Same Club, different owners, so either way the Club gained advantage/penalised/should be left to carry on*
*delete as applicable
Perhaps best to wait and see who the new owner(s) are ?

A "Lamb" to the slaughter by the looks of it.

Just heard him on the radio; 'we'd live within our means and only spend what we earn', 'you have to run a sporting club like any normal business', 'we've got experience of marketing and hospitality'

Future looks bright...................

Hopefully the future is bright for the Bulls creditors too....

It's amazing how far the bulls have fallen when you think about it for a moment. Just 10 years ago they went into the season as treble winners and world champs.

Now they haven't got a penny to scratch their ar$e with, players are jumping ship, and they look like relegation candidates.

The iestyn harris signing seemed to begin a chain reaction that snowballed into this.

We used to talk about the impenetrable Big Four and they were as strong as any in it. Now look at them. Some of the decisions the club has made have been jaw dropping. It's not good to see a club fall this far but there you go.

Well, yes. That's the point. And what advantage did we take in 2013? None.



Advantage post administration.
'"

Bradford Bulls used other peoples' money to finance a squad they couldn't really afford with the aim of getting into the play-offs. Gambled; and lost.

when you say other peoples money, do you mostly mean the owner, Mr Khan's money?

Surely he means the money that should have gone to pay HMRC, the RFL, the security company and all the other creditors left hanging.

What about the money your creditors were owed in 2011, wonder what happened to that...

stock response of a Bradford Bulls fan when asked a straight question regarding finances....talk about another club and hope the question goes away!



Relegation battle in a fortnights time.........could be the last visit of London Broncos to Iconic Odsal in Super league for a very long time



























(unless you manage to stay up)

Not avoiding the question. Just the hypocrisy for some gets me.

To be honest London are the only team I think we have a chance of beating. I can see Wakey hammering is on Thursday whil Sammut runs rings round our long term half bac Luke gale (who had yet another stinker today)

As has been said numerous times, Glover paid many of the creditiors back and Trinity continued to use the service of several said creditors once he was in charge. Hence why the RFL docked us 4 points not 6. If non were paid we'd have obviously got the full 6.

What is hypocritical is the Bull fans getting on their high horses about Trinity fans, after all mocking and laughing that some did when we wne into admin in 2010, short memories. Some seem to be able to dish but not take it.

You did'nt read any of the recent posts in this thread before posting that, did you.

"Many"? We keep getting assured of this, but what no-one has been able to do is to put any kind of a number on that. Maybe you can help us? Simple question (once again - as has been asked numerous times): what % of the total value of third party creditors did Glover repay?

Without taking anything away from Glover at all - quite the opposite - I suspect the answer is quite a modest %, and none to the principal creditor HMRC? But it would be great to have my guess disproved with some hard facts. Can you help?

I doubt that continuing to use the services of several creditors can have had any effect on the points deduction, because the RFL decided on the penalty within a week of the administrator being appointed. And anyway, so did Bradford.

We paid as many of them as much as possible.

To do this we laid off staff and sold key players.

This seems to have been a principled action, that was beyond the comprehension of the Bulls BoD.

Twice.

1 - "as many of them as much as possible" - I say again...what % by value? 5%? 10%? 50%?

2 - OK bought a business off the administrator in 2012 with virtually NO employees bar the playing staff (that the RFL had insisted had to be retained, and secured an agreement from other clubs not to poach - the little matter of it being mid-season, as well as the circumstances of the administration, doubtless having a lot to do with it) - since the administrator had sacked them all. Including all the coaching staff. Oh, and the RFL took steps to ensure the administrator did not sell players. Else he assuredly would have done.

So your dumbass comment about it being "...beyond the comprehension of the Bulls BoD" is shown up for what it is, since the BoD who took over the club had to go out and HIRE a complete workforce.

3 - Maybe OK could have paid off a similar value of creditors to Glover - or even a similar % - had he not had 50% of the Sky money for the next two years confiscated? And that money withheld used not to repay any creditors whatsoever, but instead to give a nice little windfall to all the other clubs - including your own.

4 - Regarding the current crisis, have you not read how the club DID try and sell off players in the weeks before the administration? But there were seemingly no takers? And did you not see that they had sacked a load of staff, and put others on reduced hours, in the weeks leading up to the administration? And did you not read that they have said they intend to settle with the creditors? In fact, I have heard the intent is to seek to settle all the third-party creditors but, unlike some people, I prefer not to treat things said verbally or anecdotally as irrefutable fact. The proof will be in what actually happens.

So your dumbass comment about it being "...beyond the comprehension of the Bulls BoD" is again shown up for what it is, since the current BoD (who may anyway not BE the Bod in two weeks) have actually taken ALL the steps that you allege are beyond their comprehension.

I think the one having trouble compehending is you.

1. Neither you nor I know that detail, though you want to use that as proof for your assertion, despite it being known that those efforts were made.

2. Thanks for drawing attention back to the fact that the RFL were complicit in you keeping your stadium and your squad.

3. The financial penalty was for your financial mismanagement e.g. because you defaulted on previous payments to the RFL and HMRC...or should you be allowed to run a business in that way?

4. No, I haven't heard about how you tried to offload players...only about how you are ring-fencing players and not having a points penalty.

Come on Adey, stop being quite so defensive.
Although things are always easier in hindsight, your club appears to have waited for far too long before taking some remedial action to plug the hole in your finances, probably 2 years too long.
When exactly did you reduce contract hours and cut player contracts, mid December and when do you think they knew that they were in the poop ?

As I said, easy in hindsight and easier still if you are not in denial.

No you didn't! Justin poore. Paul Aiton, Ben cockaybe, Tim Smith, Ali Lautiti, Danny Washbrook, Peter Fox and a host of other players were bright AFTER you went into admin.

A lot of your creditors didn't get paid though did they. Only reason they didn't get shafted again was because you managed to get a quick sale to MC.

We sold players e.g. Obst when admin beckoned and we, only a few months ago, sold Tim Smith to pay the bills...in the season.

You chose not to sell any players and keep a full squad together KNOWING that it meant you would go into admin.

Is that an ethical or fair way to run a business?

You really are clutching at straws even though this is a "More Bullmania" thread
The players brought in were under the new management.
Are you now proposing that any club that enters admin should have a permanent embargo n any new players until they have cleared all previous debts ??

You should be careful what you wish for.

Yet you want to use the absence of detail as proof of your assertion. How do you know that Wakefield "paid as many of them as much as possible"?Was it not possible to sell more? DId you need to keep them on? was it impossible that Wakefield could have saved another 50/60k on wages and paid that to creditors? Was there some pressing impassable issue that forced Wakefield to put together a squad capable of finishing 3rd from bottom (without deductions)?

How do you know this wouldnt have been available to Wakefield had they had a stadium to keep?

A penalty Wakefield didnt pay.

Thats convenient.

The amount of any payback is unknown. That there was a payback is a matter of fact, evidenced by club and RFL statements at the time and the fact that the points deduction was reduced.

The RFL bailed you out by giving you a loan against your lease, which you failed to make a single repayment against. Subsequently they had to bail you out again, as they would never see anything back.

Wakefield didn't suffer a Sky money loss...but we didn't rip off the RFL either.

Wakefield didn't go into admin BECAUSE they sold players.

Bulls went into admin (again), BECAUSE they refused to sell players.