Well, only sort of. Under the Insolvency Act there are only 3 statutory purposes for an administrator and the top of the list is rescuing the company as a going concern. There, the interests of fans and creditors co-incide and indeed maybe the fans are in front, since the only way that ever happens is if the creditors take a big %age hit.

Who pays the administrator?

Just musing a thought, Mr. Guilfoyle will be spoilt for choice won't he, surely both Caisley and Hood are presenting their rescue packages to him as they were both cast iron to win but only depended upon a) The other not being there; and b) the level of debt being reduced. Will there be white smoke rising from the Coral Stand when the deal is done!

He is paid out of the funds available from ongoing trading and asset realisations.



BG will be very well aware there will be bugger all of either - he has already made that clear - so he won't want to be in office for any longer than he has to be.



Prior to his appointment as administrator, he will have been paid by those who retained him and his firm, and on whose instructions he and his firm were acting and were representing. Bear in mind that the pre-admin period was very different, since Caisley will have retained his firm to carry out a specific job and in such cases a predetermined objective has already been established.

Is that Chris De Burgh?

That is a funny way of e describing the two people who put you in this mess.

I would be amazed if either of these two now passed the RFL fit and proper person test, although much the RFL does comes largely as a surprise to me!!

If it is a "funded" Administration, then the lead creditor will pay, or a group of creditors. I hope it is this for your sake, as this might allow much more time to sort out a purchaser.



It it is an "unfunded" administration, then the Administrator works unfunded but takes his payment from the proceeds of whatever deal (sale or liquidation) that eventuates. This is a very high risk position for an Administrator, one that Guilfoyle vowed he would never do again - at least in the case of a football club. In the case of PAFC, Guilfoyle drove up his fees, ignoring a biddder that met all reasonable criteria (and was the eventual purchaser) in the hope of getting a bit more cash from a known local charlatan, and then bleated loudly when he had to be negotiated down at the death. If you are in the position of having an unfunded Administration then I don't think Guilfoyle will wait long - especially if there is real value in any of your assets.

All the noises we are getting from Guilfoyle, together with the very clear and short timescale, suggest it is 'unfunded'



He's made it quite clear that he's putting his reputation on the line to try and save the Bulls, hinting that his colleagues think he's taking an unnecessary risk that is doomed to failure.



That said, I doubt he'll come out of this process without getting his pound of flesh - he didn't get his reputation by being 'nice' about things.

If only.



If I had to write a fictional future history of how this might all pan out, I'd maybe pen something like the following, since it could never really work out this way, could it?



We are now late next week, hours from the payroll having to be submitted, with seemingly no realistic expressions of interest. Everyone has been whipped up to a frantic state and become increasingly desperate as the deadline has come ever closer is upon them. The hero rides in as the "rescuer" of last resort, saying that since no-one else seems prepared to save the club he feels it is his responsibility to. What a selfless public-spirited hero, indeed!



Since the situation is by then very dire the terms are necessarily not entirely to the Bulls' advantage, of course. The Bulls go to VP, cutting BCFC's costs significantly and making their board look like heroes. The RFL surrender the lease to the council, for somewhat more than they paid for it, so the RFL board (for once) look like heroes for turning in a tidy profit. A well known guy with interests in distribution etc buys the Odsal site from the council, who make a big profit on the sale and so look heroes to the council taxpayers. He in turn creates new jobs on the site as a result, so he looks a hero to the people of Bradford.



Everyone, indeed, claims to be the hero. Its win win win all round. What a result!



And the Bulls fans and staff? Those who are retained? Well we are told we too are the winners, since we should be grateful we still have a club to support, even though with lot less to spend than previous budgets.



In my fictional account, I'd probably need to indicate whether or not this was all the plan right from the start, and whether the delay in going into administration was also planned notwithstanding further tax liabilities building up in the interim, which would then be defaulted upon. I'd probably also need to indicate whether the pledge was extremely helpful in that it reduced the amounts the new owner had to shell out, so he had no reason to have wanted to see it fail. Even if he may have been pleased that any prospective alternative funders may have been frightened off at the last minute by becoming aware of all the infighting, even though most of the pledge funds had been committed by then.



But, as I said, it would be a work of fiction and doubtless events will soon show that it never actually happened anything like that way, so it would be out of date well before I finished writing it. Wouldn't it?

Like Adey had I known who was conducting the review then the position would have been much clearer sooner. I didnt believe that it was CC's plan was to go down the Admin route until we were tod about P&A. This must have been the plan from the start.



P&A are a 2nd tier IP who do not take prisoners. Do not expect any favours.



It would beggar belief that CC having instructed P&A in the first place did not have a plan in mind.





However this is Bradford Bulls!

And I totally believe that. Utterly and completely. No, really...







In one.



Anyone know how closely he and his firm have worked with Caisley and his firm in the past?



Anyone still in any doubt why the identity of the "independent reviewer" was kept secret?

Walker Morris advised P&A Partnership on the administration of Plymouth didn't they? Correct me if I'm wrong.



If this is correct, I'm sure there will no doubt have been other dealings between the two companies.



So much for BG being an 'independant' reviewer. And yet I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that he is linked to CC.