Is this why Bennett trailered the 'Caisley taking the club into admin' line? Because he knows as soon as someone gets a look at the full extent of the liabilities there's no other choice?
When Coulby spoke about investors he mentioned that few want to throw money down a black hole.
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
I repeat, what black hole of liabilities??
1. Bank. We know that's nil.
2. Taxman - maybe a couple of months tax to be paid but my belief is it must have been pretty much paid up from the Pledge as if not then HMRC wouldve closed us down by now, so no historical tax debt to speak of.
3. RFL loan. We know that's paid off, so nil.
4. Leeds. We all know that the final payment of the Harris money which we may or may not have had to pay under the confidential settlement was paid off recently. So nil.
What else can there be? Suggestions on a postcard, cos I'm struggling.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
As I see it, and I may be wrong, administration is to be sought when a company has debts owed that it cannot service.
If Hood and Bennett have been truthful, and the pledge money has cleared the decks, then there should be no threat of administration, unless the cashflow projections they made when setting the budgets for this year were so poor that they know there is no way the company can trade with its current committments being met. Either way, it is their judgements that will see us in administration.
Caisley is quite a pragmatic bloke from what I've seen and read from the past. he makes tough decisions, and when he weilds that much power and influence, sometimes he will get it wrong.
Should we go into administration, both Hood , Caisley and their respective cohorts will have been to blame, as they both have made decisions that have led this club to where it is now!
Anything else is conjecture, guess work, conspiracy theorising. Neither side will want to shoulder most blame, they will both want to appear as the ones who had no choice.
There are pro Caisley, and pro Hood factions who are blaming the other and raking over the past. I am in neither. We should be pro Bradford Bulls, simple as that. Over the last month, Coulby and Caisley have made the most sense to me, and Hood and Bennett gave very poor responses. At this moment in time, having a stable (ish) board going forward is better than a board waiting to be removed. Of course Caisley could have kept quiet about everything and allowed the board some stability couldnt he?
To be honest, if we have a club that starts SL 2013 and contains the likes of Bateman, Whitehead, Gale etc... I will take that as proof that what we have is better than what we had!
Never liked Kevin Costner, or any other Robbing Hood!!!!
FA, The club will have projections for income and out goings that the now former board have formulated. Caisley could decide that they are pie in the sky and suggest that the club is over committed.
this could be in the rent we now pay to the rfl, players wages, contracts with suppliers etc...
If the budgeting is wrong then we will only fall into more debt. Surely if he sees it coming the right thing to do would be admin now and a newco. at least then the people we may potentially owe to, wont yet have supplied us and therefore we are just cancelling contracts?? This could even be the ethical thing to do!
Never liked Kevin Costner, or any other Robbing Hood!!!!
Joined: Jun 22 2005 Posts: 9554 Location: bradford
isaac1 wrote:FA, The club will have projections for income and out goings that the now former board have formulated. Caisley could decide that they are pie in the sky and suggest that the club is over committed.
this could be in the rent we now pay to the rfl, players wages, contracts with suppliers etc...
If the budgeting is wrong then we will only fall into more debt. Surely if he sees it coming the right thing to do would be admin now and a newco. at least then the people we may potentially owe to, wont yet have supplied us and therefore we are just cancelling contracts?? This could even be the ethical thing to do!
The other financial benefit of admin from new boards point of view is it removes need to honour things like five yr season tickets and remaining yrs of the contracts of certain players deemed surplus to requirements. Can't see fans or rfl respectively being too pleased if they use admin as a way to avoid these commitments though.
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:I repeat, what black hole of liabilities??
1. Bank. We know that's nil.
2. Taxman - maybe a couple of months tax to be paid but my belief is it must have been pretty much paid up from the Pledge as if not then HMRC wouldve closed us down by now, so no historical tax debt to speak of.
3. RFL loan. We know that's paid off, so nil.
4. Leeds. We all know that the final payment of the Harris money which we may or may not have had to pay under the confidential settlement was paid off recently. So nil.
What else can there be? Suggestions on a postcard, cos I'm struggling.
From the tone and content of today's T and A article and the interview with Coulby last week the suggestion is there's a significant possibility of other liabilities which have not been previously revealed by Messrs Hood and Bennett. Bennett himself raised the spectre of admin if 'Caisley and his cohorts' took over. If there's no other liabilities apart from the ones that have now been met how is this a possibility?
Maybe I'm expecting the worst and then interpreting the articles in the same manner.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
