I'm not defending the Bulls management here but if the decision by RBS to withdraw the overdraft came out of the blue then it's difficult for them to pre plan for the repercussion.

That said I know they were treading a fine line in the hope they wouldn't face any financial adversity which isn't the most intelligent way to conduct your business. They won't be on their own in doing this though, not in SL, Rugby League, Sport or any other industry.

The current economic climate has sent thousands of businesses over the edge and thousands more operate with the sword of Damacles hanging over them.

The article fails to recognise any of this and is therefore only half right.

I may be wrong and I don't like to defend the banking industry, but wasn't the situation something like:
-BB have a biggish overdraft
-They liquidate some of their assets by selling the lease to the RFL
-They use this cash to pay off a debt to the RFL
-They don't use this cash to reduce their debt to the bank but instead ask for a slightly increased overdraft facility

I think I'd have told them to take a running jump too

I doubt if it came out of the blue. As soon as they sold the lease of Odsal to the RFL they probably lost the security they had against the overdraft so it was inevitable that the overdraft would have been reduced or withdrawn. Banks only allow overdrafts if there is something to secure that overdraft against.

I appreciate what you are saying Clan, but surely the Bulls board would have consulted the bank prior to selling the ground lease to the RFL, as this was evidently their main collateral for securing bank funding ???

If RBS told the Bulls that they'd withdraw the overdraft if they sold the lease to Odsal and the Bulls went ahead and did it anyway then they're getting all the criticism they deserve.

However...

I can't see that being the case, IMO the Bulls board must have had no inclination that selling the lease to the RFL would result in the banks actions or they wouldnt have done it because they'd definitely know it would lead to this crisis, therefore I have to assume that RBSs decision caught the Bulls by surprise.

I'm not defending the Bulls here but lets not exonerate the banks actions either, many many businesses are failing because of the refusal by the banking industry to do what the Government are insisting and start backing private enterprise. They've had their bailouts but are now flatly denying small businesses the same opportunity to survive and in lots of cases it's their actions in drying up cash flow that's sending otherwise sound businesses bust in these tough times.

Maybe its just mischief making on the back of the Bulls news but some Cas fans are getting excited at a rumour that the Wakey players haven't been paid this month. Don't believe it for a second but how do these rumours start?

I will reiterate that apart from this aspect the Bulls BoD seem to have behaved with a level of incompetency and a culture of head in the sand policies rather than admit they'd fallen from their lofty perch. That doesn't mean we should ignore the other parties involved as the article from Liverpool does.

Idiot fans who can't help themselves spitting acid and spewing bile when it comes to their rivals, even if they have to make stuff up!

We've just spent a fortune revamping Belle Vue, signed a new player just yesterday and recently added a new Director to the BoD, all signs of a club that can't pay it's players wages.

Or maybe these rumours from Cas are the desperate thrashings of a drowning man just before he sinks.

This.

No truth whatsoever. I did here that one of our players hasn't always received part of his wage when he should have though. Just one player mind, thats missing about a third of his salary most months. Can you guess who it is...?

I honestly cant see how the RBS can be responsible for anything other than not wasting the tax payers money!
The time line as i see it is this:
1 The Bulls are in trouble and need some money, the RFL come in with £1m (forget about the spin, the bank are in a better position to know the extent of the Bulls troubles more than anyone else receiving a Bulls press release).
2. As a result of the above the overdraft security is diminished.
3. The Bulls need extra money (higher overdraft) from RBS, who review the situation, because for the second time in a few months the Bulls are out of funds.
4. The RBS Decide that the security is not high enough due to points 1&2 for their previous level of lending so it is certainly not high enough for the new lending, added onto that they would like the Bulls to reduce their level of lending to a more modest level in keeping with their new lower level of security.
5. This creates a new debt added to the HMRC and payroll worries and the huge amount of money needed to fill the hole.
THE FUTURE: They will also have the image rights issue to contend with shortly and the continued running of the club and for that reason, the RBS have quite rightly acted in the correct manner.

The blame lies 100% with the people running the club, and if the people of bradford wish to waste their money thats up to them, but i wouldnt spend a penny until there were assurances that the BOD would resign if the money was raised through pledging.
The supporters are effectively now party to keeping these people in jobs, covering up the mess and prolonging the inevitable.

One thing that does confuse me is the RFLs ability to lend "certain" clubs, vast amounts of money, which only comes out long after the event and usually when its about to disappear. How do these people continue to get away with propping up certain clubs and wasting so much of the games money in the process??

End of the day franchises are supposed to be run like businesses. Someone didn't forsee the causality of selling the ground and that it would have a massive effect on finances. Even the RFL who is supposed to be a business model should have seen that the bank would have withdrawn credit for Bulls if the borrower had no assets left.

I know Bradford are under the impression they don't need to sell players. But surely selling 3 or 4 would raise at least 100-150k and could make all the difference. Considering the situation they're in i'm sure clubs would loan them players without Bradford having to foot the bill.

They seem very stubborn with regards to such a serious situation!

The only caveat to that is in a business of the size and scale of BB, the BoD should have spoken to their bank before taking a decision to sell the lease, particularly if they knew that their credit facility was guaranteed by the value of the lease.

From personal experience, the bank would probably have sought other guarantees, such as personal ones from members of the BoD; I wonder if that happened?

Bradford are in cloud cuckoo land take young Briggs back at Fev they still pay most of his wage and its way over the top for a player who had no SL experience when they signed him to a lesser degree Southernwood at Dewsbury

rlhttps://www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/news/5791/BULLS%20CHAIRMAN%20CLARIFIES%20CLUB%27S%20BANKING%20RELATIONSHIPrl
Bulls 'clarify' banking position, do you think Peter Hood is releated to Richard Wright???