18 months has been part of some grand, master plan, seems beyond silly.

As much as it must feel like it at times, I don't think anyone on this thread has said they're happy Bradford and their fans have gone through this, nobody wants teams to be struggling in the way Bradford has, just differing opinions on how it should be resolved (for the better or worse of Bradford's prospects).

If Bradford gets a new investor/ lease of life, great, until then can we not draw this sorry saga to a close, at least for a few months?

Exactly. The bulk of bulls fans just want a decently run club with a competitive side.

Sadly some bulls fans are serial apologists for the umpteen regimes who have mismanaged the club. The pattern of blindly supporting a new regime, justifying their questionable behaviours / decisions and occasionally bagging the failed regime much later is all too familiar.

Mate, you have talked good sense - or at least given considered opinion - throughout all this latest tragic comedy. So I can only assume you have misinterpreted what I said?

I never said anything about any "18 months master plan". Where did you get that from? It's been a fekking shambles till OK abruptly stepped down, and since then sorting out the unholy mess. I am pointing out that some of those who are spouting such vitriol really have no idea what is actually happening or what led up to all this. Yet that does not stop them from telling everyone what the situation is and what should be done about it. Folk who maybe DO know a bit more about it are likely to keep their own counsel on public forums, wouldn't you say?

There are clearly some individuals on these forums - I'll name the obsessed Gutterfux and the unpleasant Cripesginger as two, but there are others - who are giving a damn good impression of setting a new level in the [ischadenfreude[/i stakes.

One of the most reasoned comments I have seen on here for a while came from TURFEDOUT, a Wakey fan who backs his opinions with considered reasoning. This is what he said:



He and I will doubtless not agree on all sorts, but he at least supports his arguments with intelligent reasoning. I just wish some others would do likewise. You don't have to agree with someone to appreciate their POV and how they expressed it. And anyway, what's not to agree with in that excellent summation?

But isn't the point of administration to find a buyer for the club, the proceeds of which then go to the creditors? Administration is seemingly ongoing with people other than the incumbents expressing interest. So we don't know at all how they've been treated because all of that is yet to happen. I am far from an apologist for any of those involved . I'd merrily swing a hammer into many of these people. I just think it's weird that people on here want to pass judgement on the outcome of their own assumptions and pretend that it's fact. Maybe they'll get paid, maybe they won't. We have no idea. I'm as curious to find out as you are certain of how it will play out.

The point is to run a club so it does not go into administration and leave countless creditors out of pocket. We do know the current directors are only 'working with creditors' while signing contract extensions with players. Poor show.

This is obviously where confusion has arisen. To me this implies there's a deeper meaning to what's gone on, and there's been some kind of forethought involved in what's gone on. Whether there have been recent moves for the positive, then as I said, that's fantastic news, but it's not because of things that have gone before.

There will always be those who revel in misery, if it's any comfort, the like of gutterfaxs aren't specifically negative toward Bradford - it's just everything! He has his own thread on the London board