Re: Bulls Takeover : Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:05 am  

Are the creditors >1yr not normally directors/shareholders/bank loans? ie planned repayment, that sort of thing?
Creditors falling due within 1yr of £280k, I'm actually fairly happy with as they tend to be the more volatile ones.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:18 pm  

nestegg wrote:

Agree 'Nothus'.

And that is the figure as of January this year, and as far as we are aware suppliers have allegedly not been paid anything substantial post end 1/19. And that accrued debt excludes our £150K plus alleged misappropriated funds bombshell, which will likely be disclosed over the coming weeks.

As Martin Wildbull will probably tell you these abridged figures/ accounts don't in all likelihood tell the whole story. We further fear that sums of cash may well have been taken out of the business. The Bulls is to a certain extent a cash generative business and it's nigh on impossible to trace where all the cash ends up and in who's pockets it may have allegedly been deposited.

Of course we may be 100% mistaken in respect of all of the above and everything to do with the Bulls/BB17 (and the RFL) may be whiter than white both historically and moving forward.

Cash generative business!!! What planet are you on? Chalmers or whoever was backing him has most likely put £1.2m of cash into the business. That is what the creditors due over 1 year are likely to be. The increase in creditors under a year is the critical one, but do not forget that the date is January this year when there would probably be more season ticket receipts in that figure (and was in the bank account figure but as you can see has then been paid out as the bank account has gone down from £91k to £1k.

No wonder he was talking to people back in March. No wonder he wanted to cut the overheads, because putting about £600k cash into the bulls every year is not sensible.

If any cash has gone out of the business then it would likely be money due to Chalmers or his backer, who are creditors like any other.

So the tally now is: OK put £1.5m of his own cash into the Bulls, Green put £1.0 Million pounds of his own cash into the bulls, Chalmers has put £1.2m of his/a n others cash into the bulls. to me that proves they are idiots not thieves.

One thing I do agree on Nestegg, is it smells, and a totally independent review is needed.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:50 pm  

Highlander wrote:

Are the creditors >1yr not normally directors/shareholders/bank loans? ie planned repayment, that sort of thing?
Creditors falling due within 1yr of £280k, I'm actually fairly happy with as they tend to be the more volatile ones.

Debt is debt, irrespective of what it is.
What is also incredibly alarming is the movement compared to the prior year. Creditors >1 year have gone from £674k to over £1.2m. They've almost doubled in the space of a year!

Without the full accounts we will never know any further detail behind the numbers, unfortunately.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:58 pm  

Mr Dog wrote:

The 1st notice of strike off comes after 2 months with 2 months grace to comply - Batley seem to have them issued fairly regularly in early Oct with accounts due end of July (currently have one issued on 1st Oct) and also in March for not filing Confirmation Statements that are due in the preceding January. You would think someone there could learn to use a diary to remind them to file!

Agreed - strike off not winding up petition. The difference, for those other Mr Dog and me, is that a WUP is terminal and prejudicial to creditors shareholders etc etc. so Companies House destroying a viable business because the accounts were late would not go down well. Strking off is not so terminal, and is used as Mr Dog illustrates, when the business has a record of late submissions. Changing accounting date is a good trick, one time we shortened one year by a month and got longer to submit - work that one out!???

Re: Bulls Takeover : Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:20 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

Agreed - strike off not winding up petition. The difference, for those other Mr Dog and me, is that a WUP is terminal and prejudicial to creditors shareholders etc etc. so Companies House destroying a viable business because the accounts were late would not go down well. Strking off is not so terminal, and is used as Mr Dog illustrates, when the business has a record of late submissions. Changing accounting date is a good trick, one time we shortened one year by a month and got longer to submit - work that one out!???

You don't even need to do that, you can just shorten by a day, prepare the accounts to the same year end date, and get an extra 3 months to file.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:25 pm  

Nothus wrote:

You don't even need to do that, you can just shorten by a day, prepare the accounts to the same year end date, and get an extra 3 months to file.

yes that is an option, but in a lifetime of bean counting I have never prepared daily accounts. Better to avoid the need for tricks like period end changes but as Nothus and Hot Dog would agree, you can never tell what s**t lies around the corner. Except for the Bulls of course, where its more a matter of when it comes around the corner, but at least no points deduction and one of the problems dragging us down has been addressed, so straight on to sorting out the RFL.

Looks like we should be grateful Wood got his golden handshake...

Re: Bulls Takeover : Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:37 pm  

So lots of people are losing money in owning/investing in the Bulls. Just like most RL clubs and more than they seem to have imagined when they got involved.

That Balance Sheet looks similar and in fact more healthy than a lot of other clubs (just check out London, Wigan, Huddersfield etc).

Can anyone tell me what the actual conspiracy is here that people seem to get exercised over? People buy club/lose money/sell club.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:40 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

Cash generative business!!! What planet are you on? Chalmers or whoever was backing him has most likely put £1.2m of cash into the business. That is what the creditors due over 1 year are likely to be. The increase in creditors under a year is the critical one, but do not forget that the date is January this year when there would probably be more season ticket receipts in that figure (and was in the bank account figure but as you can see has then been paid out as the bank account has gone down from £91k to £1k.

No wonder he was talking to people back in March. No wonder he wanted to cut the overheads, because putting about £600k cash into the bulls every year is not sensible.

If any cash has gone out of the business then it would likely be money due to Chalmers or his backer, who are creditors like any other.

So the tally now is: OK put £1.5m of his own cash into the Bulls, Green put £1.0 Million pounds of his own cash into the bulls, Chalmers has put £1.2m of his/a n others cash into the bulls. to me that proves they are idiots not thieves.

One thing I do agree on Nestegg, is it smells, and a totally independent review is needed.

Hi Martin.

Forget arguments about planets mate. This is a serious matter.

Cash generation - concessions, cash receipts at turnstiles (inc away fans), door to door Big One collections, shop sales, cash season ticket sales etc etc - can easily add up to far > £400K per season. Where did it all go?

Creditors due over 1 year include YW, HE, ISC etc ..... and that's only 3, and we understand they total over £200K. Unless you have prove to the contrary we have no reason to believe that (other than a loan given by the RFL of a few hundred K) that nobody put money into BB17 and Chalmers had zilch equity to put in, and we are not aware of any director loans. We may be wrong, but we very much doubt it. We may not be accountants like your goodself, but we can at least agree that it smells ... and it smells fishy.

We are happy to receive further abuse (we're used it by now lol), but it would be interesting to dig a bit deeper - your day to day accounting knowledge is appreciated MW.

If BB17 is still in existence come the first Championship game of next season we will gladly eat our collective hats.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:39 pm  

Just turn the lights off now

Re: Bulls Takeover : Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:53 pm  

nestegg wrote:

Que? Have we missed something mate. Where is the suggestion that the Duffer is leaving?

We would like to look at his role, and what he offers (if anything) to the club moving forward. But, as things stand (and possibly never!) we are not in control of the ongoing debacle that is the Bulls; now run by the muddled puppet Sawyer, a Charman who can't purportedly afford his airfare from Canada, and the back room alleged puppet master, Nigel. What a shambles.

Realistic rant over. Back to Dr F's main point - why does Duffy stay on despite offering zilch? Ask Nigel.

An ineffective limpet wouldn't cling to anything, you weapon.