None of which in any way absolves the then-directors of their responsibility for keeping proper books of account. Something that would be especially important given the scenario you outline? Are you suggesting a breach of s.386, Companies Act 2006?

Whatever the administrator should or should not have contacted OK about (and, as the principal shareholder, I would have expected at least some contact with him), there should have been no initial reason to contact him in his capacity as a former director regarding the books of account. That would likely come later, as part of the enquiries into the conduct of past and present directors, or in response to any subsequent queries raised.



Good point - and agreed. And potentially puts the RFL's very late assertion of a debt owing to THEM in an interesting light, then? A potential connection I admit I had not made until now.



My "Titanic" analogy referred to "various parties". Which may or may not have included the likes of Whitcu*t and the RFL. I am aware that some argue that the RFL must be in this crock of shìte up to their eyeballs. Whether this is or is not the case, I suspect the crock may nevertheless need to be pretty large? To make room for all those sharing some responsibility for the disaster.

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

The council voted with Omar. They still lost

What an absolutely embarrassing p!s$ing fest this thread is.

whats the point in cutting a statement to say what you want it to say rather than what it did say? Do you think you have made some kind of point here?

1. OK resigned as a director on 24th September 2013

2. They were filed electronically so nobody signed them

I have no knowledge of how OKB did or did not keep their books or records, and have never suggested proper accounts shouldn't be kept, of course they should.

That's good to hear...for one minute I was concerned you might be showing worrying early signs of the Wooden Top or Dweeb conditions, neither of which appear to be curable...

Totally agree. Can't wait for the decision to be made whatever it may be, then this thread can hopefully be put to bed.

Yes, I fully expect no reaction from anyone, whatever the decision.

17th chapter of the book of Jobe [so I have been told}, "blessèd is he who doth not expect - for he shall not be disappointed"

My closet Bulls affections hope for a 4 or 6 point bonus. My unhealthy, sick sense of humour wants it just to see the Wakey board explode. If you get anything back they want a judicial review of the conduct of the RFL.

Given that there is, on a conservative estimate, a quintsquillion other things anyone could do rather than read this thread, I conclude that those saying it is boring nevertheless chose to place reading this thread at the TOP - i.e. numero uno out of a quintsquillion - of all of the things they could have done.

The fibbers do protest too much, methinks. We know you're actually hooked on it, so don't pretend otherwise. As you'd be pretty fookin stupid to keep re-opening a thread that bored you whenever you opened it, right?

I have to say FA, I can never really understand anyone complaining about a particular thread being boring, having posts which are too long, containing too many long words, etc etc ad infinitum, when it is just so, so, so easy to just ignore said thread.

After all, there are plenty of others, which might float their particular boat.

Thanks Adey, and FA I do like the shuffling the plans analogy.

Adey, sorry to bother you again, but is it not the case that during a "hiatus period" prior to insolvency, you are not supposed to prefer any ordinary creditor over another, and would a director personally settling debts of the limited company amount to that?

Good comment FA, theres a certain magnetic pull to the thread.

Think it is best not to speculate too much on that Bulliac!

I can't imagine what you mean....

Oh my god - we have discovered a magnet which attracts sh*t - there could be a Nobel prize in this just think of the applications!

Yes - the technical term for this is an "Odsal".

Of course there will be TT, but the phoney outrage that will result is surely going to be more readable than the pages and pages of sanctimonius BS that has been all over this thread.

I'm banned from the Wakefield board after pointing out the flaw in Carter's financial management - basing his financial projections on a requirement to get gates of 17K. Despite the fact that a) the next game is against London and b) the ground only holds 6K.

But of course it's ironconic!

Thank god we didn't call it an "Edsel", that could have been a right disaster.

.... and the reason you are such an avid reader of "pages and pages of sanctimonius BS" is: ??