so the 6point deduction cannot possibly have been based on his not paying the creditors as it was handed down prior to him even making a bid never mind deciding whether or not any creditors would be paid.

You are correct to say that appeal is not based on creditors Marc green hasn't paid being paid, because the punishment literally cannot have been handed down because of creditors Marc Green hasn't paid not being paid.

If the basis of the appeal were "I paid the administrator more for the club than he agreed to accept from the other 3" then it might have a chance of some success. But as I understand it, that is not the case.

wow, cryptic.

What's that got to do with the points deduction appeal?

keep to the point peeps. the appeal is based on force majeure full stop. which means events outside the control of and/or unpredicted by a party. Negligence, eg I neglected to have enough cash in the bank to pay HRMC when due, is within the control of a party such as OKB. The only area I can see force majeure playing a part is the failure of the trio to fulfil their commitments in the deal struck over Christmas for change of ownership. Presumably that was out of OKB's control, especially if the RFL conspired with the trio. But that is all conjecture; anybody any alternative ideas on what the force majeure event(s) could be?

just to clarify, according to the administrator a winding up petition was actually issued by HMRC against OKB in mid January, which is an insolvency event in itself in the RFL rules, predating SSG/MGs administration order on the 31st January. the force majeure event(s) would therefore only apply to OKB being prevented from paying HMRC due to some external event outside OKB's control.

You don’t say … as opposed to all the other SL clubs, who presumably decline to take their full allocation of Sky money as the season goes on… ?


Eh? You’ll have to restate that question in a way that makes sense.


We knew the RFL would pay wages etc to keep the club ticking over, and if necessary the RFL/SLE (through “Neonrain”) would even have acquired the club albeit on a temporary basis, the obvious reason being the integrity of the comp as opposed to one club dropping out. Do you think this is an insight or something? It isn’t.

Is that a fact? Well, I think I had better get off to the optician after this post because I am looking at them and clearly hallucinating. They state:

Funny, that.

But you’re just stating the bleedin’ obvious, to the point of banality! And you are also skating over the fact that new owners, while not saving the old company (and so technically having no responsibility for its debts) nevertheless are expected by the RFL to offer to make payments despite tis total lack of obligation, and their proposals are part of the factors considered in deciding on sanctions.


You clearly don't! It states "[iAs part of the agreement and to meet the requirements of the RFL the purchasers are to make an offer to all trade creditors in the sum of 100p in the £[/i".

Oops!

So, come on, was the administrator lying? Well?


Absolute tosh and nonsense, as if BBNL chooses to pay anything to anyone, then it is not part of the affairs of OKB. At all. MG is not involved personally for the first thing. Secondly, the payment would be from BBNL not MG personally. Thirdly neither MG nor BBNL are in any way a party to the administration.

If for example Acme Pies were owed £1000 by OKB and BBNL want to continue to trade with Acme Pies then they might choose to make a payment equal to what Acme Pies were owed by OKB. This would not concern the administrator. He only distributes such funds (if any) remaining when he has got in THE DEBTS DUE TO OKB. Anything BBNL chooses to pay is clearly not in the category of debts due, because BBNL does not owe a penny of OKB’s debts. Which is kinda the whole point, as you yourself sort of pointed out, of MG Not buying and keeping alive OKB.

But, as you’re seemingly a lawyer, if BBNL did choose to make the £1K payment to keep Acme Pies sweet, please enlighten us all what offence they would have committed?

If I felt sorry for Acme Pies, and sent them a cheque for £1K, would I be in jail too?

When Bullbuilder and others collected money and paid effectively some cash in lieu of wages to those who were working for nothing, and should have been paid by the club, did that make each person who put coppers in the bucket a criminal as well?

Were all the buckets delivered to the administrator so he could divide them between all creditors? We're gonna need a bigger jail.

We all know that the RFL plainly announced sanctions against BB2014, based on BB2014’s business plans etc. They announced so. We all thought BB2014 had bought the assets only it turned out that they actually hadn’t. But the penalty was announced aimed at BB2014 and not at OKB. BB2014, it turns out, obtained a licence to run the club from the RFL for 1 month. So they were RUNNING the club and had a licence to do so and as such were a temporary member, even though it turns out they did not own the club, although they had signed a (conditional) contract to do so. The end result was the de facto 6 points disappeared off the League table whilst BB2014 was operating under a temporary licence and therefore undoubtedly it was BB2014 which was sanctioned. However the sale fell through, the licence expired, and the operation of the club thus reverted to OKB, which was being run by the administrator. He appealed against the decision in that capacity, i.e. as the person running OKB, and did so in order to preserve any right of appeal as this might enhance the price he could sell the assets for, but the sanction was clearly not applied to OKB.


No! OK owned the business until he sold the shares (if he did, that remains in litigation). The shares are of course not exactly worth a lot but the administrator RUNS the business and can SELL the business or parts but he never OWNS the business.


I don’t think anyone on here claims BBNL were proposing to make any or any substantial payments to OKB creditors, simply because I’d have thought it would have been public knowledge if they did, but the fact is you are speculating, as no announcement has been made one way or the other. It would be interesting, when comparing the comments made by RFL re debtors, and indeed the quote from the administrator's letter that referenced RFL requirements, to know why different requirements would apply now.


As you so often do, you have it the wrong way round. The administrator tried to say OK was only owed £400K. (Without speaking to OK). OK insisted on a creditors meeting. At that meeting OK produced documentation evidencing his financial input and the administrator eventually revised and admitted OK’s claim at the increased figure of £1m approx.

The struggle is exclusively yours. The concept of a company being a legal person is one you need to get your head around. Until you do you’ll just keep looking increasingly silly.


I have corrected so much of your misinformation that it seems pointless to repeat, as if you didn't bother to read the corrections first time, why would you now? Or maybe you just haven’t read it. But sticking just to this particular piece of your catalogue of misinformation, I am stating the facts, and you have it wrong. The position was summed up in a T&A report following the creditors meeting:

This is factually what happened. You are, as so often, simply wrong.

Adey has popped your balloon on the rest so I won't deal with that.

OK was not penalised in any way. He was able to purchase all the assets of BB Holdings, take over the Super League licence and have all the playing staff TUPE'd across to OK Bulls.

OK was fully aware of the level of central funding available prior to agreeing to establish OK Bulls as the new operating company. OK was also given Sky money allocated for the 2nd year of his tenure during his 1st year.

I think RW business history contextualises his statement. As anyone who reads it will deduce, he actually accepts no responsibility whatsoever for his actions. As an example, the debenture deal with SSG was completed just 4 days after OK resigned as a director. RW fails to reference this at all in his statement. Nor is there any reference to the huge losses incurred in running the pop concert at Odsal.

It is quite simple. The money the RFL paid P&A partnership to sustain the club during it's extended period of administration was in excess of the Sky money the club was due under it's Super League licence.

Blake,does big Nige know you are posting on here

Do you realise just how much you have telegraphed in all that? I poked your anthill, and you gave the game away big-time. I've met Solly, and quite liked him and thought he was a decent bloke. But I suppose prolonged exposure to Rimmer and Wood can do no-one any favours. Fat Nigel is an embarrasssment to my profession. If you have sold your soul to him, well God help you.

I can see, from a very quick perusal of your responses, any number of ways I can attack what you have said. And that you really have not addressed any of the charges I laid at your door. None.

Urban myth? So, let me get this straight then? The other clubs did NOT share the funds that were confiscated from Bradford amongst themselves? It is a pure myth that they did? Pray, enlighten us then as to what DID happen to those funds? Were they donated to Oxfam? Go on, you know you want to tell us?

Unfortunately, I have a job to do in the real world, and am really up against it time-wise. But as soon as I have the opportunity, I'll be back to get you.

Charges? Such as?

You still have not explained why the RFL should be entitled to recover their money, when other (more important) creditors had to write it off?

You also failed to refute the claims that the RFL advised Moore and co. to allow the club to go into admin, as a ploy to 'oust' the owner of the club.

There has been no comeback to the Whitcut claims (unde the guise of the RFL), which makes me think that are worried of the debate picking up some momentum and other parties then coming forward to confirm/deny certain rumours.

Also from memory, the RFL imposed a 6 point deduction on BB2014, the new company had been granted permission by the administrator and everything was signed over before the 6 point penalty was agreed. The 3 owners at the time had agreed to pay back all creditors (with the exception of OK) over a 5 year period.

Lastly, why did the RFL wait until the creditors meeting before notifying that they were a creditor, with the owed amount of £900,000, why leave this so late? I dont understand the logic.

I fail to agree that the RFL are blameless in this whole fiasco.

So what are the figures, pray tell?

I don’t accept your basic premise. But if the RFL pay money for RFL purposes then we call that “expenditure”. It isn’t a case of “writing it off”, they do what they think they can and should do. Why should anyone else repay them?


I see, so now you say the RFL had also lied about this to the administrators. Why would the administrator lie about that? I mean, what in that particular case would be the point?


You are being perverse. Or which bit of “the requirements of the RFL” mean there was no such requirement?


No, legally MG is not SSG. Stop trying to plait fog.

No, they are legally separate and distinct self-contained persons. Why keep repeating rubbish? Your repetition will not reverse the effect of incorporation in English law. Once incorporated a company is as much an individual legal entity as MG. The whole point of incorporation is to create a separate legal personality which is therefore responsible (eg) for its debts. MG would not, for example, be remotely responsible for SSG debts. Why is that, if MG “is” SSG”? Anyway I refuse to entertain this idiotic line of “argument any further, if you can’t understand that a company is legally a person then I can’t waste any more time teaching you. You can’t educate pork.

Heheh so you can’t actually come up with what offence would in your view be committed. Piszpoor attempt at a swerve.



No, you need to learn how to use a thing called a “calendar”.

All I can say is “liar”. There most certainly is, and it is defended. Why pretend you know something, when you actually know nothing about the point? Idiot.


I have provided a direct reference from the press report (which has not been contradicted). Though that was not the source of my reliable information. I think it is your turn to produce something to the contrary, don’t you, if you want to persist in your delusion?

I am stating the fact. It was reported in the press but the facts are as I have said. Accept it, or don’t, but as you have NOTHING to the contrary (and could not have, since the contrary is not the case) perhaps you should give some serious thought to listening to people who know what they are talking about.


No, it is not a disagreement, I am stating the facts and you are issuing hopeless contradictions despite it just being pure supposition on your part. You do not have an arguable position, worthy of meriting a “disagreement”. You have nothing.


Neither. You should read what people who know what they are talking about say, and learn from it, instead of vainly churning out stuff which you know is just speculation by you, as if you had some information on these things. You don’t.

So why did they lodge a claim around £900k the evening before the creditors meeting, and which they were allowed by the administrator to vote?


No, it is the direct evidence of those present. Whitcut is not claiming to be spreading

Heheh. Very good. But that isn’t how it works. You – whoever you are- do not get to decree what is “unfounded” just because you say so! How absurd! How on earth would YOU know whether Whitcut’s claims were founded or unfounded? Are you a parrot, that sits on his shoulder? Did you have him constantly bugged? Come on, we’d like to know!



It happened and has been reported. How much do you need? Why are you doubting it?

Unless the Law has changed in the last few days - MG isnt BB/SG

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897 AC 22 is a landmark UK company law case. The effect of the Lords' unanimous ruling was to uphold firmly the doctrine of corporate personality, as set out in the Companies Act 1862, so that creditors of an insolvent company could not sue the company's shareholders to pay up outstanding debts.

As insults go, that's pretty low.

Admittedly, just about everything from the last few pages has gone right over my head; but I must say it's been jolly good bants, chaps!

I dont think that anyone would argue with the doctrine of corporate personality. It is its applicability outside corporate law that is more the issue. For example Directors cannot under the Health and Safety legislation blame the corporate personality for any failures. The points penalty etc are all within sports law, the applicable laws being the RFL rules which all participants agree to as a condition of that participation. Those rules apply to all forms of ownership, including associations as well as limited companies. Whatever the de jure legal form of the businesses, there is no doubt that MG is the de facto controller of them. And it has to be the case. whilst SSG may have a legal personality, it is not a person, and so cannot of itself do anything. Hence other areas of law go past that legal personality and operate on the people that control it.

So who is it a creditor of? It need to be against the appropriate organisation, yet you seem to think that (by law) you can keep requesting payment from any regime, regardless of who owned the club at the time the debt was run up. This is poor form, again, as I state earlier the RFL believes that they are more entitled to reclaim their money over HMRC. When in fact the RFL uses their power of being the rule maker and demands the new owners pay what is owed by the old owners. Anyone who doesn't agree to this fails to be given acceptance by the RFL to run the club (Bully tactics)



I disagree. I know that this correspondence has been passed to other chairmen of other SL clubs, who already have a pretty low opinion of certain 'goings on' at Red Hall. Surely the RFL would prefer to quash all allegations, but instead, they (you) would rather it just quietly went away.



I'm pretty confident that this is not the case, especially given the fact that this was the reason the new board quit the club. If they were aware of the 6 point deduction, then took over the club, to then quit because they received a 6 point deduction, well you see my logic. Also, why would the 6 point deduction apply to any other party? This is making an assumption that no bidder would pay back any monies owed, which is a big assumption to make.



[urlhttp://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/11178165.Former_Bulls_boss_pursued_for___905_000_by_Rugby_Football_League/[/url

Also, I thought you said earlier that the RFL was not a creditor of OK Bulls? Yet in the press release above there are direct quotes from Solly himself stating that the RFL lodged with the administrator that they were owed £900,00

“They (OK Bulls Ltd) are entitled to contest the claim, but we have to let the administrator know what we think is owed to us.”

I do hope you are the one defending the RFL at the appeal hearing.....

So to recap on this point, the RFL put in a late claim for £900K, were (surprisingly) allowed to vote to that figure, there were reports in the press of this happening, OK stated this to be the case, Balke Solly insisted the RFL were a creditor and that was reported too.

Yet our new friend simply claims the RFL isn't a creditor. Puzzling behaviour, as is the dweeb's sudden explosion into life, reminiscent of a supernova, never previously seen. Like a supernova, the output is largely uncontrolled and impervious to fact and reason. My theory is that dweeb is in fact from the Planet Dweeb, which is in a parallel universe that has fleetingly made contact with ours, and on his planet, none of the factual events here on Earth did in fact take place. This would explain, for example, Dweeb's potato-like inability to assimilate even blatant facts. If I am right, then as the connection is broken, Dweeb will disappear as quickly as he came, and blissfully complete his existence on his world, where rugby balls are square, Mother Theresa chairs SLE and Nigel Wood models for Primark swimsuits.

You've not read The Dweeb, then!


The simple proposition refuted was MG "is" SSG (or presumably, for that matter, that he "is" BBNL). He isn't, but you'll not convince the Dweeb

Think he would prefer a pie to swimwear to be honest, or several after being slammed as a disgrace to his profession earlier