Re: bateman and burgess : Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:43 pm  

Bulls Boy 2011 wrote:

It was £300,000.

'was' being the operative word

Just because they were willing to pay that sum back then doesn't mean they'll pay it when we are on the cusp of Administration.

Re: bateman and burgess : Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:30 pm  

All I remember seeing in print was that offer was six figures from Wire.

Re: bateman and burgess : Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:26 pm  

BeechwoodBull wrote:

All I remember seeing in print was that offer was six figures from Wire.

£1000.00

Re: bateman and burgess : Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:31 pm  

paulwalker71 wrote:

'was' being the operative word

Just because they were willing to pay that sum back then doesn't mean they'll pay it when we are on the cusp of Administration.

Fact that we've refused to sell when it could potentially avoid admin says a lot too.
Thing people forget is players aren't assets like buildings or cars. Administrator can TRY to sell them but only works if they agree personal terms.

Re: bateman and burgess : Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:38 am  

mat wrote:

Fact that we've refused to sell when it could potentially avoid admin says a lot too.
Thing people forget is players aren't assets like buildings or cars. Administrator can TRY to sell them but only works if they agree personal terms.

Their contracts are assets - see the "sale" of Lynch for £100K and he surely agreed terms that were favopurable to him
Bateman's contract is an asset, one of the most sought after in SL (or NRL ) with a potential further 14 years of playing at the top level.
I can see why clubs are making an offer now to ensure his transfer as its unclear what would happen to his contract under the various potential reformations of the Bulls.

Its well known that Burgess will complete his contract this year and go to Aus with his mother for next year.

[Bulliac]

Re: bateman and burgess : Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:38 am  

bobsmyuncle wrote:

Its well known that Burgess will complete his contract this year and go to Aus with his mother for next year.

It's more true to say that it is thought or assumed that Tom will go to Aus. And he might well, though he's had the chance before and decided against, so I'd say it's pretty much open to doubt as to exactly what he will do.

Re: bateman and burgess : Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:44 am  

He has said there is no offer on the table at present!

Re: bateman and burgess : Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:23 pm  

bobsmyuncle wrote:

Their contracts are assets - see the "sale" of Lynch for £100K and he surely agreed terms that were favopurable to him
Bateman's contract is an asset, one of the most sought after in SL (or NRL ) with a potential further 14 years of playing at the top level.
I can see why clubs are making an offer now to ensure his transfer as its unclear what would happen to his contract under the various potential reformations of the Bulls.

Its well known that Burgess will complete his contract this year and go to Aus with his mother for next year.

Yes his CONTRACT is an asset. But we can only sell that asset with the players agreement. If the player refuses to agree personal terms worst administrator can do us rip contract up. He can't force transfer through against players will. Nothing to stop someone having a word with any players were desperate to keep and guaranteeing their wages over the admin period in event they refuse transfers

Re: bateman and burgess : Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:08 pm  

yeah a bit like guilofoyle says a preffered bidder could guarentee wages during difficult period

[Bulliac]

Re: bateman and burgess : Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:41 pm  

domthebull wrote:

yeah a bit like guilofoyle says a preffered bidder could guarentee wages during difficult period

I wonder if there is one? I mean, I guess some contacts have been made, even at this early stage....I wonder who It might turn out to be....?