To be honest Green and Ferres were a bit naughty in the season ticket

Marketing department though were they not?



This year's campaign was a blinder a few weeks before admin.

I never said they would be benevolent. Read what I have put, have I ever said this anywhere? No. If Roberts was serious about RL in Bradford he would have bought the Bulls outright. Same with Sawrij. Again they just wanted the land that Odsal was on and the lease for the stadium in order to develop the land.







Yes they were offering to buy the company. How could they not be? The company was in admin. It is known fact that there were bids in to buy the company out of administration. However the bids were deemed to not be paying the creditors enough of the debt to consider a sale. The assets were sold after liquidation, why do you think Cha-Low had to buy some back from the administrators and from Thorne?







You said this on page 5 - "[iCertainly, the creditors won't now get a penny from Cha-Low so I'm struggling to see what's "better.[/i"



I replied with - "[iObviously the creditors won't get anything from Cha-Low as they created a brand new company

What ties do they have to the Marc Green owned company?[/i"



Meaning why would the creditors get anything from Cha-Low? They didn't buy the club out of admin. We were liquidated. They have no ties to the old company so why would they pay creditors anything? And when a club is liquidated all the debts go with it. Surely you knew this? But don't let that stop you from putting words in my mouth.







Well considering the fraud team from HMRC are investigating him I am sure they have a bloody good reason too. He committed fraud with his old company and allegedly committed fraud with the Bulls. Not paying tax is a criminal offence? Well on that I'm not sure, I always thought it was but fraud definitely is.







Yes I believe, based on information I have been told. I am aware that on this forum many people 'claim' to be in the know a lot, throw it in your face and never give anything away. That is why I don't constantly bang on about things I hear or am told on here.









Of course I know it's an important factor because it was the ONLY factor the bidders were bothered about. So your saying that if the lease was part of the deal and the RFL didn't pull it from the deal. The Bulls would have been bought by either Roberts or Sawrij? But the club was still on the table? All they had to do was provide a financially secure Bradford Bulls for 2 years (until 2019 when the rugby lease runs out) and then negotiations could be done. Fact is they wanted the lease and ground and weren't bothered about the RL or the club. Funny, I remember a lot of people on here saying the same thing as me when the bids were coming in. A lot of concern about their intentions and just wanting the land.







Yes the company owning the Bulls did die. Yup they started from scratch. We will see if we can hack it in due time. Again you keep mentioning we don't have money. Could you please provide proof of this? Or are you making an educated guess?



I will apologise. We weren't saved you are correct. My mistake. I should have said professional RL in Bradford was saved and the brand was saved. We still have the Bulls. Not a brand new identity all together.



Also I'd appreciate less of the condescending tone please. I am an adult with a degree in Sports Development which is all about strategies, plans, making connections and links mixed in with Sports Business Management. So I do have some idea. All I am trying to do here is share my knowledge and experience on these matters.

Nobody offered to buy the company. the reason is because if they did, they buy the debts. As long as the company lives, it owes the debts.



Everybody offered to buy the company's business from the administrator. Then, if agreed, the new company takes over the business. But the old company is wound up and liquidated.



The asset sale is straightforward, the RFL bought them so as to be able to sell them on to a new owner.





Er, if they deemed the return of 6 league points was enough value for money. If they had the money.





Neither of us know the motives of the bidders, you are just speculating. The RFL seem to have thought enough about the motives of a couple of them at least to engage in lengthy talks. But yes, in principle, and as I've always said, unless a sugar daddy comes along, only people with a plan to make some money are likely to be in the frame. I would take the view that it is up to the RFL to ensure that any deal includes copper bottomed safeguards for rugby league and as they hold that whip hand (as no membership of RFL, no deal) it wouldn't matter much that a buyer wasn't mad keen on RL - if they were obligated.





How could I have "proof"? I'm hardly privy to financial info on random geezers from NZ. They clearly have no substantial money THAT THEY WANT TO SPEND ON BRADFORD BULLS is how I would put it, I conclude this from the snippets that we read about such as having to borrow the HMRC deposit, and the alleged continuing cash bailouts by the RFL. They may have millions in their bank,or nothing, I don't know, and i don't care, the only thing that matters to me is whether they are prepared to plough in the sort of money that would make the difference. I see no sign, and so base my opinion on their actions.





Fair enough.

At least Woody's finally pinned his colours to the mast https://scontent.fman2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=59023E52

At least Woody's finally pinned his colours to the mast https://scontent.fman2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=59023E52

I heard a bit of a rumour yesterday that may be completely unfounded but.....



Does anyone think that Chalmers and Lowe are some how involved with Koukash?

The previous and current ties to Salford are there for all to see.



I heard something else yesterday but don't want to get crucified on here if i'm wrong.



What are your thoughts?? It would in a fashion make sense of the silence for now..

I would think it had some legs if we seemed to have a pot to p*ss in. Since it seems we don't, I can't think Koukash is involved.

can someone tell me whats going on then?????? ha ha ha

:132ga4a6



For the millionth [well, it feels like it.. time, the rugby lease:132ga4a6 does NOT, continues to pay the agreed rent to the council then RL is safe at Odsal for the next 100 years or so. None of that, to the best of my knowledge, precludes the owners of the club introducing commercial aspects to the site in order to gain better income from it, but I can't imagine the RFL, or indeed the council, sanctioning anything which prevents RL being played there. Unless, of course, another more manageable ground could be found or built within the city.

You worded it much better than I! I meant like we are not necessarily tied to Odsal after 2019 as we don't have to play there. RFL own the lease not the Bulls so once our contract to play the majority of our games there goes we don't have it as a millstone? Could be wrong though. I mean you seem to know more in this aspect of it than I.



No I agree, the RFL won't want anything preventing RL from being played there. But would I be right in saying that after 2019 and that Odsal settlement game deal runs out, the Bulls could decide against playing there. Therefore the RFL would have no choice but to sell the lease for development otherwise it becomes a black hole they are paying for.



My own personal thoughts on the matter is that sooner or later something will be done with Odsal and it wouldn't surprise me if the RFL does follow through and move themselves to Odsal!

that it would have been 'front-loaded' as in if they'd reneged on the deal in, say 2005, they'd have had much more to pay back than now, when it's nearly up anyway. Though, potentially that may not be the case.



Theoretically, the club could decide it wasn't worth the money, particularly as we have to pay the very expensive upkeep, though clearly, that would mean upsetting the game's governing body and whether that is wise is a moot point. It was always said, at the time the 'settlement' deal was struck that the club might need to bring in capital from outside the game to do any serious upgrades. To me, that probably meant retail, like a supermarket on the site, or some such, or some other smaller industrial use for part of the land - it is quite enormous, let's not forget.



As for us moving out and the RFL selling on their lease to an outsider, we shouldn't forget that the council are the landlords and the RFL have a lease to a rugby ground, so their plans may well be limited, mainly due to the council wanting to be first in the queue to gain money if the stadium is not to remain a rugby ground. I'm no lawyer, and have never seen the lease, but I'd guess that selling their lease for a totally non-rugby purpose might well break the terms they took it out on. So, basically I'm saying that, if the ground were to be totally sold off, even as part of a deal which got us a new ground, then I believe the council would need to fully involved.

All that happens come May 2019 is this:



The tenant (i.e. the RFL) no longer has to use the ground for playing rugby league.

Subject to planning permission, they can after then do whatever they want.



Except they can't, because they now have a sub-tenant (us)

So they have to stick to whatever terms are in our sub-lease for as long as our sub-lease lasts. As we are in occupation and unless we agree, they can't interfere with our occupation.

Just to add to the conspiracy theory but is that not our chairman sat with Marwan?