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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Just turn the lights off now

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

The conspiracy would appear to be that for some reason the RFL turn down buyers that have money. They then select buyers that later turn out to have 'close' links with the rfl and have no money whatsoever. All we want to know is why certain buyers get turned down? Why can't Koucash's wife bid for the Bulls yet an owner of one championship club can then own a 25% share in another club? Why do the RFL advise one group of owners to put the club into Admin and then sell the club to another group?

Did the RFL in buying out the Odsal lease misguidedly gone down the wrong paths thinking they were protecting their investment?

It looks like buyers who were outside their circle of influence were given a short shrift in favour of those who were.

One starts to wonder what Outsiders would have found out that would embarrass Sod Hall.



Also one wonders why scrambled egg who reckon they have a mole inside Sod Hall doesn't try harder to find and expose Sod Halls dealing regarding the the lease and the Bulls subsequent administrations instead of pointing out more fiscal mismanagement of which most Bulls Fans would not be surprised at!

There's nothing like trying to change history to defend a point. From The Guardian March 2014:



Mandy Koukash had attended last Sunday's 66-18 home defeat by Huddersfield after confirming her interest but she tweeted on Tuesday: "I am hearing my bid will not be the winning one. As I understand, the RFL has nothing to do with the decision. It is based on the highest bid to pay the old debt."

Finally someone else saying the same thing.

That doesn't explain Thorne though...



The administrators preferred bid wasn't going to be accepted because Chalmers and Lowe and already been told prior to Christmas the club was theirs, it would be a rocky road to get it going but it was theirs.



Also when Lamb was knocked back because he couldn't produce £1m over the weekend? Again the choice of the Administrator.



Koukash actually goaded the RFL on twitter saying 'I can have a million in a suitcase on your desk on Monday, can I buy the club?'



Every time the RFL has made it clear they are not parting with the lease so what is there to buy?



They will not part with the lease. Why? Especially now their stated aim has failed.

I seem to remember the Koukash bid for the club being quite low.

I'm not sure the same can be said when the club was liquidated though. The Thorne bid and the Irvine/Lamb bid both seemed genuine. I think David Thorne in particular went on record at the time to point the finger at the RFL for some strange decisions.



If I'm wrong I'm sure Mr Dog won't hesitate to come in here and put me right

I understand what you are meaning with the section you have highlighted. However, It is incorrect and as she says that is her understanding of the situation. It was also reported that the whilst the bid came from Mandy The RFL believed that the Dr would actually be behind the bid breaking their rules of owning 2 clubs. The Administrator IS duty bound to get the best deal possible for the creditors but it is ultimately down to the RFL to say whether the person will pass their tests to run a rugby club. We have had people with money come forward and been rejected in favour of someone that the RFL thought would be better. Had this been the case we would have stood back and said "Wow. You were right these are the best owners". Unfortunately it is the RFL's selections that have then gone t!ts up in fairly short order.

It takes many (nest)eggs - and one hell of a lot of tiresome investigative work - to crack an RFL omelette.



Many journos are trying to guess what has happened over the past 8 years, and though many get some of the facts right, all of them have never truly connected the increasingly murky and (allegedly) corrupt dots.



The full story and the truth, and the correct facts (with evidence) will be coming out shortly and hopefully before Xmas.



Several forum members still understandably question us, our motives, and why we are using this (excellent) forum as a conduit to gradually transmit our updates and messages etc. However, those who we want to listen (aka 'the bad uns) are now hearing us loud and clear (e,g AC/ NW/ MS/ RR/ SH/ KM/ KE etc).



Honesty and integrity are two words that have been sadly lacking in our club and our sport for many, many years. Like it or lump it, we will continue to strive to do the right thing for the Bulls and our sport. But only time will tell whether or not we do in fact succeed.

Is there any connection with that time frame and the beginning of the pantomime season?

BREAKING: Billy Pearce to take over Bradford Bulls!!!!

You are acutely aware of the strong possibility of some questionable RFL influences. Enough I would have thought, to feel confident of achieving your objectives.But they remain unclear.Are you merely in a position to prevent the fall of the Bulls or are you the Messiah? You appear confident of your appraisal..but not so of a solution. Which negates the argument in a way.I feel that you are merely providing a commentary and not being a catalyst for the change of fortune we need. You are very welcome sir to PM me of your true intent.

Oh no he isn't.

"Oh Yes he is!"



"He's behind you!"

Oh no he isn't.



But at least when Jack handed over his bovine he got a handful of beans.

More akin to the latter, BUT messiahs in RL are thin on the ground. The club has had far too many false dawns, and the current set up is allegedly as false as it can get !



As you will realise many so called Bulls fans on this sub-forum are just serial moaners and cynics, and may even find cause to complain if for example the Bulls were once again winning Grand Finals year after year and stuffing the likes of Wigan on a regular basis. Many members on here have also not attended an away fixture (or for some a home game) for many a year, and thus some may no longer view such members as still being fully bona fide fans. In addition, some members on here are mere voice pieces for the bad uns.



Anyhow, so be it. That's life on a forum and social media. We will PM you on a strictly pvt and conf'l basis probably later today. We are presently in PM contact with many supportive members.