Where do you get your £1.3m figure from? The money was paid to OK Bulls, hence it appears in the financial statements as revenue for the company. It has to be lodged are revenue for the RFL to be ale to pursue repayment from the guarantor. The RFL is a creditor of OK.

The central funding given to OK Bulls wasn't guaranteed by the company, nor is it owed by the company.

If it's common knowledge, you'll have no problem whatsoever in providing proof this event happened?

Wrong.


Wrong. Again.


Wrong.. full house! Well done!

It is actually a bit worrying that you can just come on here and baldly make these false statements as if you have information, when actually you're just making it up!

Just for you:

The 1.3 million has nothing to do with OK, please keep up. This is what 'you' have previously stated the club received from the RFL to fund the club during the initial administration, hence why the club has had it's funding cut in half. (although as Adey has pointed out the figure on the administrators report only claims a figure of around £400,000)

Now please re-visit my initial question and re-answer.

Changed my mind now, this fool does not have any association with the RFL, they would have shot him by now.

Going for a curve ball here, can any of the mods compare this posters IP address to that of the Wakey chairman who openly posts on their forum?

You know this how - please provide evidence.

Oh you can't - thought not!

No, that bought time, and supporters had precious little alternative at that point, but it used up nearly all our goodwill from our own fanbase and others. Whereas a [isecret [/iloan (which ed off all other member clubs) and taking of the lease (our only real tangible asset that lead to the bank problems) were business decisions by the rfl and the bulls where there were alternative courses of action, and more honesty, available.

BBH approached the RFL because.....

Should the RFL have said 'No'?

Dweeb - you have added precisely nothing to the facts, and have answered precisely NO questions. Again. And continue to put your straw men back up even when I have flattened them. This is not a debate; it is an endless repetition by you of the same words, without anything meaningful to back them up.

All you have to do is answer my original questions - in particular, how much the RFL paid to BBH, BBH in Admin, Uncle Tom Cobleigh, Shergar, anyone...and did not recover, for the period up to 31/8/12. And how that compared with the normal funding that would have been due for the same period.

And compare that with the c.£1.3m that you stated unequivocally "[i...was the RFL recouping the huge amount of funds it had to pay the administrator to prevent liquidation"[/i

You really do throw out some disinegnuous irrelevancies though. Like...it is totally and utterly irrelevant whether (as would have been near-certain) BBH went from Administration to Liquidation. Totally and utterly irrelevant, because a new owner would have operated through Newco, to whom the business would have been transferred. The old company would of course have been liquidated. Either you do not understand how the process works, or you DO understand but are trying to muddle and confuse the issue for those who do not. Which one is it?

But, worst of all, even when people prove you just plain wrong, you continue to keep throwing out the same rubbish. As if, by keep saying it will somehow make it true. I PROVED to you what I said about who I blamed, and why. Yet you choose to ignore it and rant on regardless.

I really do hope you are not in any way asociated with the RFL. Since your clearly limited understanding of various insolvency, company law, commercial law and accounting matters - as well as your refusal to answer direct questions and continued dishonest attribution to people of statements they have not made and opinions they have not expressed - would give me serious cause for concern.

If you ARE associated with the RFL, I really hope for your sake you get a tap on the shoulder soon, telling you to stop digging. And, if you are NOT - isn't it about time you realised you caught a tiger by the tail, by coming on here an making sweeping, provocative statements that you cannot support?

"passé "?

Leaving that aside, NO. This just silly. The ONLy question in a creditor's claim in an administration is, is it a debt owed to the creditor by the insolvent company, or is it not?

There is no mechanism for such weird chicanery as you invent. The claims of creditors are just that. Claims to be owed a specific sum of money. Not some sort of "pass through" memorandum!


So that would be why he is challenging it, then?

Rubbish, you previously explained that the club had it's funding cut for a year, so the RFL could re-coup money paid for running the club up until the purchase by OK.

Which is just wrong, the RFL imposed a sanction on the OK which in turn guaranteed SL status, at a cost of 1 year of Sky funding, which just so happened to be shared out between other SL clubs.

Thanks for confirming you canot prove your claim.

I didn't introduce the quantum of £1.3m as a figure that the RFL had put in, or that was being withheld. I stated that the withholding of Sky money was the recouping of money the RFL put into BBH & P&A.

What was the annual central distribution figure to BBH & other clubs at that time?

ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS or STFU.

Enough of your smokescreening already

I have done that but I'm not permitted to say when people have duplicate accounts or if they are trying to hide their real name.

I'm not trawling back through your drivel, but you have previously stated the funding was not shared out between other clubs, as it had in fact paid back the RFL for what was owed to them.

Did you not?

So in return for the RFL putting circa £300k into P&A, the RFL punished OK Bulls to the tune of (your figure) £1.3m and shared this between other clubs? And your evidence of this is?

I'm happy with that, as long as you have done it!

Does each individual member of the forum need to post evidence of the clubs taking the distribution penalty and sharing it, or is it just that you are a goldfish?

[listSo a carrot is most often orange can you prove this.
Here is a thesis on carrots noting that they are now mainly Orange.
So let me get this straight, according to the thesis carrots are in the main orange? Can you prove that?
Here's a series of articles showing that over time the various colours of carrot have given way to the mainly orange variety.
I'd like to see your proof of that.[/list:u

Repeat as required.

There are some, including yourself, who appear to believe that OK Bulls reduced funding was merely that money being shared out between other clubs. There has been no actual mention of how much this amounted to and when it occurred.

I have stated that the reduction in funding to OK Bulls is as a result of the total amount of money the RFL forwarded to BHH & P&A.

No one quoting the £1.3m figure appears to have any source for it's validity.

In fact, carrots are not orange. Or any other colour. You perceive them to be orange but in fact all that is happening is that of the narrow band of optically visible light, the carrot's surface is such that it absorbs most of the spectrum, but reflects a small portion. The receptors in your eyes pick up this reflection and assign to it a code, which then is sent by your optic nerve to your brain which in turn produces a visual experience that you call "orange".

But it is lies.