Re: Bradford : Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:12 pm  

BBC Sport's George Riley on Twitter: "Consortium CAN afford to buy Bradford but discussing if it can afford to cover losses. Any offer would depend on RFL handing back Odsal."

Re: Bradford : Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:18 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I would say more like the responsible temporary current or recent persons operating the flagship SL club. The club itself is one of the most renowned rugby league clubs on the planet, with a great history, and great fans. It is to the eternal shame of whoever is responsible on the 2012 watch that they have let the flagship hit the rocks, but those people are not one and the same as the flagship itself, which is a million times bigger than them.

But did "the club" become "flagship" by being irresponsible financially? Did "the club" pick up its grand recent history and all the trophies on the back of financial recklessness? Are Bradford just an "ordinary" club, relatively speaking?

Re: Bradford : Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:40 pm  

Steve Fox wrote:

BBC Sport's George Riley on Twitter: "Consortium CAN afford to buy Bradford but discussing if it can afford to cover losses. Any offer would depend on RFL handing back Odsal."

As in, just giving it back for free?

Re: Bradford : Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:46 pm  

Starbug wrote:

As in, just giving it back for free?

Small price to pay to "curry" favour with potential investors

Re: Bradford : Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:47 pm  

Starbug wrote:

As in, just giving it back for free?

It's only an asset that they paid £1.25m for.

Why shouldn't they gift it to the newco?

Re: Bradford : Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:54 pm  

Steve Fox wrote:

It's only an asset that they paid £1.25m for.

Why shouldn't they gift it to the newco?

They will erect a statue at Odsal of Nigel Wood. They'll have to knock the Richard Dunn sports centre down to house it though.

Re: Bradford : Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:55 pm  

Steve Fox wrote:

BBC Sport's George Riley on Twitter: "Consortium CAN afford to buy Bradford but discussing if it can afford to cover losses. Any offer would depend on RFL handing back Odsal."

I think George got his words twisted.

Guilfoyle confirmed: “For the deal to go through we need the RFL to agree to us remaining in the top division and buying the ground back from them.

Re: Bradford : Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:10 pm  

Paul124897 wrote:

Guilfoyle confirmed: “For the deal to go through we need the RFL to agree to us remaining in the top division and buying the ground back from them.

Sounds like blackmail to me.

The RFL didn't give such assurances to a potential owner of Wakefield when they were in administration so they shouldn't give them to any potential owner of Bradford either.

But I rather think they will.

Re: Bradford : Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:19 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Sounds like blackmail to me.

The RFL didn't give such assurances to a potential owner of Wakefield when they were in administration so they shouldn't give them to any potential owner of Bradford either.

But I rather think they will.

Why is it so easy for people to jump to conclusions? The exact news release in full sounds nothing like blackmail!

Bulls administrator Brendan Guilfoyle has warned that the deal for the club’s potential buyers would be dependent on conditions.

He explained that the RFL and the 13 other Super League clubs must consent to allow Bradford to remain in the top flight of English rugby league and permit the new owners to buy back the Odsal lease.

Guilfoyle confirmed: “For the deal to go through we need the RFL to agree to us remaining in the top division and buying the ground back from them.

“We need the other clubs to agree that Super League is a poorer place without us.”

Re: Bradford : Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:33 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Sounds like blackmail to me.

The RFL didn't give such assurances to a potential owner of Wakefield when they were in administration so they shouldn't give them to any potential owner of Bradford either.

But I rather think they will.

The RFL refused to make such assurances to an extremely wealthy potential buyer of WTW, which is what prompted him to walk away from the deal.

Back then, a SL licence was NOT for sale - I wonder if that remains the case?