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

Can someone clear one thing up for me? In buying Odsal did the RFL do this because it genuinely believed it was somehow an important asset to the game? No offence intended, but as a spectator I find it an atrocious ground. Not because of the dilapidation or anything, just the lack of atmosphere and distance from the pitch. If Bradford left Odsal, good riddance to the ground I say. It's always an emotional wrench, but look how much better Saints and Warrington's set-ups are since they moved. As it happens, as a Wigan fan, I'm not the biggest fan of the DW TBH, it doesn't cope well atmospherically when it gets much below full, but Odsal is by far the worst of the lot.

Kosh wrote:

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.

FWIW I agree with you.
There are 2 things that are disappointing.

1) the way in which the RFL informed the wider public that it was taking on Odsal "to save an historic and iconic ground", when it now appears that it took on the lease in lieu of non-payment of loan(s)
2) the fact that the RL world (and in particular the fans of the Bulls) were asked to pledge £500,000 (plus a further 500,000)to save the club when it now appears that this figure was grossly short of the figure needed.

The Bulls application may well have been perceived as one of the 14 strongest applications but the RL world appears to have been taken for a bit of a ride with how this situation has been "sold".

Kosh wrote:

Those questioning how the Bulls were granted a license are presumably flabbergasted that Greece was ever allowed into the Eurozone.

The franchise process involves a review of business plans alonside some basic financial checks, not an in-depth root-and-branch investigation of the commercial viability of the applicant. If someone wants to obfuscate they will do. They'll eventually be found out by events though.

So in effect everybodys applications are ' speculative ' ? , and yet only Fax were publically cruxified over theirs , I'd have thought that the Bulls giving out STs at £ 90 should have raised alarm bells to an organisation such as KMPG , it certainly raised concerns as to its viability among amatuer financial ' experts ' on here , maybe they ' speculated ' that they would bring in 20,000 per game , and the RFL believed them

[Kosh]

wrencat1873 wrote:

FWIW I agree with you.
There are 2 things that are disappointing.

1) the way in which the RFL informed the wider public that it was taking on Odsal "to save an historic and iconic ground", when it now appears that it took on the lease in lieu of non-payment of loan(s)
2) the fact that the RL world (and in particular the fans of the Bulls) were asked to pledge £500,000 (plus a further 500,000)to save the club when it now appears that this figure was grossly short of the figure needed.

The Bulls application may well have been perceived as one of the 14 strongest applications but the RL world appears to have been taken for a bit of a ride with how this situation has been "sold".

No argument from me there. I understand that complete openness is not always possible or even desirable when it comes to commercial matters, but there's been a sad lack of honesty and transparency over this case.

The only caveat I'd make is that the information currently being put into the public domain is coming from a source with a vested interest in making the last BOD look as bad as possible. I expect it's been spun to within an inch of its life.

[Kosh]

Starbug wrote:

So in effect everybodys applications are ' speculative ' ? , and yet only Fax were publically cruxified over theirs , I'd have thought that the Bulls giving out STs at £ 90 should have raised alarm bells to an organisation such as KMPG , it certainly raised concerns as to its viability among amatuer financial ' experts ' on here , maybe they ' speculated ' that they would bring in 20,000 per game , and the RFL believed them

All business plans are 'speculative', and Fax were 'crucified' because they whined like bitches and claimed it was all a fix. In public.

If the Bulls put forward a business plan that showed that any shortfall in ST revenue due to the cut price offer could be made up elsewhere, and it was credible given the information available at the time, then why would KPMG flag anything up?

You don't have much of a clue about how these things work, do you? Have you lived in a cave all your life?

Starbug wrote:

So in effect everybodys applications are ' speculative ' ?

Were you under the impression that the laws time and space would allow it to be anything other than 'speculative'

or were you thinking that the business plan that the RFL asked for was just a list of things which have happened in the past

So basically clubs can put any old shiiiite down and this then gives the RFL scope to deny crap clubs (Halifax ) and give the nod to "great" clubs (Bradford).

Who said the RFL was stoopid?

Kosh wrote:

Fax were 'crucified' because they whined like bitches and claimed it was all a fix. In public.

Indeed. What they should have done was go quietly to the Bradford BOD and ask for guidance on how to produce a strategic document which would get them a grade B license. Spend beyond their means, screw the fans out of £500k and not pay the VAT man.

I hope the Fax directors are communicating with Mr Hood right now.

Kosh wrote:

All business plans are 'speculative', and Fax were 'crucified' because they whined like bitches and claimed it was all a fix. In public.

If the Bulls put forward a business plan that showed that any shortfall in ST revenue due to the cut price offer could be made up elsewhere, and it was credible given the information available at the time, then why would KPMG flag anything up?

You don't have much of a clue about how these things work, do you? Have you lived in a cave all your life?

Hmm, looks like Halifax had something to whine and bitch about all along regarding the RFL terms of reference, are you ignoring the knife edge of existence that the Bulls are on? Fax were crucified for actually making a point publicly - and I believe now that they have been proved right about the licensing debacle

RLBandit wrote:

Can someone clear one thing up for me? In buying Odsal did the RFL do this because it genuinely believed it was somehow an important asset to the game? No offence intended, but as a spectator I find it an atrocious ground. Not because of the dilapidation or anything, just the lack of atmosphere and distance from the pitch. If Bradford left Odsal, good riddance to the ground I say. It's always an emotional wrench, but look how much better Saints and Warrington's set-ups are since they moved. As it happens, as a Wigan fan, I'm not the biggest fan of the DW TBH, it doesn't cope well atmospherically when it gets much below full, but Odsal is by far the worst of the lot.

Yes, that was the initial spin from Red Hall, it was all about saving an ‘Iconic’ Rugby League stadium from falling into the hands of despicable property developers.

However, it came to light not long after, that the RFL had lent Bradford a fair few quid before the season began (not unusual) the problem was, Bradford hadn’t paid any of it back.

So they (The RFL) then gave Bradford some more dosh & Bradford gave them the lease.

Unfortunately, when Bradford’s bank found out the lease was gone they pulled the plug.