Players left because Ok Bulls was in administration. BB2014 is irrelevant to the points deduction. John Bateman was sold by OK Bulls prior to administration.

So sweet FA is a creditor? That's the only way he can be confident of his £1m invested figure.

Bore off!

is LeagueDweeb still pretending to be in the know? i thought it was pretty much confirmed they were simply on a wind up? Are they still persisting?

So despite arguing vehemently against it. You now accept that if someone were a creditor, or were given information from a creditor. They could be confident of that figure.

What this tells us is, that you accept that what FA is saying could possibly be true. Yet you have argued it definitely isnt. These two things are mutually exclusive. Something cannot possibly be true if it definitely isnt. This makes it pretty obvious you dont have a clue either way and were trying to bluff your way out. You were trying to hide behind an absence of public information rather than having your own definitive information.

If you were someone who knew this figure to be incorrect, you would know it was incorrect by having your own definitive different information. What information FA had would be irrelevant. We now know you dont have this different definitive information. You bluffed. Your bluff was called. You are a busted flush. Know when to walk away from the table.

I believe he's adopted a strategy that if you dig down long enough, you'll start digging up

The creditors will not know anything other than the amount of money they are individually owed, through the claims they have lodged with the administrator.

FA has based his whole £1m on nothing more than a figure 'believed' to be £900,000- as speculated upon by the local newspaper at the time Ryan Whitcut was trying to engineer a way out of OK Bulls for OK.

Perhaps what you need to do is actually look closer at the behaviour of OK and RW and the sequence of event behind the scenes, plus the activities of both in the lead up to the meltdown.

There is not one shred of evidence to support the figure FA claims. It's a fallacy, and quite frankly beyond comprehension that OK would pump in £1m then within a month look to sell his stake in the company for just 20% of that amount.

I am guessing that FA is Gerry Sutcliffe, as he is the only other person who has claimed the £1m figure as genuine.

The administrator has never produced anything to support this figure. He hasn't communicated anything to anyone, let alone creditors, since his statement of affairs report.

Please feel free to provide any evidence yourself that will support a completely false claim. Of course that is unless you think there is no need for anyone to support claims they make.

I think you'll find that I am right. This will become clear once the final report is produced.

You are Poirot & I claim my 5 Belgian truffles.

Liar. I have told the forum what happened at the creditors' meeting.


Liar. For the umpteenth - and final - time, THE EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED AT THE CREDITORS MEETING AND ACCEPTED TO THE TUNE OF AROUND £1M BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.


And, like your usual guesswork, you guess wrong.


Look you idiot the creditors meeting was called, inter alia, BECAUSE the administrator had OK in at only around £400K. It is not up to the administrator to produce anything to support a creditor's claim - even my dog would probably understand that much.

And if you knew this figure to be incorrect you would know it to be incorrect. Whether FA was a creditor or knew a creditor would be irrelevant.

There is difference between you knowing this figure is wrong, and you not being aware of this figure.

Why, none of that would be relevant to what YOU have said.

The only one indulging in a fallacy here is you. It is a clear and obvious logical fallacy. If you KNOW this figure to be incorrect then you have your own definitive information to the contrary. The fact you dont, and you are relying on an absence of evidence in favour as your proof PROVES that you dont know. It you know definitively as you state then FA's evidence is irrelevant because you can prove the opposite. If you cannot, then you cannot possibly know.

I am not claiming either way. You are. Perhaps it is time you provide your definitive evidence?

So, you're right even though everyone else is not only saying you're wrong, but providing evidence to support exactly WHY you're wrong? Good luck with that.

FA's evidence? sorry, at best hearsay without an independent authoritative source. When i see an amended statement from the administrator, I will consider that evidence,

Good to know. I'm sure the thing most people on here crave, above all, is to hear the outcome of your ruminations once you have "considered" such "evidence" as the administrator may provide to you. I know that it's top of my list, and that the administrator will be yearning for your approval.

Maybe you should attend the 16 July hearing. You might learn a bit more there.

All this kindergarten stuff is irrelevant anyway. The Bulls went bust, again, big style. If there's no cash left from what the new owner paid the Administrator for the Club (after the Administrator's fees are taken) then there's nothing for anybody. No cash for creditors, whatever their claims might be, and no points back for the Bulls.

pot calling kettle black!!!

Again, I prefer to wait to hear the outcome of the experts view of the points deduction rather than some wooden top caught in a groundhog day. the appeal is not about whether the creditors are going to get anything back, Marc Green hasnt said he will do that, that was Moore. The issue is whether the insolvency event was due to force majeure, ie unavoidable. Not having the money to pay the taxman is not unavoidable. I doubt that Marc Green would shell out money to pay for independent witnesses to tell him what he already knows.
And theres a few dates that on the face of it do not add up. on the 20th January Moore was stating that the cuts had just about been made and whilst not quite there the future was looking more stable, and also that agreement had been reached about transfer of control and it was proceeding to contracts. On the other hand 10 days later theres an admin order (apparently the insolvency event) that seemingly catches out Moore and the RFL.

Adey, point of information please: The Administrator would do a bank reconciliation as part of his duties to sort out the mess: if OK had paid £1m rather than £400k into the Bulls the Administrator would have noticed it. However, if OK had simply paid direct ie not put it through the Bulls books, what status does it have in an admin situation?

The administrator drew up the [iestimated[/i (my emphasis) Statement of Affairs, which was an attachment to his statutory "Administrator's Proposals" report (not, as troll Dweeb wrongly said, a "statement of affairs" report, btw) from the books and records of the company. (It is actually the responsibility of the directors, but absent that then the administrator has to do it, to the best of his ability).

If transactions were not recorded in the books, then it is unlikely the administrator would be able to reflect them in the estimated Statement of Affairs. It seems to be OK's argument that there were indeed such transactions, maybe including transactions paid direct by OK which were not put through the company's books, from what limited information is in the public domain.

If, say, OK DID settle valid OKB liabilities personally, then entries should have been made in the books to establish the costs and liabilities, and the settlement thereof through OK's loan account. If such entries were not made, that would not preclude OK claiming as a creditor of the company for the value of such items settled. But his task in "proving his debt" (a specific legal process) would be very much more difficult. The administrator would add any prima facie valid or supportable creditor claims to the list of creditors (the Statement of Affairs is never updated - it is a one-off document). But OK woould need to "prove his claim" for that claim to be admitted for any possible distribution to creditors.

The administrator, as empowered, advised creditors that he did not intend to convene a creditors' meeting, since there was no prospect of a dividend for unsecured creditors. Creditors can nevertheless require that a meeting be convened. It seems, again from what little is in the public domain, that OK exercised that right. I guess because, inter alia, he disputed the value of his claim as reported by the administrator?

A key point arising out of all this: the directors are responsible for maintaining proper books of account. Failure to do so is a criminal offence. OK would seem to be arguing that his claim was understated because part at least of it was not recorded in the books of account. Which, for his claim to succeed, risks him being hoist by his own petard, maybe?

The administratopr referred in his report to "accounting irregularities". No more detailed explanation was forthcoming.

From the initial statement from the Administrator it is clear there isn't a copper for any of the creditors, so no effort will be put into examining the numbers or digging out the truth. So you could claim to be owed £20m and basically the Administrator would shrug his shoulders and say "Whatever".
But as Adey points out it's kind of ironic that OK's arguing he was owed more but it wasn't reflected in the books - the accuracy of which both he and the other Directors were responsible.

Indeed.

Seems to me that various parties to this whole sorry saga are seeking to rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic to reflect their version of events...months after it sank.

1. According to the form lodged at Companies House, what date did OK cease to be a director of OKB?
2. Who signed the forms lodged at Companies House notifying the appointments of other directors of OKB?

On the (reasonable) assumption that the amounts OK is claiming relate to the time he was in office, irrelevant to the question I responded to.

It only costs you a quid to download the forms from the Companies House web site



However after all that has gone on it would not surprise me to see a "x" in the signature section, and resigning does not remove the legal obligations on you as a director for the duration of your appointment.

But there is no surprise whatsoever, if you listen to what I have been telling you. Funny, that.



I think it's very common knowledge that in the early stages, OKB had no banking facilities so of necessity everything went through other already existing accounts eg my season ticket purchase money went to a company linked to the Lister Hotel as no doubt did all others at the same time.

My understanding, which I've said before, is that when the statement of affairs was released, the administrator had not contacted OK and that curious omission could explain why he did not have the information.


The relevance of the £1m is to do with control. If OK holds the majority then he can force an investigation into the administration. If he is not the majority creditor then he can't. Some may suggest in the latter scenario, the space under the carpet might be rather full. It is of course possible some people might prefer carpet to investigation.

Of course, the RFL ought to keep proper books and records etc. just like OKB or any company, and some may find it odd therefore that if they were owed £1m, that wasn't in the statement of affairs either. Nor did it appear at all until the eleventh hour before the creditors' meeting. Perhaps the RFL had simply forgotten.

Bradford Council, you may think, might be pretty neutral in the administration; wouldn't they simply prove their claim and stand by and just observe? Of course, if you do the arithmetic, it would be the case that any call for an investigation into the administration could be thwarted, if OK was outvoted, and we know the Council had £200k-worth of votes. If the Council did not abstain, but sided with the RFL, OK would have been outvoted.

It seems to me that a better analogy might be seeking to bury the technical drawings of the bulkheads and watertightness etc., ships logs, speed, direction charts, iceberg warnings etc. that might shed some light onto why the Titanic sank. I'm sure some might say "Look, the boat's on the bottom, don't ask any questions, what difference does it make? Just move on". But I don't think that's how it works, nor how it should work.

Passenger liner sinks with loss of hundreds of lives - external and funded body responsible for marine safety investigates, and recommendations enacted into law.

Small company, badly managed goes bust - no deaths, a few scorched wallets. Sure folks on here might want to know a little of what really happened but there is no cash in the bank for even a cursory investigation. So as ever apart from a few tweets from parties seeking to put their part in the mess in the best light- speculation is the best we are likely to get.