Mr Dog wrote:
Is that the 'scandal' eggy's been wittering on about for a while? I'd imagine the Gaming Board (or whatever they're called these days) would be interested in that, as well as the receiver from back then as has already been pointed out.
No Mr Dog, that's not what we have been wittering on about as you so eloquently put it. Some £100K in some old lottery account is not what the scandal is about. The matter at hand is allegedly a far more serious set of circumstances involving a misappropriation of substantial funds.
Some of us were involved in council related matters till late last night, so could somebody kindly guide us to the best summary of what went on at yesterday evening's Fans Forum?
Three key pieces of information in respect of the new consortium which we have been informed of are:
i) The new consortium is only temporary (i.e. a stop gap as we predicted);
ii) The consortium is seeking to help repay a limited number of creditors, but in respect of making a meaningful investment into the club's present and future (which is needed) it is of concern to learn that there is no indication that any supplementary development funding and substantive contingent 'rainy day' funds are to be made available, and
iii) Nigel Wood and/or his family may now own up to 75% of the shares in BB17 - one would expect that the true share allocation (and hopefully the latest overdue year end accounts!) should be published on the Companies House website for BB17 shortly. The 75% allocation is based on the premise that according to RFL Rules, the second shareholder, Mark Sawyer, shouldn't (as far as we understand) own more than 25% in a second RL club in Tier 1 - Tier 3 of the RL structure -
we may be wrong in this regard so could somebody kindly check out the specific rules and get back to forum members. On the basis that Nigel Wood's extended family is on board then does that mean that everything in the Bulls' garden is rosy? Are we now truly in safe hands?
At this stage we can of course relate to the lack of trust many have in our alternative 'consortium'. We apologise for the cloak and dagger approach that we to date have had to deploy. That said, we would like to reiterate the following:
i) It may sadden some of you, but we are not going anywhere. Once we have fully explained who we are, we are resolutely confident that in time we will be seen as the viable, credible and preferable alternative to the Wood//Sawyer consortium - also see
footnote below, and
ii) The scandal we have referred to previously is real. News in this regard will likely break in the next month and as things stand it will be reported in the national press. As said before please do not ask us to forewarn Messrs Wood and Sawyer, or any other party. That is because we have been asked by relevant authorities, who are in the process of formalising their investigations, not to say anything about the matter other than what is said above. The sum of money involved is projected to be in the region of £150K - £200K. Once the story is laid bare might the Wood family be in a position to help repay a proportion of the misappropriated funds to the many alleged victims of the purported misfeasance?
Footnote - It is high time that our club gets the sound and significant financial backing it needs and deserves in order to guarantee survival in the short term, and for it to truly prosper in the medium to long term. In this regard the introduction of new blood (such as David Thorne et al) who are not in any way connected with the past catastrophic ownership incarnations is long overdue and we will ensure that is the case. Nigel Wood is without doubt directly linked to the past floperoos and MS is indirectly linked to the recent past (we can explain why we say that in due course). Conversely, EP is a top bloke, but he, like some before him, runs the risk of becoming an innocent bystander.
We apologise for coming across as pouring cold water on the latest Bulls incarnation (#4 in the past five years), and we do on balance wish the new consortium the best of luck. Sadly, however, and as CB and his mystery lady friend, Kath Harrison, apparently recognised last week, selfish interests may well soon come to the fore. The club and its supporters have experienced so much woe in recent years and moving forward we deserve a superior solution and not a stop gap solution, or just more of the same.
Given the above 'we' regrettably very much doubt that the new set up will truly act in the very best interests of the club's greatest four assets, which we see as being:
a) The fans;
b) The players (both young and old);
c) Our proud and rich history, and last but not least
d) Odsal - but why do we still refer to our former stadium as an 'asset'? - answers on a postcard please marked F.A.O Ralph, Karen, Judith and Kersten. If you can add any more key Bulls assets we may have forgotten then feel free to do so (only serious suggestions please !).
