Thing people aren't realising is that the 400k figure bandied about isn't a debt. Ts a deficit on the projected incomes for the coming year. If we'd carried on without taking action we would have been 400k in debt at the end of the season. The deficit came to light because the new board redid all the budget forecasts after they took over and were more realistic in their projected incomes than the previous owner. They've reduced outgoing by losing some back room staff and releasing winterstein. At the same time they've increased incoming funds with new sponsorship deals.
From memory when wakey had a similar figure to save when MC took over it was an immediate debt which needed paying hence the need to raise funds quickly by selling players. Bulls situation is different as we had time to deal with issue before it became an actual debt.

Exactly the same thing we've had to post numerous times in response to largely the same stuff directed at us; people tend to see the figure, their eyes gloss over and they assume it's a debt - repeat it a few times and before you know it, the received wisdom is that x club is y 00's of 000's in debt.

I don't like what's gone on up at Odsal in recent years but if the new owners are managing to bring the finances back into alignment - fair play to them; if not and it goes belly up mid-season, then I guess one of the relegation spots will be pre-determined.

An addition to that is you cannot force players to leave who are already cantracted to 2014 and beyond. Most other SL clubs have their squads complete for 2014. In the WTW scenerio other SL clubs were building up there player rosta's for 2014 - hence Poore to HKR, Smith to Salford and so on.

I really couldn't care less what happens at Bradford.

Yep. If they stay good for them, if they go so be it.

I don't care about a Bradford but it has to be looked at if is as suggested that a club 'rolls the dice' with their finances this season to stay in Super League whilst a more financially frugal carefully managed club gets relegated in their place by not overspending.

I can't see how Bulls are, as you say rolling any dice. The club might want to trim the squad down but players simply don't want to leave. They can't just sack players when they have legally binding contracts.

The only other alternative would be to go into administration - and it wasn't that long ago that this same option to WTW was blocked by the RFL. The same might apply to Bulls for all we know.

good luck to them if they have managed to do this without having to sell but I'd be concerned if I was Carter and it cost us a place for the season after

It does make you wonder doesn't it; if Bradford, having been helped beyond the wildest dreams of any other club, manage to scrape through this season and avoid the drop, we could have a genuine grievance. As far as I'm aware, we were prevented from signing players in the off-season until our financial future was secured (by Messrs Carter and Brereton's mortgages) and although we had an advance of Sky money, it is to be repaid.

Quote: bren2k " Perhaps Daddycool could explain then, seeing as he's said himself in this article www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news ... 3/2013/10/ : "are still things coming out of the woodwork, but we have paid a large chunk of the debts we inherited." Even your own chairman says debts. In terms of Bradford, the quote about money next season is because they get the full allocation of Sky money - i.e. £600k more.

Quote: bren2k " Perhaps Daddycool could explain then, seeing as he's said himself in this article www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/news ... 3/2013/10/ : "are still things coming out of the woodwork, but we have paid a large chunk of the debts we inherited." Even your own chairman says debts. In terms of Bradford, the quote about money next season is because they get the full allocation of Sky money - i.e. £600k more.

Not going to argue - it's futile when you cannot have a reasonable discussion on here with you Bren. If you prefer to act childish, so be it. However, it has always been mentioned in tandem with debt, as this video also proves www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/23950797 Within first few mins it's said that the club has some immediate and pressing debts left from previous regime that need attention and therefore need £400k. Perhaps it's not meant in that way but all and sundry have reported it as debts and therefore I must question why the club have not bothered to correct this if it is indeed an error. I no doubt expect some other childish response; this hasn't even got anything to do with the other forum. It was a genuine point as to why it's referred to as debt everywhere and, in that sense, you can hardly ridicule people for stating that themselves.

Not going to argue - it's futile when you cannot have a reasonable discussion on here with you Bren. If you prefer to act childish, so be it. However, it has always been mentioned in tandem with debt, as this video also proves www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/23950797 Within first few mins it's said that the club has some immediate and pressing debts left from previous regime that need attention and therefore need £400k. Perhaps it's not meant in that way but all and sundry have reported it as debts and therefore I must question why the club have not bothered to correct this if it is indeed an error. I no doubt expect some other childish response; this hasn't even got anything to do with the other forum. It was a genuine point as to why it's referred to as debt everywhere and, in that sense, you can hardly ridicule people for stating that themselves.