PLEASE LOGIN or REGISTER FOR FEWER ADS, MORE LIVE FEATURES & CLUB RELATED NEWS
GOOGLE REPORTS FOR THE PAST MONTH : Unique Users 115,772 Pageviews 5,467,188.
WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - Is it time for the RFL...
 

Post Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:51 pm
Ferocious Aardvark User avatar
Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 8:26 pm
Posts: 24918
Location: MACS0647-JD


M@islebugs wrote:
Sorry I thought Mick was saying something other than that Guilfoyle is really lazy and just can't be bothered returning calls.

I don't know we didn't have a buyer before the meeting although Martyn Sadler says he knew of two consortium preparing bids last week, and I don't know we have 5 now. However, I'm intrigued to know what you think happened at the meeting to facilitate such a change.


The only comment on buyers from Guilfoyle before the meeting had been to say that none had come forward. He could, of course, be truthful, or lying, but it is what he said. After the meeting Guilfoyle said :
"It has already had an effect. One businessman who had rejected any involvement rang me after the meeting and said he had changed his mind. He has now asked to look at the numbers, based on the loyalty and support shown by fans."


In the YP is is reported:
Yesterday it emerged there were potentially four consortiums interested in purchasing the club and saving it from liquidation, two of which were directly approached by the Rugby Football League.

The RFL have expressed their optimism over the future of the Bulls after fielding interest from the business community.

RFL director of standards and licensing Blake Solly said: “We have been contacted by a number of groups who have expressed a desire to take Bradford Bulls forward and will forward on full details to the administrator.

We are also aware that the administrator has received other bids


I would be mildly curious as to how come each of the number of groups turned up by the RFL hadn't been unearthed by the administrator in his efforts to find a buyer, but it's not top of my list.

Neither you or I "know" whether there were no buyers, or are now 5, and it is with respect silly for you to make the comment since unless you were Guilfoyle or worked with him, you can't "know", but what reason do you suggest I have to doubt the reports? Has Guilfoyle disputed them? Do you?
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Post Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:53 pm
Adeybull User avatar
Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2001 12:04 pm
Posts: 14145
Location: At the Gates of Delirium
MB: Thanks for breaking cover. Your true colours exposed now.

There are any number of people on here who know who I am. They also know me well enough to be able to form their own views regarding your allegations, and what actions I may have taken in support of the welfare of the club.

I make no attempt to hide behind a username; people know who I am. Can the same be said about you?
Post Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 pm
MicktheGled User avatar
Silver RLFANS Member
Silver RLFANS Member

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:24 pm
Posts: 7206
Location: The Provident Stadium, Odsal.
M@islebugs wrote:
Sorry I thought Mick was saying something other than that Guilfoyle is really lazy and just can't be bothered returning calls.

I don't know we didn't have a buyer before the meeting although Martyn Sadler says he knew of two consortium preparing bids last week, and I don't know we have 5 now. However, I'm intrigued to know what you think happened at the meeting to facilitate such a change.


Seeing as you are party to Mr Guilfoyle's agenda and exterior motives, can you please ask him what he was doing with Chris Caisley in the Lister Arms Weatherspoons - Ilkley?
Post Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:16 pm
M@islebugs Free-scoring winger
Free-scoring winger

Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 1348
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
The only comment on buyers from Guilfoyle before the meeting had been to say that none had come forward. He could, of course, be truthful, or lying, but it is what he said. After the meeting Guilfoyle said :
In the YP is is reported:
I would be mildly curious as to how come each of the number of groups turned up by the RFL hadn't been unearthed by the administrator in his efforts to find a buyer, but it's not top of my list.

Neither you or I "know" whether there were no buyers, or are now 5, and it is with respect silly for you to make the comment since unless you were Guilfoyle or worked with him, you can't "know", but what reason do you suggest I have to doubt the reports? Has Guilfoyle disputed them? Do you?



So the 'Sherlock Holmes' discovery was that a bloke came up and talked to him? Really?

Just to place in context, earlier in the thread Adeybull refers to the possibility of Guilfoyle 'doing it deliberately but knows the game is now up and he has no choice but to talk to others.'

Mat states 'the public meeting forced him to acknowledge the other potential investors.'

I don't think anyone is in doubt what's being suggested here.
Post Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:20 pm
M@islebugs Free-scoring winger
Free-scoring winger

Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 1348
MicktheGled wrote:
Seeing as you are party to Mr Guilfoyle's agenda and exterior motives, can you please ask him what he was doing with Chris Caisley in the Lister Arms Weatherspoons - Ilkley?



Mick, I'm not party to anything. There is no agenda other than people trying to do what they can to save the mess they've found. I don't know if Guilfoyle and Caisley met in the Listers toilet and had sex. You're missing the point. You and others are being fed information for a reason. Who told you Bateman and Whitehead were meeting Moran the other week?
Post Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:24 pm
M@islebugs Free-scoring winger
Free-scoring winger

Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 2:31 pm
Posts: 1348
Adeybull wrote:
MB: Thanks for breaking cover. Your true colours exposed now.

There are any number of people on here who know who I am. They also know me well enough to be able to form their own views regarding your allegations, and what actions I may have taken in support of the welfare of the club.

I make no attempt to hide behind a username; people know who I am. Can the same be said about you?



What? You want to meet me?
Last edited by M@islebugs on Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:40 pm
ROBINSON User avatar
Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:51 pm
Posts: 14135
Stul wrote:
...to bypass the seemingly hard to reach Adminstrator and speak directly to new potential investors, with a view to transferring the licence to the most suitable candidate?


Sadly, they won't be allowed to.

An administrator takes over the running of a failed business, and only he has the power to make decisions with regards to it. The RFL wouldn't have any decision making power whatsoever, and cannot force the administrator to make contact with interested parties.

That said, the administrator is legally bound to find the best possible solution for creditors, and failing to negotiate with potential buyers could be seen as negligence, and he can be struck off from his position if it were serious enough.

The whole affair regarding not notifying players and what have you sounds like incompetence, rather than intent, to me. In any case, I don't understand why he would fail to speak to players? It's no skin off his nose - he's not the one who caused the problem, he's merely trying to sort it out.

So, basically, it's no wonder he's being tarred with being Caisley's puppet.
"I've not come 'alfway round t'world fot watch us lose. And I've come halfway round t'world, an' av watched um lose"
Post Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:40 pm
The Chronicler of Chiswic User avatar
Bronze RLFANS Member
Bronze RLFANS Member

Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2002 3:34 pm
Posts: 4584
Location: Now the Man from Oswestry.
The one body to be VERY wary of in all this is HMRC. In 2005 they chose to close us down and forfeit all that they were owed (£3 million) rather than take (if I remember correctly) 40% so that the taxpayer got diddly squat. All this talk of administration and CVAs will count for nowt if HMRC are in a nasty temper.
Freedom is always the freedom of those who think differently - Rosa Luxemburg.
Post Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:43 pm
Stul Free-scoring winger
Free-scoring winger

Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:34 pm
Posts: 1085
ROBINSON wrote:
Sadly, they won't be allowed to.

An administrator takes over the running of a failed business, and only he has the power to make decisions with regards to it. The RFL wouldn't have any decision making power whatsoever, and cannot force the administrator to make contact with interested parties.

That said, the administrator is legally bound to find the best possible solution for creditors, and failing to negotiate with potential buyers could be seen as negligence, and he can be struck off from his position if it were serious enough.

The whole affair regarding not notifying players and what have you sounds like incompetence, rather than intent, to me. In any case, I don't understand why he would fail to speak to players? It's no skin off his nose - he's not the one who caused the problem, he's merely trying to sort it out.

So, basically, it's no wonder he's being tarred with being Caisley's puppet.


That's not what I'm getting at. Let Bradford Northern (1964) die under Guilfoyle and let Bradford Bulls (2012) have the licence, players and ground under new owners, with the backing of the RFL.

I realise the RFL can't make Guilfoyle do anything, but the licence is the RFL's ball and they can decide who plays with it.
Post Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:53 pm
Adeybull User avatar
Gold RLFANS Member
Gold RLFANS Member

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2001 12:04 pm
Posts: 14145
Location: At the Gates of Delirium
The Chronicler of Chiswic wrote:
The one body to be VERY wary of in all this is HMRC. In 2005 they chose to close us down and forfeit all that they were owed (£3 million) rather than take (if I remember correctly) 40% so that the taxpayer got diddly squat. All this talk of administration and CVAs will count for nowt if HMRC are in a nasty temper.


And are looking to set further examples a la Rangers - which I believe they could well do.

As I said elswewhere, it might well be that their reaction to a CVA proposal would be very much influenced by their assessment of the intentions, honourability and cuplability of those who stood to gain from it. The Caisley camp could argue strongly that they did not cause the problem, and have been trying since their coup to sort it out, albeit ultimately ending in total failure. The Hood camp could claim that they sought to work with HMRC and made full disclosure and thereby obtained time-to-pay payment arrangements which they were then unable to deliver on due to being ousted. Any otehr camp could point out that they had nothing whatsoever to do with it, and a plague on all their houses. But I'd not want to try and guess HMRC's appetite for making an example, after the Rangers debacle.
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bets'y Bulls, childofthenorthern and 50 guests

Quick Reply

   

Return to Bradford Bulls - RedAmberandBlack.net



All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.

Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, the RLSA (Rugby League Supporters Association) or the 100% League Network is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites, please email the author of this sub-site if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2014 RLFANS.COM