Re: DULLS IN ADMIN : Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:58 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

It's true, we dont know but, they did receive a loan from the RFL last season and the RFL then took over the lease on Odsal due to non payment of the loan. Therefore, regardless of the findings during the licensing process, I think its fair to say the RFL knew the true picture but, at the time it would have been unthinkable to "demote" the Bulls and allow Halifax to be promoted.
Even with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been a very difficult call.

I can't honestly see why, provided they knew the true picture, their place should have gone to Fax, which I had a funny feeling was what was going to happen, given this was the worst kept secret in years. Halifax should feel rightly agrieved. It was us they were upset with, now look. This absolutely stinks. RL loses credibility with me as a fan. God knows what the greater sporting world think. But this is exactly what I thought franchising would bring. People in boardrooms cannot be allowed to decide who has the right to play at the top table. It is too open to prejudice and corruption and the sooner it comes to an end the better. One up, one down, provided your ground meets definite, crystal clear, objective criteria.

Re: DULLS IN ADMIN : Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:37 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

I don't agree that the game is in tatters. It's just that one club decided to run itself at a level it couldn't afford. It is notable that there has been no attempt to recoup money by selling assets, i.e., players, and it seems that the Bulls club wants its cake and eat it. It wants to put a top drawer team on the park, regardless of whether or not it can afford it.

The situation in each club has been different. Crusaders were saddled with debts accrued by the previous owner. We were hit for six by the decision to call in the ground for PI, as otherwise we would have received a payment that would have sorted the tax bill out. Bulls have been relying on crowds of 10,000 that only bring in gate receipts as if there were 4,000, due to the cut prces.

Quoted for truth. Easier just to blame the RFL as the easy option than look at the real reasons. Any sports club, not just rugby league, in the most part gets into trouble because of bad management, spending money they don't have, or a mix of the two.

It's conveniently forgotten that Widnes went bust when P&R was in place. They gambled and lost to Cas in the Grand Final. Not the only ones of course.

Re: DULLS IN ADMIN : Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:16 pm  

t-r-i-n-i-t-y wrote:

Quoted for truth. Easier just to blame the RFL as the easy option than look at the real reasons.

I would agree with you - IF the RFL hadn't just subjected the Bulls to a robust and thorough process of financial scrutiny, and declared them a fit and proper club to receive a SL franchise.

The real issue here is that they've now done so with two clubs and either failed to identify the impending financial meltdown at all, or identified it but failed to act.

Re: DULLS IN ADMIN : Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:59 pm  

bren2k wrote:

The real issue here is that they've now done so with two clubs and either failed to identify the impending financial meltdown at all, or identified it but failed to act.

I suppose partially correct, if you mean the Crusaders, because of course the RFL did identify the problems and twisted their arms to drop out.

Where the RFL is to blame is the box where there has to be a certain number of members. That is why clubs like Bulls and us offer season ticket prices that are unrealistic. Although our gates are up 30%, I bet our takings aren't. The difference is that we are building a groundswell to take to a new ground. The Bulls strategy was madness. 10,000 tickets at £60 a pop equates to a 3,000 crowd paying full price, but they wanted to put on the park a team that equated to 10,000 paying full price.

Some simple maths. £180 is the going rate for a normal season ticket. Let's say the Bulls could shift 3,000 season tickets at that price. That is just about what 10,000 tickets at £60 brings in. But the Bulls can get 10,000 a week, and so the other 7,000 have paid combinations of full price and concessions. If we average that out at £15 per ticket, that is £105,000 per home game. If we multiply that by the home games per season, that is £1,365,000 they are throwing away. Now, someone remind me how much extra they need a season to survive.

Re: DULLS IN ADMIN : Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:46 pm  

Unfortunately the Bulls fans thought the Wakey fans where giving them duff info about not giving the £1/2 million to help save the club, but if they had gone into admin at the start the supporters trust would have 1/2 mill ready to invest.
Although i`ve never been one of there biggest supporters , its the fans I feel for.

Re: DULLS IN ADMIN : Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:24 am  

bren2k wrote:

I would agree with you - IF the RFL hadn't just subjected the Bulls to a robust and thorough process of financial scrutiny, and declared them a fit and proper club to receive a SL franchise.

The real issue here is that they've now done so with two clubs and either failed to identify the impending financial meltdown at all, or identified it but failed to act.

Of course they know, but because they have usually been covertly complicit to some dodgy course of actions prior to said club going pop, they adopt the stance of doing nothing and hoping it won't happen.
It's obvious to the wider RL public, why do you think it isn't to the RFL?
Just because they and the Sky peddle the myth that all is well in the SL garden, it doesn't mean they know it to be otherwise.

Re: DULLS IN ADMIN : Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:28 am  

They had ten days to come up with a buyer. If i was Caisley i would wait 5 days to see if anyone comes forward. If no one comes forward then i would look at selling as many players as possible to satisfy administrators then take over the club and start again. Think it was Guilfoyle who said on radio that the players wouldn't bring that much. I don't agree they have quite a number of players who are being well courted by several clubs. If Caisley works well with admin team i am sure they will be able to do deals to satisfy all parties. When we had players sold by admin team it was a different situation Glover didn't have control of the club and therefore couldn't have any say on what happened. Maybe once this is done and a big chunk of debt is paid off it might trigger some one to come forward with less outlay of money to be risked again.

Re: DULLS IN ADMIN : Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:56 am  

charlie63wildcat wrote:

I agree totally appalling. I was aghast at the appeal. My Hull supporting mate even chucked money in at their game at the KC; I told him he was nuts. A failing sports club is NOT A CHARITY. It was a disgusting abuse of people's good will and love for their club and, as suspected, was also a waste of time. Shame on all concerned and the RFL for allowing it to happen.

Well said Charlie.
What gets me is the fact that they asked their fans (and the wider rugby league public) to donate cash to save tham and with a bit more honesty, instead of wishful thinking, this cash could have been used to breathe life into the "new" Bulls, but now it is lost and in the longer term this will damage their efforts to gain support .

Re: DULLS IN ADMIN : Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:02 am  

supercat wrote:

They had ten days to come up with a buyer. If i was Caisley i would wait 5 days to see if anyone comes forward. If no one comes forward then i would look at selling as many players as possible to satisfy administrators then take over the club and start again. Think it was Guilfoyle who said on radio that the players wouldn't bring that much. I don't agree they have quite a number of players who are being well courted by several clubs. If Caisley works well with admin team i am sure they will be able to do deals to satisfy all parties. When we had players sold by admin team it was a different situation Glover didn't have control of the club and therefore couldn't have any say on what happened. Maybe once this is done and a big chunk of debt is paid off it might trigger some one to come forward with less outlay of money to be risked again.

A the 10 days count down, they will be more inclined to sell their top players, indeed it will become a necessesity, however, this means that maybe Leeds, Wigan, Warrington and Hull will be the destination for these players as these few clubs are the only ones with significant cash at their disposal..

Re: DULLS IN ADMIN : Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:31 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

A the 10 days count down, they will be more inclined to sell their top players,...

By 10 days, if no buyer is found, all the players will be free agents anyway - no fees to pay.

This is why players get sold for less than their market worth in these situations - the administrator will want to realise whatevercash he can.