Re: Bulls Takeover : Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:18 pm  

St Helens

Re: Bulls Takeover : Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:25 pm  

Who reckons Peter Hood reads these forums?

Re: Bulls Takeover : Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:02 pm  

Peter Hood may read this unfortunately he wasn’t very good at counting.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:37 am  

kaybenbull wrote:

Mick saying we are selling players to pay off debts so new owners no players sounds great how the hell will that work

The alternative sounds like it will be admin 4 and starting on minus 12 with with nk first team players and our best young players leaving for free.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:14 am  

kaybenbull wrote:

Mick saying we are selling players to pay off debts so new owners no players sounds great how the hell will that work

That can’t be right. No one will pay money. They’ll just wait until they can pick them up for free. And if that isn’t right, how much else of what he is saying is accurate?

Who are the information sources?
Chalmers? Not likely
RFL - they’ll be trying to avoid damaging Bulls further whilst a buying is available
The new buyer - same as RFL
Council - not their area of interest
Agent - his purpose is to get the best deal for his players, so if he needs to get them out of Bulls then he needs the Bulls to go into admin or stay disorganised so remember his focus when you read/listen to his information
Players - mixture- some will have other deals lined up so need the same as the agent, some will have no other options so need the same as the new buyer
Everyone has spin/ an angle

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:42 am  

If I can give anyone one piece of advice to follow at a time like this, it's probably best to not believe anything that comes from Mick Gledhill. Or even bother reading it in the first place.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:48 am  

Highlander wrote:

That can’t be right. No one will pay money. They’ll just wait until they can pick them up for free. And if that isn’t right, how much else of what he is saying is accurate?

Who are the information sources?
Chalmers? Not likely
RFL - they’ll be trying to avoid damaging Bulls further whilst a buying is available
The new buyer - same as RFL
Council - not their area of interest
Agent - his purpose is to get the best deal for his players, so if he needs to get them out of Bulls then he needs the Bulls to go into admin or stay disorganised so remember his focus when you read/listen to his information
Players - mixture- some will have other deals lined up so need the same as the agent, some will have no other options so need the same as the new buyer
Everyone has spin/ an angle

Agreed.

We have 2 groups of players at the min. One group whos contract expire on 30th November, at which point they are free agents.

The other is the group that are contracted for next year.

Both groups of players seem able to terminate their contracts (as 3 already have done) based on the non payment of pension monies owed, so why would any club be looking to pay transfere fees for players they can get for nothing before any take over is completed.

That just doesnt add up to me.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:54 am  

I would be wary of anything Mick Gledhill says. I enjoy his commentary but we have all seen the number of times he has got things wrong in relation to the Bulls before.

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:02 am  

Bramley Dog wrote:

Name the club that loaned money to the Bulls that we still owe.
Name the club we still owe money to for a loaned player

How many dogs are there on this sub'forum?! As a minimum we've got Mr Dog and you, Bramley Dog.

Apologies for delay getting back to you; we've been busy dealing with other issues.

in the spirit of conciliation we will answer both of your slightly oddball questions, which in all honesty have little to do with the current crisis facing the likes of honourable folk such Roger Daly's son:

1) Name the club that loaned money to the Bulls that we still owe? - The current list of creditors who are owed >£20K (which sadly is growing by the day) does not (as far as we understand) include any club that has loaned money to the club. The harsh reality is that in recent times no club would have been daft enough to have loaned money to Chalmers/ Bradford Bulls 2017 Limited (BB17). We cannot see that trend being meaningfully halted under the proposed new consortium.

2) Name the club we still owe money to for a loaned player? - As far as we are aware we have not had any loaned players for ages, and certainly not this past season. Sadly, we are a toxic brand, and other clubs are understandably wary of dealing with us. The last loanee was facilitated under a half cocked dual reg'n arrangement we had with the Wolfpacks that fell apart in mid 2018 after ex Wolves player James Laithwaite sustained a career ending injury in an away game vs the Hawks. Due to the majority of Bulls players not having medical insurance (contrary to RFL rules) we understand that poor James got royally dicked around and following a dispute between Toronto and the club a compromise deal was struck between the Wolfpacks, the Bulls and the player - for legal reasons we cannot reveal the sum involved. Do you think James L has been been paid in full?

Re: Bulls Takeover : Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:06 am  

RagingBull wrote:

Agreed.

We have 2 groups of players at the min. One group whos contract expire on 30th November, at which point they are free agents.

The other is the group that are contracted for next year.

Both groups of players seem able to terminate their contracts (as 3 already have done) based on the non payment of pension monies owed, so why would any club be looking to pay transfere fees for players they can get for nothing before any take over is completed.

That just doesnt add up to me.

Its probably worth noting that there may be some of the contracted players that are not caught up in this pension malarchy. Those players will not be able to get out of their contracts just yet.