Is that the Bulls Brand promotion or the Kate Hardcastle Brand promotion - not clear from your comment

Bit much of a suggestion innit? What have OK done to deserve that? Also does the Council normally lend to companies who the banks won't touch?





I think the council tax payers should be told.

As a Bulls fan, and a Bradford council tax payer I have mixed feelings about this: as a fan it is good we have secured some working capital to keep the show on the road, as a council tax payer you wonder how they justify lending a large sum of money to a start up company, who in a game that is struggling with its finances has a massive handcap - the reduced Sky money - that the other teams don't have. It is not easy to raise the income to cover running costs as we all know - so how do you find the cash flow to meet loan repayments as well? So I do wonder how the council justified this if it is as the say just a "normal commercial loan".

I don't think it would be exactly [inormal[/i practice but it isn't unique as they did something similar to the firm who built the Jury's Inn on Thornton 'Rd, IIRC.

I'd reckon the Council would have to be confident they could back up their decision as if it was done anything else than commercially they risk prosecution for corruption, misuse of public funds, etc., not to mention of being taken to task when the books are audited. It's not like a bank, who can take whatever risks they want and the more they do the bank's bollox in, the bigger the bonuses.

Perhaps they have Blake Solly seconded to the credit committee to help them assess financial risk?

Does anyone else remember Gerry Sutcliffe saying back in the day they'd turn to Bradford Council for a start-up loan? I just assumed this was it. I didn't read anywhere in the article when the loan was issued, so it could be 6-months old.

He and various others, including Gargoyle and the Dark Lord (or his acolytes), all made reference to council funding being available IIRC? I recall much larger numbers being bandied around, to be honest. Don't think any details were ever given, but (rightl;y or wrongly) I'd always assumed they'd had some initial loan support.



Not sure when the loan was issued, but it does not look to be secured on the assets. The club has just given a first floating charge to Barclays Bank though, so that will rank first in line anyway (at least once the charge given as security for the purchase of the business has been satisfied).

i need the help of an old sage like relic/fa or adeybull, with business knowledge



is this similar to emperors new clothes.



you get a soft loan from the council £200k then buy a rugby club from administrator for £150k, you then own this and decide to issue yourself shares. you then ask loyal fans to then invest in the club by buying shares (are those voting shares or just shares with no rights) the income received then pays off the soft loan and you still own the whole thing without spending anything.

is this how business works, your opinion would be appreciated.

Will all depend on whether any shares issued are new shares introducing new capital, or Omar selling off any of his existing holding.



If the former, then replacing debt with equity makes total sense - IF the new shares rank pari passu with the existing shares. If they do not, then the risk is you effectively replace one form of debt with another.



If the latter, then your analysis would be broadly correct if it was only a small % of the shares being sold off. In OK's case, I would never sell > 24.99%, since that means I could no longer guarantee to win on a special resolution.



I have assumed that any loans form the council will be on terms that make it sensible to retain the loans rather than repay them and replace them with alternative funding. A question for the next fans forum, I guess?



I await with interest the details of this proposed share issue. And, especially, how it avoids being classified as a public offer of equity which would require plc status and a prospectus.

You would be surprised what you can buy without actually having any "money" and similarly people wouls be very shocked if they all went to the bank at the same time to take their "money" out. That is the wonder of the banking system that it works because people have trust in money that isn't really there. A bit of a diversion but your are right with the scenario you discribe if you can get a credit line youu don't need to actually put any £ of your own in. It was always thought that Al Fayad bought Harrods for £500m when he didn't have a dime.

i am obviously in the wrong line of work, which probably accounts for the fact i have no money.