Board index ‹ RLFANS MAIN ‹ The Virtual Terrace ‹ Bradford at risk of Administration...

wrencat1873 wrote:

The RFL wouldn't need the likes of KPMG for such an excercise, they may as well just nod their heads ?
Equally, the buying of the lease wasn't just some random "investment" to save an iconic ground from "predators", it was clearly a means of giving the Bulls some cash.
This would indicate that prior to the start of the 2012 season there was trouble at t'mill.
At this point, all parties seemed to have their collective fingers crossed and then came the request for help from supporters etc.
IMO there is no doubt that our sports governing body had knowledge of the problem but the question is, should this episode have been handled bettre ?

There were rumours circulating (can't remember whether it was here or on A.N. Other forum) back in January that Halifax had been put on three weeks' notice to be parachuted into SL as a big club was on the verge of going belly-up. Hmmm.

maurice wrote:

The emperors clothes are now being seen for what they really are, with only his closest stooges attempting to prolong the charade.
Our game is ripped apart by the direction we have been taken, its time for change and unity by inclusiveness must be our first goal.
The Luddites on here are on borrowed time, the days of pen pushers ruling the world are gone.

HAHAHAHAHA the only unity will come when you losers stop beating down the game with every opportunity. You're. just. wrong. on pretty much everything you debate as you old fart Leigh lot et al can't see past your front door.

[Kosh]

wrencat1873 wrote:

The RFL wouldn't need the likes of KPMG for such an excercise, they may as well just nod their heads ?

Really. So you reckon that any old bod is qualified to do a proper comparison of detailed business plans setting out the next three years economic activity for a sports club, do you? Just drag someone in off the street to do it maybe? That's without mentioning the clear advantage in having someone independent do the work.

A proper comparison would involve a lot of work, some of it specialist.

wrencat1873 wrote:

Equally, the buying of the lease wasn't just some random "investment" to save an iconic ground from "predators", it was clearly a means of giving the Bulls some cash.

Wrong. It was a method of getting back cash that had already been lent to the Bulls and that they had failed to pay back. Virtually 100% of the proceeds of that sale was immediately clawed back by the RFL to repay the earlier loan, leaving the Bulls with little cash and a large VAT bill.

wrencat1873 wrote:

IMO there is no doubt that our sports governing body had knowledge of the problem but the question is, should this episode have been handled bettre ?

There is little doubt that the RFL were aware that the Bulls had a cash shortfall. However, the BOD was going around assuring everyone that it was just a blip and that they could cover it. They may even have believed this to be the case. I'd guess that the first time the RFL were aware that the situation was more serious would be around the time of the Odsal sale, as they took steps at that point to retrieve their outstanding loan. From there on in things have gone downhill fast.

The problems at the Bulls are down to a mixture of incompetence and a certain degree of misfortune. I don't see what the RFL could - or rightly should - have done further TBH.

Sorry Kosh, I was refering to your own comment that KPMG would not have carried out a full audit or whatever.
If their checks were so thorough then how the hell was all of this missed.
OK, I now better understand the vat aspect of the deal, so thank you for that.
So you are telling me that the Bulls were loaned cash by the RFL and as this was not paid back, the loan was changed into a lease purchase, which included vat at 20 %, which wouldn't have been applicable on the loan ?

Homer Simpson wrote:

With filed accounts stating a Turnover of £4.6mil in 2010 droppong to £3.9m in 2011, with the same overheads it took no brain specialist to guess what was going to give. The RFL really looked into the accounts when issuing licences out didn't they?

The £500k pledged has been and gone. YOU were told it was a bottomless pit you your pledging to and still did it. Where's the return and loyalty from the Bulls now, its gone on players wages for the last 2.5 months. You were fools to pledge, it was better to buy shares in a Newco, Well at least the Boss of Thomas Cook will be happy sitting on his £15mil wages over the last 4 years while 500 staff are made redundant

Considering the licence decision was made in early 2011, how were the RFL to know Bradfords revenue would fall by £700,000 in the rest of 2011?

[Kosh]

wrencat1873 wrote:

Sorry Kosh, I was refering to your own comment that KPMG would not have carried out a full audit or whatever.
If their checks were so thorough then how the hell was all of this missed.

A full audit of a business plan is not the same as a full audit of a clubs finances. I think this is where some people are getting confused. What KPMG do as part of the franchise process is look at the top-level financial detail and the projections contained in the business plan and produce a report on how viable it all looks based on the data they are given. They have no remit or authority to drill down into the finances and make a judgement on the underlying financial situation. In the case of the Bulls it's still not clear what the true situation is and that's after weeks of investigations by all and sundry.

I made the comparison with Greece earlier. They had a far greater degree of scrutiny applied to them and still managed to hide the true situation from the EU auditors.

wrencat1873 wrote:

So you are telling me that the Bulls were loaned cash by the RFL and as this was not paid back, the loan was changed into a lease purchase, which included vat at 20 %, which wouldn't have been applicable on the loan ?

Something like that, yes. Although as with most things in this affair the details aren't 100% clear. It also seems that the Bulls BOD weren't aware of the intention of the RFL to request immediate repayment of their prior loan out of the proceeds of the sale - they thought they would be making repayment over time. Or so they claimed.

TBH there is so much misinformation and rumour flying about at the moment as the old BOD and new BOD squabble in public over who was to blame for what that getting the full picture is nigh impossible. In fact the full facts may well never come out.

Thanks for the explanation Kosh.
There is still a major issue/ fault with the financial aspect of this.
If KPMG are not going into the finances thoroughly enough to spot the "hole" that the Bulls have found themselves in, then the excercise seems totally pointless.
However,as mentioned in an earlier post, the RFL obviously knew that there was a problem, or they wouldn't have a) needed to loan monies in the first instance and b) taken on the lease. So regardless of the KPMG "checks" the RFL granted the Bulls a licence, knowing that there had some difficulties which they were helping them to "overcome".

Dico wrote:

maurice wrote:

The emperors clothes are now being seen for what they really are, with only his closest stooges attempting to prolong the charade.
Our game is ripped apart by the direction we have been taken, its time for change and unity by inclusiveness must be our first goal.
The Luddites on here are on borrowed time, the days of pen pushers ruling the world are gone.

HAHAHAHAHA the only unity will come when you losers stop beating down the game with every opportunity. You're. just. wrong. on pretty much everything you debate as you old fart Leigh lot et al can't see past your front door.

Thrush, one day you will stop scratching and embrace the wider world. That day will be life changing for you, may it come soon.

maurice wrote:

Thrush, one day you will stop scratching and embrace the wider world. That day will be life changing for you, may it come soon.

Your house to westleigh asda isn't the wider world. Hth.

[Kosh]

wrencat1873 wrote:

Thanks for the explanation Kosh.
There is still a major issue/ fault with the financial aspect of this.
If KPMG are not going into the finances thoroughly enough to spot the "hole" that the Bulls have found themselves in, then the excercise seems totally pointless.
However,as mentioned in an earlier post, the RFL obviously knew that there was a problem, or they wouldn't have a) needed to loan monies in the first instance and b) taken on the lease. So regardless of the KPMG "checks" the RFL granted the Bulls a licence, knowing that there had some difficulties which they were helping them to "overcome".

No club is going to grant the RFL/KPMG the right to rummage through their finances at will. KPMG do the job that they are asked to do, and the SL clubs have the final say on what their remit is - not the RFL.

The loan was well after the licence was granted.

Look, I know that some people desperately want to pin this on the RFL somehow but this fiasco is down to the Bulls and them alone. You might also bear in mind that the 14 teams in SL are those that put forward the best applications - this isn't necessarily the same as them being good applications. It's all relative.