Board index ‹ Super League ‹ Bradford Bulls - RedAmberandBlack.net ‹ Latest financial situation - all posts here

what are the actual assets of Bradford Bulls to tempt a new investor if Administration is the only way forward

isaac1 wrote:

I am not a Caisley fan at all. I find him arrogant and cocky beyond belief and he's told us just as many untruths as Hood has over the years I am sure. I just think that we need to be balanced and accept that Hood's and Caisley's boards have equally contributed to this demise, by their actions and inactions! And there have been some external factors. Neither has accepted that the business wasnt viable commercially under their watch and both have doen things that have led to us being where we are now!

In my opinion. The Bulls have wrongly banked on the Stadium being renovated or rebuilt. the failure of this scheme to materialise is the key event. The club's failure to accept this and clinging on to the hope of a new ground as being the one thing that can save us, is what had led us down this path. Both camps, Caisley and Hood are as guilty as each other for this.

Caisley's renegotiation of the deal on Odsal in 2002/3 led to the club hvaing more liabilities for the Odsal upkeep, and more opportunities to grow the business going forward. But as the stadium development stalled and died, the club has cut and cut until there is nothing left to cut, without actually admitting just how bad things had got. Hood's failure to see that the stadium wouldnt happen, and his subsequent head in the sand approach, compounded the failures of Caisley.

In all honesty, I feel that the impending Administration and possible liquidadtion and rebirth via a newco could, and should have been done sooner. The pledge money propped the club up for a month before we started missing payments !

Again, the personalities of Hood and Caisley (and their cohorts) delayed and further damaged what could be salvaged as both looked to blame the other!

We'd be better off with a new broom. And the only way I can see this happening is through CAisley getting control through Admin and heading a newco, which then allows him to take his moeny, and run. Short term pain, for hopefully, long term gain.

To be honest my view of CC is clouded by attempts to engage him in a few words ten or more years back. A couple of times, at away games, I found him standing around, hands in pockets just looking around, so I wasn't interrupting anything when I said, "Hi, nice day for the game" (or somesuch) and the response was just a grunt and an obvious I don't want to talk shrug. PH, on the other hand was always polite, pleasant and willing to indulge in a few pleasantries with a fan. Obviously, none of this has anything to do with suitability to run the club but when it comes to it, I suspect I know which of the two has the more friends. Though not necessarily in high places............

Bulliac wrote:

A couple of times, at away games, I found him standing around, hands in pockets just looking around, so I wasn't interrupting anything when I said, "Hi, nice day for the game" (or somesuch) and the response was just a grunt and an obvious I don't want to talk shrug.

Or it could just be the effect you have on people. I've always found Chris (as he likes me to call him) to be open, friendly and down to earth. No really.

You Ilkley lot are all the same.

Adeybull wrote:

You Ilkley lot are all the same.

As I was saying to Rowland only last night...

He tells me you call him "Rowsie" and he calls you "Tiggsie".

Bulliac wrote:

To be honest my view of CC is clouded by attempts to engage him in a few words ten or more years back. A couple of times, at away games, I found him standing around, hands in pockets just looking around, so I wasn't interrupting anything when I said, "Hi, nice day for the game" (or somesuch) and the response was just a grunt and an obvious I don't want to talk shrug. PH, on the other hand was always polite, pleasant and willing to indulge in a few pleasantries with a fan. Obviously, none of this has anything to do with suitability to run the club but when it comes to it, I suspect I know which of the two has the more friends. Though not necessarily in high places............

Same here. Used to enjoy sinking a few snakey b's with PH in the Craven Heifer. CC though wasn't that chatty when I bumped into him in Jack Fulton's.

Bulliac wrote:

To be honest my view of CC is clouded by attempts to engage him in a few words ten or more years back. A couple of times, at away games, I found him standing around, hands in pockets just looking around, so I wasn't interrupting anything when I said, "Hi, nice day for the game" (or somesuch) and the response was just a grunt and an obvious I don't want to talk shrug. PH, on the other hand was always polite, pleasant and willing to indulge in a few pleasantries with a fan. Obviously, none of this has anything to do with suitability to run the club but when it comes to it, I suspect I know which of the two has the more friends. Though not necessarily in high places............

Having seen and been involved with both at close quarters, one struck me as polite, gentlemanlike and more happy to converse with fans than his dour exterior might at first suggest, and the other as extremely assertive, forthright, very brusque and seemingly uninterested in conversing with fans. The latter would IMO quite probably be more effective in bullying his and the club's adversaries into submission, but I suspect also in putting a lot more people's backs up along the way. I guess its a moot point as to whether the one outweighs the other. I personally favour compromise over confrontation, but accept that compromising may not be the best approach in all circumstances.

Adeybull wrote:

Having seen and been involved with both at close quarters, one struck me as polite, gentlemanlike and more happy to converse with fans than his dour exterior might at first suggest, and the other as extremely assertive, forthright, very brusque and seemingly uninterested in conversing with fans. The latter would IMO quite probably be more effective in bullying his and the club's adversaries into submission, but I suspect also in putting a lot more people's backs up along the way. I guess its a moot point as to whether the one outweighs the other. I personally favour compromise over confrontation, but accept that compromising may not be the best approach in all circumstances.

Indeed so Adey. Sometimes the right answer is somewhere between two competing points, but often it has to be accepted that one of the views is just plain wrong. The man (or woman) who could consistently work out which is which would be worth their weight in gold. And probably unique..

Blunt, brusque and to the point, that Mr. Caisley:

"Iestyn is a registered Bradford player and his registration has been effected with the Rugby League. I know nothing about Leeds and Leeds isn't an issue for me."

Later:

"[Hetherington said} "Our argument is not with the RFL, it is with the breach of contract." Bradford chairman Chris Caisley accused Leeds of "mis-information" and said it was "blindingly obvious" Bulls have a valid contract with Harris.

But of course Caisley and Coulby have both said that the Harris farrago was not the reason for the Bulls' financial difficulties, so that's alright then.