What sort of due diligence only involves asking a departing owner what debts you have.

One that involves the RFL!
How many more 5 (or 6) figure debts are yet to appear?

That’s not how credit card payments work.

From the clubs perspective, they’ll receive the funds in the same timescale as a debit card payment.

Not that I’d expect you to pay attention to facts. As long as you can pretend you’re in the know though, eh?

You can buy tickets from the Bulls Foundation offices at Odsal.

You clearly know the facts. Don't want to fall out with you over this, but have you ever worked for a card payment processor multinational service provider such as Stripe? They are big, but often well hidden successful businesses, who are usually not daft enough to swiftly hand over all of the online monies they receive c/o a client if there's a risk that the product that has been purchased by customers/ fans (e.g.. a season's worth of home sports games in 2020) may not materialise. What we can agree on surely, and sadly, is that the Bulls is a tarnished brand. Credit card payment processors are a business, and not a charity. In the event of another administration (god forbid) then they may have to pick up the tab for any season tix that cannot be honoured. Would you take that risk?

Excellent points Hopebull. We can help answer some of the open questions you pose, and seek to clarify a couple of aspects of your post which through no fault of your own we believe are inaccurate.

As far as we understand the club's present debts are huge, but have in all likelihood not been properly determined. It would be no surprise if winding up petitions for the club (which is still Bradford Bulls 2017 Limited) are being threatened or set into motion. Nobody would (or should) be crazy enough to directly, or even indirectly, take on a debt mountain unless they first knew how high the mountain was, or had a very good idea of how much money was owed.

You are in fact not correct in saying 'nobody was remotely interested' in taking the club over after Green's Bulls collapsed - very much the opposite. The administrator received (and recommended to the RFL) a credible and sustainable bid for the Bulls which would likely have paid most (if not all) of the club's debts and outstanding player/ staff wages at the time. It's just that the RFL rejected such an offer, because it would appear to have been more convenient to 'appoint' AC, for reasons explored elsewhere.

Re 'liquidation - whilst the press and even the BBC reported that it did, the club never went into 'liquidation' in early Jan 2017. It's all a bit convoluted, but the liquidation announcement on 3 Jan 2017 was (another) Bulls/RFL inaccurate statement which may well have been a convenient error at the time.

Reference to the Odsal 'milestone' is we believe a myth that is conveniently being portrayed time and time again. Maintenance costs are high yes, but that's principally the RFL's responsibility. Looking at the bigger picture the stadium, and its land footprint and strategic location, always has had (and still has) enormous potential and is a prized asset, that in the ideal world could also serve as a community asset.

As for the definition of madness, sadly it's likely having been a Bulls fan over the past 7-8 years or so.

We believe the truth re what's happened in relation to the Bulls over the past 7-8 years cannot be hidden for ever, and the facts will out. Keep watching this space.

Good related points re some of the above also made in recent posts by Scary and Pickles.
.

Nestegg you have referred to “we” a few times. Can I ask who “we” are?

As well as this particular "We" I would also be interested who else is involved in this consortium?

Answered elsewhere mate. And 'we' are growing in numbers. Don't wish to be so 'cloak and dagger', but sadly have no choice.

You can, however, be assured that we are Bulls fans and want to see the club be on a firm footing and finally have a sustainable future, inc for great players such as Elliot. .

I work in commercial development, specialising in credit cards for one of the main high street banks.

Where you refer to a payments processor, presumably you are referring to the acquirers role within a card transaction. The acquirer usually has no right to withhold funds and the merchant will normally receive their funds within 2-3 working days.

The acquirer isn’t creating any additional risk for themselves by prompt settlement of transactions, given any section 75 claim would be issued against the customers bank. The transaction goes customer>merchant>acquirer>card processor>bank.

Stop pretending to be a group of well informed fans when you’re in fact a poop stirring sad bloke with too much time on his hands.