Everyone's mocking LD for stating the obvious - just a shame it wasn't so obvious to our various owners

I'd suspect, deep down, it probably was, NR.

Trouble is, what's 'obvious' to a dispassionate outside observer isn't always [iquite[/i so obvious to someone more closely involved and all sorts of 'ways round' can look very enticing, and logic then often goes out of the window.You need only look at the success of the payday loans businesses for individuals and the fact that so many other companies go bust to realise that this is really very, very common. As you rightly say, logically it [ishouldn't[/i happen...

I think though that the weight of speculation as to why the last Bulls went tits is much more to do with a power struggle, and a way of removing OK? Certainly there has been plenty of comment and suggestion that the administration was planned and engineered, and some have even said the RFL was involvd in the planning. And it is without a doubt that ther must have been SOME preparation in advance, since a prepack was done selling the business on the same day as it went into admin.

Yes we did owe HMRC a sum which was used as the 'reason' for administration but Whitcut tweeted:


If he is right, that is not a club in any obvious danger of going tits. Almost certainly due to the £1m pumped in by OK. While we may never know the full story, one thing we can be fairly certain of - the banal explanation by Dweeb is not even relevant to whatever actually happened.

Why would they run a business like that knowing the end game could only possibly be administration? Maybe because a too big to fail culture had developed at the club. You can't blame them, no reason to think otherwise considering the RFLs previous level of favouritism. Moral Hazard I believe is the term that applies at least that's what the Bulls thought when they were putting together the 2014 playing budget.

Pure idle speculation, based on nothing. Do you have information to prove what Whitcut says is untrue?

If not, then on the face of it, clearly the business had not been run in any such way.

And if it was, then how come Moore, Calvert and Watt, the directors of the company "being run that way" were also directors of the company buying the business? Wouldn't that be odd?


Meaningless nonsense, I'm afraid. You don't have a clue about what figures they put together, and you can't even clarify who "they" were. We will never know how the business would have been run had the BB2014 purchase been completed but we do know that (obviously) BB2014's business plan had been accepted by the RFL and i would suggest that - especially given what had gone before - the plan the RFL accepted from them would not have showed them planning to trade insolvently?

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"I think though that the weight of speculation as to why the last Bulls went tits is much more to do with a power struggle, and a way of removing OK? Certainly there has been plenty of comment and suggestion that the administration was planned and engineered, and some have even said the RFL was involvd in the planning. And it is without a doubt that ther must have been SOME preparation in advance, since a prepack was done selling the business on the same day as it went into admin. Yes we did owe HMRC a sum which was used as the 'reason' for administration but Whitcut tweeted: If he is right, that is not a club in any obvious danger of going tits. Almost certainly due to the £1m pumped in by OK. While we may never know the full story, one thing we can be fairly certain of - the banal explanation by Dweeb is not even relevant to whatever actually happened.'" Ways of removing OK? Omar Khan was not removed. He left of his own accord. You may care to refer to the story that appeared in early September 2013 with regard to an HMRC winding up order against OK Bulls. Mr Whitcut claimed that this amount being owed was down to an 'oversight' at the club. He stated that the amount was paid in full and that the club was not in any trouble. Perhaps you would care to look at this matter, and compare the timing of it to the debenture taken out by himself, just 4 days after Omar Khan stepped down as a director. I think you are right when you say 'planning' may have taken place. Until a sale deal was rubber stamped and the transaction had been completed, why would anyone step down as director of a company? Curiously all the other directors left prior to the sale being complete. This would suggest 'planning had taken place, before of course all the fuss over financial irregularities' came to light. It would be extremely difficult for any business to accrue debts of £170k to HMRC between the date Mr Whitcut says he left the company, i.e November 2013 and the date the winding up order was issued. Perhaps there is some economy with the truth on the part of Mr Whitcut? Omar Khan did not 'pump in' £1m to OK Bulls. The administrator places this sum at £400k and there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to prove otherwise. You may wish to refer to the stories that surfaced in early August 2013 in regard to financial difficulties at OK Bulls. No official amount was ever confirmed, but it was 'believed' to be around £900k that Omar Khan pumped in from the sale of properties he owned. This £900k clearly was not enough to fund the club going forward, as was claimed at the time. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... pay_wages/ Wasn't it Ryan Whitcut, chairman at the time, who sold John Bateman to Wigan Warriors for the sum of £71,000? Apparently there were no financial reasons for the sale, though it is curious that this did not come from Whitcut, but Cummins. A figure of £71,000 seems like a 'fire sale' sort of figure given the contract Bateman was under and the regard in which he was held. If there were no financial motivations behind the sale, why did Ryan Whitcut allow him to leave so cheaply? www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ial_fears/ All very interesting.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"I think though that the weight of speculation as to why the last Bulls went tits is much more to do with a power struggle, and a way of removing OK? Certainly there has been plenty of comment and suggestion that the administration was planned and engineered, and some have even said the RFL was involvd in the planning. And it is without a doubt that ther must have been SOME preparation in advance, since a prepack was done selling the business on the same day as it went into admin. Yes we did owe HMRC a sum which was used as the 'reason' for administration but Whitcut tweeted: If he is right, that is not a club in any obvious danger of going tits. Almost certainly due to the £1m pumped in by OK. While we may never know the full story, one thing we can be fairly certain of - the banal explanation by Dweeb is not even relevant to whatever actually happened.'" Ways of removing OK? Omar Khan was not removed. He left of his own accord. You may care to refer to the story that appeared in early September 2013 with regard to an HMRC winding up order against OK Bulls. Mr Whitcut claimed that this amount being owed was down to an 'oversight' at the club. He stated that the amount was paid in full and that the club was not in any trouble. Perhaps you would care to look at this matter, and compare the timing of it to the debenture taken out by himself, just 4 days after Omar Khan stepped down as a director. I think you are right when you say 'planning' may have taken place. Until a sale deal was rubber stamped and the transaction had been completed, why would anyone step down as director of a company? Curiously all the other directors left prior to the sale being complete. This would suggest 'planning had taken place, before of course all the fuss over financial irregularities' came to light. It would be extremely difficult for any business to accrue debts of £170k to HMRC between the date Mr Whitcut says he left the company, i.e November 2013 and the date the winding up order was issued. Perhaps there is some economy with the truth on the part of Mr Whitcut? Omar Khan did not 'pump in' £1m to OK Bulls. The administrator places this sum at £400k and there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to prove otherwise. You may wish to refer to the stories that surfaced in early August 2013 in regard to financial difficulties at OK Bulls. No official amount was ever confirmed, but it was 'believed' to be around £900k that Omar Khan pumped in from the sale of properties he owned. This £900k clearly was not enough to fund the club going forward, as was claimed at the time. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... pay_wages/ Wasn't it Ryan Whitcut, chairman at the time, who sold John Bateman to Wigan Warriors for the sum of £71,000? Apparently there were no financial reasons for the sale, though it is curious that this did not come from Whitcut, but Cummins. A figure of £71,000 seems like a 'fire sale' sort of figure given the contract Bateman was under and the regard in which he was held. If there were no financial motivations behind the sale, why did Ryan Whitcut allow him to leave so cheaply? www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ial_fears/ All very interesting.

Indeed it is fairly common. This begs the question as to why, with his track record of business failures, Omar Khan left the day to day running of OK Bulls to Ryan Whitcut.

Unmitigated rubbish.

1 - Whitcu*t stood down before 12 November.

2 - There was NO winding-up order. They are granted by the High Court. HMRC issued a petition for winding up, to be heard by the High Court in March. As before, you seem to lack an understanding of how these processes work.

3 - You clearly also have little if any understanding of how a business works, and in particular with how the PAYE system works. Fortunately for our readers, some of us DO - and ought to, having been involved in running businesses for many years. The PAYE on the October payroll falls due 22/11 (if paid by bank transfer). That on the November payroll falls due 22/12. On the December Payroll, 22/1 - all assuming no existing arrears.

4 - HMRC are extremely robust in chasing proferssional sports clubs for overdue PAYE. ANd rightly so, given the track record of insolvencies, and especially so where a club (under whatever owners) has already defaulted often. Be more than a few days late, and they will petition to seek to enforce payment. And rightly so - the taxpayer would expect no less.

5 - The winding-up petition was issued c. 14/1, IIRC? By which time, it is highly conceivable that the PAYE on the October, November and December payrolls will have been outstanding. Two payrolls might account for the outstanding amount. Three definitely would (happy to post the maths if required). When Whitcu*t left c.12/11, NONE of this PAYE would be due for payment, provided earlier payments had all been made.

6 - Whitcu*t MAY have been a tad disingenuous (not for the first time) regarding the PAYE on the Otober payroll: it being a liability of the company, but NOT yet due for payment. The wording in his letter may be deliberately ambiguous in this regard - only he knows. But, factually, it will not have been a debt due for payment when he left. It may even have been paid since - see next point. And could well have been, given point 4.

7 - That is before we start considering the January payroll, when that was paid, and in particular whether it was paid before the adminstration order, which would mean the January PAYE would be included in the £170k debt owing to HMRC per the statement of affairs, the PAYE normally being due for payment 22/2.

8 - And then we have VAT, where I would assume a liability since most income is standard-rated, and a large proportion of the cost base is not.


All the above from memory, since I do not have the docs to hand right now. I'll improve on my answers if necessary once I have the docs to hand.

Now, Mr Dweeb, do you still assert "...It would be extremely difficult for any business to accrue debts of £170k to HMRC between the date Mr Whitcut says he left the company, i.e November 2013 and the date the winding up order (sic) was issued."? Since I just demonstrated precisely the opposite?

for leaving maybe the timescale left him little choice; maybe it was a desperate man's final throw of the dice. Truth is I don't know, any more than you do. I do know that in desperate times, otherwise sensible people sometimes take desperate measures - maybe this was one of those?

As usual you state something as a fact, when it is not. OK intended to leave and thought he had sold his shares but a) the purchase price was never paid and b) due to a simple cockup not all the shares were actually transferred. Then the litigation between OK and the buyers ensued and it is still ongoing. Thus on paper OK still owned/own 99 of the 100 shares. And obviously, he not having been paid, that now turned into a considerable impasse. Which was of oucrse removed by the sale via administration.

It would be appreciated if you would stop throwing in loose chitter chatter as “fact” when clearly your knowledge is extremely patchy.


See Adey’s post

The FACT is the sale of the shares took place, and OK gave the buyers time to pay, wisely or not. Are you questioning the fact of it happening? What is this, some sort of quarter-baked conspiracy theory?


Nope, just more false claims by you, but Adey has dealt with those comprehensively.


Another lie from you. At the creditors’ meeting the administrator admitted OK’s debt at around the £1m. Why do you feel compelled to serially claim things as facts, when you don’t actually know?

More to the point, this is not the first time your lies and misstatements have had to be corrected. Do you have a short attention span, or an agenda to keep repeating lies?

Seems to me, pretty well everyone who comprehensively fekked up to cause this latest total debacle (or their apologists) have been doing their level best to justify their actions.

Bad fail.

The whole sodding lot of them fekked up. Especially including the people in charge at the RFL. Hugely, massively and comprehensively. Going back years, too. Some more than others. Maybe with the honourable exceptions of Calvert, who I have a load of time for, Duckett (ditto) & Watt.

And IMO should be judged accordingly for their roles in destroying this club. As no doubt they will be, when the history books eventually come to be written.

And no amount of seeking to rewrite history to suit their own actions will change that.

Termination of Ryan Whitcut's directorial appointment is logged at Companies House as being 15/11 2013. He states unequivocally there were no monies owing to HMRC at the time of his departure.. Given that he had already admitted to an oversight on his part which had led to previous move to wind up OK Bulls by HMRC, just how credible is his claim?

OK Bulls entered administration on 31/1/2014 in order to protect Marc Green's debenture.

Are you seriously suggesting a debt of £170k was accrued in just two months i.e the November & December payrolls? If Whitcut's claim of no debts at the time of his departure is to be believed, all monies due at the time of his departure, e.g the October payroll deductions were accounted for. Accounting practices would show payroll deductions for that month as a liability upon payment of wages.

Just what sort of wage bill did OK Bulls have in order to accrue £85k a month in liabilities to HMRC? The off field staff would be on PAYE, but many of the players certainly wouldn't.

I'm afraid you haven't demonstrated anything.

He 'thought' he had sold his shares? No money changed hands. Payments were allegedly missed because, unbelievably, some of the potential buyers ckaim to have uncovered financial information that differed from what they had been told.

Given that Whitcut was one of the potential buyers who had been in charge of the running of the club, |I find this a little curious. He withheld information from himself?

There never was any legal action instigated against the potential purchasers, and there is non ongoing.

A simple cock up that shares weren't transferred?

There is no evidence on record to support your £1m figure. It's based on nothing more that hearsay and conjecture.

The reasons WHY the payment was not made differ depending whom you ask. The FACT that the deferred payment wasn't made is what is relevant.


I have never argued that any information was withheld. Given those making that allegation had been involved for some time in the day to day running of the club it is not easy to accept. But as it is not my case, why are you stating it in response to me?


You're either a liar, or an idiot. Why do you come up with yet another claim, as if you knew, of something which is just untrue? Does it make you feel big or something?


Yes.


There is evidence on the record of the creditors' meeting and in the hands of the administrator. As I have stated more than once before, OK produced his evidence to the meeting and the administrator accepted it to the tune oif around £1m. This is "fact", not "conjecture" nor "hearsay". I am intrigued as to what purpose, other than getting wet, your continued sing into the wind is serving.

Who have you asked and what were the reasons given?

Feel free to provide ANY evidence whatsoever that a legal claim was lodged, via which solicitor and at which court. There is no record anywhere of any claim or any date set for a hearing of such a claim.

Please feel free to evidence the documents from the creditors meeting where your claims can be verified. Feel free to evidence the documents accepted by the administrator that prove OK did pump in £1m. Feel free to post these documents for all to see, or any statement of affairs from the administrator to prove your claim.

I think the phrase is, put up or shut up?

Bit rich coming from someone who refuses to provide proof of any of his claims. Not very honest or noble.

I had a dream last night that we got all six points back.

Then I remembered that Martin Luther King had a dream, and we all know what happened to him.

Mat do we think leaguedweeb is Honest and Noble

I certainly do not. With all due respect, LD is considerably more articulate than N&H.

Eddie I also had a dream last night,we got all 6 points back plus 300 points towards our points difference

In the words of Captain Sensible " You've got to have a dream,if you don't have a dream how you gonna have a dream come true"

Asked what, ffs?




Could you perhaps link to the public record you checked of all civil claims lodged, so we can check this one doesn't appear? No, that's right, because there isn't one. So your implication that some such national list exists is just pure bull, as per.


Poor love. There's only you, though. People on here understand both that I don't report bull nor do I rat on my sources. Whether you personally believe any of it is irrelevant to me. The only reason I respond when you post lies is NOT to convince a moron like you, but simply to point out that your are a liar, in case anyone doesn't know, and that you are stating things as fact when I can guarantee you are making it up.

So? Precise date of logging at CH is not relevant in this case. It was anyway reported in the media on 12 November that he had left the company. Not that the precise date makes any difference whatsoever in this case.



No. He stated "...there was no [udebt[/u to HMRC..." not "...no monies owing...". The distinction could be important, since most people would take "debt" in this case to mean something overdue for payment. The October PAYE was not due for payment until 22/11. But, in any case, I suspect HMRC would have moved well before mid-January if the October PAYE remained unpaid.



I already stated the wording he used left scope for being disingenuous. I doubt he would have told an outright lie though, given the very public nature of his letter. Even HE would not be that dumb.



Again, no shìt, Sherlock...



Not at all. As every other reader apart from yourself will clearly see from what I said. You stated, unequivocally that "...It would be extremely difficult for any business to accrue debts of £170k to HMRC between the date Mr Whitcut says he left the company, i.e November 2013 and the date the winding up order (sic) was issued. ". Leaving aside your clear lack of understanding about insolvency processes and terminology, I demonstrated how if would be perfectly possible. And that I was, and am, happy to provide the maths to support that.

My rebuttal of your statement did not require me to prove what the balances oustanding were, and when they arose. It merely required me to demonstrate that YOUR statement was wrong. Which I did.



Well what an amazing thing! I qualified in 1979, but I never knew that till now! Thank you SO much for enlightening me!

See my earlier comments re the October payroll PAYE, and the potential for disingenuous use of semantics.



Really? In which case, pray enlighten us as to how those players will have been employed or engaged by the club then? And how PAYE will have been avoided?

In framing your answer, you might just want to bear in mind that I have previously stated I saw detailed club financials as recently as late last summer. So, it might not be unreasonable to assume that I know the gist of the facts. Being bound still by a NDA, until OKB is finally liquidated, anyway, I obviously cannot state those facts on here.



I have already stated that two payrolls might make the £170k you have been quoting. Three surely would. That was based quite simply on a total gross payroll of say £2m (probably too low), deductions from employees averaging say 30%, and employers' NIC (above the LEL) of 13.8%. I never suggested £85k/month PAYE - you did.

Further to my previous point, I was careful to use assumptions that a reasonable financial person might well use, as a starting point. Maybe other financial people on here would care to comment on the assumptions? If I had a clearer idea of the likely actual monthly numbers, based on what I had actually seen as above, I would obviously not be in a position to use that information for the reason stated. Instead, I would need to do a simple calculation from first principles. As I did.



Oh but I have.

I demonstrated that your statement was rubbish. It was not necessary to state the actual numbers to be able to do that. Merely to demonstrate how such numbers could easily arise.

But now, we come to the crunch, where you get to look even more stupid again.

1 - The HMRC petition for winding up, presented on 16/1/14 (I am looking at it now) does not state the amount they were claiming. How do you know what that amount was? And what it comprised?

2 - The statement of Affairs, dated as of 31/1/14, DOES state the amounts due to HMRC. Again, I am looking at it now. In fact, it states TWO amounts - and, in doing so, probably indicates that the administrator, too, needs a bit of a refresher course. The values are:

"Inland Revenue" - £77,221.16

"HM Customs & Excise" - £168,227.48

The descriptions are curious, since both bodies ceased to exist some time ago when they were merged to become HMRC.

But, I suspect most accountants reading this would take the first item as likely being PAYE, and the second item likely being VAT? As well as suggesting MR Wilson needs to get some tax CPD in quite sharpish...

VAT? Oh yes, I noted that right at the end of my earlier post. As a bit of a "sleeper". But you fell into the trap I set, of asuming all the amounts owing to HMRC were for PAYE, even though the hint was there. Oh dearie me.

Bad fail. Again.

Thought that was pretty obvious. Bad poetry is just a mask he puts on to hide himself. He's slipped a few times and when he has his posts read just like leaguedweebs

League Dweeb is just a trolling idiot, who wanted to come on here and make out he was some sort of in-th-know guy with access to privileged information. Sadly when shown up for persistently bullting, he prefers to try to brazen it out, and probably actually believes that there are people left who can't see through him.

My best guess is that he is probably a goldfish, judged by (a) how long it takes him to forget something he's been told and (b) how he keeps going round and round in the same circles.