Don't confuse league dweeb with big wordsicon_wink.gif

I know better than anyone what happened at OK Bulls. I dealt on several occasions with the parties involved.

I was merely tracing back to how the non existent litigation started. And there is no litigation. Only in your head.

6 months on from the process starting, nothing has happened and you can't give any supporting details. Apart from fake case numbers that don't actually exist anywhere but your imagination.

The stat demand was something Whitcut claimed had been issued as far back as 6 months ago. Even if the debt had been disputed, it wouldn't be taking this long for the case to go before a court.

You must remember that this legal case exists only in FA's head.

TBH I find this hounding of leaguedweeb to be pretty damn distasteful all told. The siege mentality does us absolutely no favours whatsoever. Why is it that whenever somebody has a view, or an opinion, that is against the club then people try to stop that view from being heard? From what I can see here there is no-evidence being put forward from either side, just argument and counter argument and an inability to answer pertinent questions from BOTH sides.

FFS I am pretty sure that this is a discussion board then why is it that when any (potentially interesting) discussion is in progress that there seems to be a need to ridicule anyone who does not speak in favour of the club?

Too many people on here struggle to see that other people have opinions that, whilst they may not like, does not neccessarily make them false.

Liar!

Show me the proof of this.

What was the name of the court usher? Who was his solicitor's clerk? What was the name of the chap [no sexism there -heh heh who came round with the tea trolley? Why were there no eclairs to go with the tea? NO ANSWERS = You are a lying know nothing.

If you do give me all that information, I'll still post again tomorrow and ask for all of it again.

Both ME and LiarDweeb are almost certainly on the wind-up, though. If indeed Dweeb isn't Eddie, as I find it a bit odd that ME doesn't see Dweeb calling me a liar and fantasist every post as in any way against his personal anti- "bullying" policy, whereas me or anybody responding to his tedious invention is weirdly bullying Dweeb!

Now ME isn't thick, and so he's obviously just chipping in to be his usual contrary persona. QED.

The thing is, Dweeb - whoever it really is - has gone "Black Knight" now to the extent that he has become a parody of himself. It's more absurd than anything the Python's could have written. Also the suspicion that he isn't a full shilling. Whatever, let's take ME at his word and (unless he comes up with something other than his repeat stock posts) leave the poor lad alone for now. We know he is a liar and a fantasist, and he knows he's been rumbled, so continuing the pantomime exchanges would be a bit pointless.

If you are being serious, his repeat posts at me are neither pro-nor anti- club, but his bizarre position that he has no knowledge of the litigation by OK against MM and RW, and so thought he could bluff that it didn't exist. And his bluff was comprehensively called. What is it to do with pro- or anti- club? Nothing!


On the issue in question I have gone so far as post the name of the Court and the case number of the legal proceedings so if that to you is "no evidence" then if I am ever up for anything I pray to any gods there may be that you are on the jury


I have ridiculed LiarDweeb for being ridiculous. He has heaped ridicule and derision on his own head. He is a proven liar, yet continues to accuse me of lying, albeit now to an audience of one. The situation is nothing like the one you describe.


I wouldn't care a jot whether OK sued MM or didn't sue MM. It is not an issue for me to "like" or "dislike". I have merely informed the forum of the fact of the litigation, only to be repeatedly trolled by LiarDweeb with his idiotic rearguard - all beacause he took a punt that I had no knowledge and lost. If he had accepted his fate then he wouldn't have taken the stick that he has. It is all self-inflicted, and it is he who, like a floater in the bog, refuses to disappear round the bend however many times he is flushed. As we are in a Latin period, [ivolenti non fit injuria[/i would fit his case pretty well.

This forum is increasingly like an episode of Jeremy Kyle. Who has the most missing teeth?

Some people definately have an uncle/dad....

If only I had asked such searching questions!!
There is no legal case being pursued by Khan against anyone in regard to OK Bulls.

You said OK Bulls had no banking facilities. I corrected you by informing you they did in fact have banking facilities with Barclays. It was merchant services they didn't have, which is why OK Bulls money was=#FF0000....Come on Dweeb, how libellous was that?! - Pumpetypump... The now insolvent Lister Hotel run by serial company failure expert Ryan Whitcut. A man who has worked for & with Omar Khan for many years & who he entrusted with running the club. Perhaps you need to ask him about the huge losses he ran up with the 80's concert and the Mela at Odsal? A man who was not considered fit & proper by the RFL, but who you seem to entrust greatly with every word he utters.

A man who claims Khan put in £1m, so you believe him, despite there being absolutely no evidence. A man who claims there was no debt to HMRC when he was forced to step down. A man who claims it was Moore who refused to pay to buy OK Bulls and who claims he is being pursued for £150k as a result.

Poor Ryan, Sutcliffe aside, Omar's best friend, bag carrier, dirty job sorter & confidante for many years is all of a sudden tricked by the nasty Moore, the RFL and cast out by his beloved OK. And fools like you believe this?

Omar and his political friends in Bradford jumped ship and Ryan volunteered to steer it on to the rocks so it wouldn't look as if wouldn't look like his friend was a bad captain.

There is no legal case. You have provided no evidence. I could think of a court name and make up a random number that can't be checked out.

You can't say which solicitor, because there isn't one. You can't give a hearing date, because there isn't one. You can't name the parties to which your randomly made up case number relates, because there aren't any.

There is no £1m, there is no court case. Move on, nothing to see here.

Adey & FA just want to blame the RFL. They don't want to accept that the Bulls are no longer where they used to be. It's too complicated to blame Caisley, Hood, Khan, Whitcut et al, so it must be the RFL's fault.

I mean, fancy them loaning the Bulls £700k, then buying the lease to safeguard the club, the s!

I certainly am NOT LeagueDweeb, and I cannot be bothered arguing all your points. It is six and half a dozen as far as I can see.

I really am sick and tired of your continued dishonesty. You must have a straw man factory at your disposal.

Don't you ever DARE to presume to attribute to me things I have never said and views I do not hold. It is a pretty dishonest and generally pathetic way of conducting any kind of debate. Is it any wonder the contempt you are held in by so many on here? And that your supporters seem to be largely confined to those who use similar Dishonest tactics?

I have made my views pretty clear on the various individuals who have individually and collectively brought the club to this situation. Many of those views are not pretty. And who was it who first coined "Whitcu*t"? Had the various previous administrations conducted themselves with competence and honesty, there would have been no reason for the RFL to get involved. Unfortunately they did not, hence the continuing interventions by the RFL. Unfortunately, it seems to many people that those interventions - starting with the secret loans and the fire- sale acquisition of the Odsal lease - just turned crisis into a disaster.

I think most reasonable folk would now say that there would likely have been a very different outcome had the club been allowed to enter a much less severe insolvency process in 2012. There seems at least a serious possibility that the RFL gave assurances to Moore and co that, for reasons unclear, they subsequently backtracked upon. If the key protagonists would just answer the questions I raised earlier, we could put this speculation to bed once and for all. But, like you, there seems to be a marked reluctance to provide unequivocal yes/ no answers. So, until we DO get some answers, I will continue to say what I have been saying: that the problems were caused entirely by several iterations of the club mismanagement; but that, when history comes to be written, the actions of the RFL may well be seen to have turned crises into a total unmitigated disaster.

And no armies of your straw men, nor amount of ignoring everything that you have said which others have either disproved or shown your knowledge (such as in the insolvency process) to be lacking, can change what I have made quite clear. No matter how much you might wish to dishonestly have people think otherwise.

If this is a (not so) thinly veiled dig at me then it yet again it shows that you know considerably less than you think you do. I am in no way a "supporter" of LeagueDweeb whatsover, so, taking your OWN words, "don't you ever DARE to presume to attribute to me things I have never said and views I do not hold."

More hypocrisy. I do hope that Ian, Sam and Christian are noting this.

That is complete rubbish.

The disaster has been caused by the Bulls consistently gambling and losing by spending more than they could afford on players and resisting the opportunity they should have taken to start again in Championship 1.

All the people at the RFL did was to try to help save a once proud Club from itself.

I would not bother if I was you. It is a futile and unwinnable argument. Adey is full of she-ite. The only opinion that counts is his own, he accuses others of dishonesty then makes things up himself, he tries to tell people how to behave then breaks the AUP himself. This thread is full of his embarrassing attempts.

Then he acts all innocent (like the mod only put a rolly eyes because he apparently thought that "warning" was abit strong) or namechecks (like the T&A journalist who calls him up to tell each other the square root of feck all) then tries to push people off the board if he does not like them.

Then you start pointing out his failings. You will become "pond life" or "vermin" before long (although his brilliant put down of you was "Wooden Head" I believe) and then his collection of minders and sycophants come to the party.

He is a pompous clown with a particularly nasty streak when he does not get his own way. Yet promotes himself as some form of oracle that everyone respects?

Thios will go round in circles till you are all worn out then Adey can feel proud that he has rid the board of another "troll". (Look at his avatar, I am surprised it does not instantly erase his own posts!)

And, before he lies about something else, I, in no way, am a supporter of you.

You know what else is complete rubbish? This constant assumption that it was the cost of players rather than anything else that caused the Bulls downfall. It's a not a clever argument, but rather it's a lazy one. It clearly takes into account the fact that player salaries are likely one of the biggest outgoings a club has. But it ignores a lot of other details about the clubs finances at the time.

Indeed. What this guy and others of his ilk just cannot get into their heads is this: if a club is being mismanaged - financially and operationally - or is torn between warring shareholders - then those situations will continue, no matter how much or how little the club spends on players.

Spending less on players - the supposed issue the likes of this guy seem so obsessed about - would not have solved any of the club's issues in recent times. If anything, even worse on-field performances would likely have driven gates and commercial income down even further. Spending the same on DIFFERENT players might have been another story. Having a set of shareholders and directors who actually knew how to run the business would probably have been a totally different story.

The actions of the RFL, far from "try(ing) to save a once-proud club from itself" look to many to have instead achieved precisely the opposite. Baling out a ship that, unlike the rest of us, they must SURELY have been aware was looking like sinking because it was fatally damaged, then, taking its safe haven in payment, and then making sure the rescue ship was holed below the waterline and captained by someone who should never have held a master's licence, seem to me to be a strange way of saving anything?

btw, this guy was one of the ones I was referring to as Dweeb's supporters (specifically, see his post about three pages ago). Him and various other visitors from other forums who do not wish us well, and who seem to find it easy to make common cause with anyone who accepts the RFL version of events without question. And so often deride anyone who tries to put up a coherent argument against them, whilst simply refusing to acknowledge any alternative opinion.

As an aside: if anyone is interested in reading what Craig puts on here, it is surely perfectly clear what he is supporting is what he sees as the rights of such guys to post their stuff, however strange their stuff might read to some others? I suspect he sees in some of them kindred spirits? If he sees himself in what I said, maybe that tells you something, but it was certainly not my intent. I'll leave dealing with his continuing paranoid attacks on me to the mods.

It is a discussion board. Despite what you want to think, people are entitled to have their say whatever their views are. I might not agree with everything people say but I sure as hell will defend their right to air their views. If you are to stop people expressing a view because you disagree with it then it would not be much of a discussion board now would it? Personally I think that you are the must boring gobe I have ever had the misfortune to read on a message board but you are equally entitled as anyone else to air these views. Sadly though you do not seem to think that the same rules apply for others.




Aye right Adey. You just keep telling yourself that.

Thanks for the simplistic black/white view again. I don't think that any RL person could argue the fact that the foundation of the problem has been successive mismanagement.

Unfortunately, the help the RFL have offered has been inconsistent, varying wildly from "light touch" to apparently vindictively excessive.

The short-sighted ness has been a problem, which is probably more to do with the lack of a clear strategic plan from the Rfl. Some decisions, which in the short term seemed reasonable, have with hindsight proved to be damaging in the medium term.

The RFL have said that they have been helpful & supportive. And you take that at face value.

The alternative view would be that they gave a man (Hood) a large chunk of cash to throw at a situation where he had already lost a lot of cash. How much oversight had they? Did they just give him enough rope to hang himself with?

Then they took the stadium. Again, the alternative view would be that they recognised a member club was in a distressed state and took advantage, by taking the only asset they had for below market rate.

They were then taken in by the new owner ( as were everyone else, except they had the responsibility to check & approve) which continued the slow motion train wreck. And that doesn't look at everything that happened over past 6 months.

So yes, as the governing body, with oversight & responsibility for good governance in the game, I think the RFL have failed in this area.

The RFL runs the game for the benefit of all stakeholders. It has more and better things to do than micro manage Bradford Bulls.
,
It did not "take the stadium". Bradford Bulls freely entered into an arrangement offered by the RFL to help the Club. The alternative could have been the bank, to which the Club owed a lot of money, taking the ground.

The RFL was not "taken in". It's 'fit and proper person test' is, as I've made clear previously, a BACKWARD LOOKING test. It is not intended to predict FUTURE behaviour.