Thank you for repeating the published RFL line. We'd prefer a bit of original thought though?
,


"to help the club"? As it happens, IIRC Hood told some of us that the idea to sell the ground was his, in a discussion with Wood on a train. But, regardless of how it arose, it was a deal done between Hood and one or more heirarchs at the RFL. That deal, far from helping the club, did absolutely immense damage to the club:

- it took away the one tangible asset the club had left

- it seriously restricted the scope and opportunities for any future owners.

- it caused immense ill-feeling at other clubs, and Iconicgate (thanks to the guy who coined that!) appears to have been one of the main factors behind the other clubs demanding central funding be confiscated from the new owner (please don't regurgitate yet more of the RFL line...most folk now accept it was imposed not volunteered)

- it, and the secret loan that predated it, allowed the club to incur further losses of maybe more than £1.5m, over a period when the shareholder war made running the place very difficult.

- it seemingly so incensed Caisley and co - especially since what they were apparently told at the 2011 AGM was contradicted by actions just a few weeks later.

- it thoroughly pìssed off the supporters, who having been assured the deal had guaranteed the club's long-term future, were landed the bombshell just weeks later that the club was about to go under.

- most important of all, it made me look a total prat because I made the serious error of believing what each of Hood, Bennett, Duckett and Duffy told me at the fans' forum immediately after the sale was anounced. And supporting them, because of their assurances. Some of them were just doing their jobs, but Hood just plain lied. To everyone.

It seems perfectly plain now that what the RFL did was akin to giving a druggie a load more of whatever he was addicted to. What condition did THAT ever solve? Had the RFL said "no" to the loan, and to the stadium deal, then Hood would either have had to cut a deal with Caisley's cabal to save the club, or put the thing into administration so someone esle had the chance to. And the loss to creditors, and the mountain to climb, would have been far less, not least because the club still held its principal asset. Oh, and we would not have had to suffer an administrator appointed by the Caisley cabal, whose fees and actons in sacking people were a scandal.

But, silly, me, that would never have happened, would it? Because Wood & co had made this big secret loan to the club. You know, the one they never told anyone else about? And then - one wonders? - started cräpping themselves at what would happen to THEM when the existence of the loan came out, when Bulls went bust and were not able to repay it?

YOU may still want to think what Wood & co did was to help the club. Most of us now realise it achieved precisely the opposite.



Oh dear. You really don't know how these things work, do you?

The bank could only have seized the ground if they had a fixed charge on the freehold. Which they did not. The fact is, if BBH became insolvent, the long lease reverted to the council. The bank could never have realised ity in any way as security.

If BBH became insolvent whilst still holding the long lease, the best scope for Natwest to recover what it was owed would have been for the administrator to secure a decent price for the goodwill and other intangible assets - including a transfer of the lease to a new owner. Being a floating charge holder, the bank would then have had first dibs once the prefs were paid. Any in any case, the bank was only in for about £1/4m or so.



I never said it was "taken in". They either failed to conduct due dilligence when advancing the original loan - which should have meant Wood & co being ejected from office in most commercial organisations - or they knew what they were doing, and where it might lead.

As for the "fit and proper" test, well do you really think the leopard changed its spots so dramatically after the takeover?


I really wish you would just stand back from the line Wood and co have been pedalling, and look at their actual actions leading up to and throughout this whole ongoing train crash. The train crash was due entirely to the various people who owned and ran the club. I don't think there is any argument about that? The scale of the crash, the extent of the casualties, and the long-term consequences of it, seem to me though to owe much to the actions of Wood & co.

Something folk might want to think about? Moore & co were pilloried in various quarters for "walking away" from the club, when they were told about the (to them) unexpected points deduction AND, more seriously, continuing special measures. They said those actions by the RFL effectively consigned the club to relegation and (the subtext) possible financial oblivion. They said they could not allow themselves to be associated with the next train crash. Hood and Khan, by contrast, elected to try and carry on despite the overwhelming financial burdens. Who got it right?

When have I ever said any such thing? You do love your lies. Why do I need to ask him about the concert? WTF has that to do with anything now?


No. It is not a case of "belief". I have been reliably informed that OK was allowed to vote approx. £1m at the creditors' meeting and on the basis of that it seems very clear the evidence he produced must have been directly responsible for the upgrade. You of course are in denial about the creditors meeting.

So he says. I have never said I "Believe" him but I certainly see no reason to disbelieve him, it is certainly perfectly possible. As has been explained in detail to you but as normal you've simply ignored.

It is unfathomably stupid of you to keep flogging your dead horse. Anyone with a brain - seeing it means so much to you - could and of course would have very easily checked it out.

I can, though. So could you if you checked it for yourself.

I have already stated that no hearing date has been fixed yet. As normal you just weren't accepting incoming.

I can. And of course, many times, I have. You could too, if you checked it for yourself.

I bet you also don't believe man landed on the Moon, and that the Earth is flat. If your irrational beliefs make you happy then great. I can lead an ass to water, but I can't make it drink.

Whitcut is a two bit shyster. He's the only person who has claimed Khan put £1m in. His business history & his actions whilst in charge at Ok Bulls show him to be a credibility free individual, but you believe what he has to say. Reliably informed, by who? There is nothing to support your claim.

There is no court case. So 6 months on from the stat demand, there is still no hearing date, you can't say which solicitors are involved, or which parties. If the number you say is the case number was genuine, you would be able to say who the parties were, who the solicitors are and where the case was to be heard. You can't.

Walter Mitty has nothing on you.

How has the sole asset been taken away? It's there for the entire term of the lease with Bradford Council for use as a rugby league sradium.

Caisley & hood et al made a mess. Can you imagine what would have happened if the likes of Khan had been able to take over the lease? It would have been hocked to finance the club, and once the repayments were missed, then what would happen?

Why is there a limitation on future owners? Green has already intimated he wants the lease. Should the RFL just sell it to him and wash their hands of it?

Where would Bradford Bulls be if the RFL had had not taken over the lease & it had been as security on a loan?

No, he isn't.

What do you gain by repeating this lie? I'm scratching my head here.

I have been informed of the same thing via three creditors who attended the meeting, or their representatives. But don't let solid information stand in the way of your delusions.

I have repeatedly told you the hearing is not a stat demand hearing, it isn't my fault that you are so stupid, you do not understand this rather basic point.

I have repeatedly said I do know which solicitors are involved, and that you could ascertain the information, but you somehow prefer this mental campaign to convince yourself you might still be right. Why don't I say on here, now, who they are? Because I know your style! here would be no point, as you would just say i was lying about that too! See? You're rumbled! It shows a manic delusional personality, or desperate trolling. As it amuses me to watch you disappearing up your own ass I am happy to keep winding you, but I'm really not sure what you're getting out of this beating.

I have repeatedly said which parties, what is your problem, you surely can't be so thick as to keep forgetting?

Indeed, and that's why I can! But why haven't you simply CHECKED that the number is genuine, which it is, instead of wasting your time constructing ever more desperate scenarios where it might be fake? I mean, it's just not a rational approach, however much amusement it's providing us with, at your expense.

He certainly hasn't. You're a bit like the delusional child of Walter Mitty and the Black Knight would probably turn out, but more OCD.

I hope you never fall off your high horse. It's such a long way down you'd suffer serious injuries if you did.

It was the RFL wot did it!!

Why not name the creditors? Flesh out your 'claim'? Unless you do it's pure hearsay that you cannot substantiate.

No one is saying it's a stat demand hearing. You seem to think the debt would have been disputed, so six months on from the first move in the game, there is still nothing.

You haven't said who the parties involved with your fake case number are, despite repeatedly being asked. You won't say who the solicitors involved are with your fake case number. You won't because there aren't any. There is no case being pursued by Khan.

I would be delighted if you actually provided anything to support your claim of £1m & a court case.

No it was the mismanagement of the club wot done it - the worst you could accuse the RFL of is dropping the hospital pass the various owners of the Bulls threw them.
However I wont be holding my breath for the history book as it is well known that history is written by the victors - and that certainly isn't going to be the Bulls.

The backward bit of Whitcut was why he didn't step up as a director in the first instance with OK Bulls. The forward bit was the clearly useless business case & forecast the OK mob put forward.

No-one is saying it is a stat demand hearing. Apart from YOU that is. At least try to make you unsubstantiated claims consistent and dont contradict yourself

.

Where is the contradiction? If you'd check the chronology & context, it's clear that the claims about a stat demand issue were first. No one said the Khan 'claim' had been contested, and even if it is has there's no mention of any hearing being about a stat demand.

The reason being that insolvency proceedings would have already been started and completed if the stat demand had been issued and not contested.

The fact that it is over 6 months down the line since the whole process allegedly began shows that there is nothing ongoing. HTH

Because it would make absolutely no difference to your perverse position.

I haven't made any claim. I have provided facts.

So far as you are concerned of course it is. As is every single thing you have ever been told, or read, in your life. In particular, pretty much everything you would discuss with random people. Like, oh, I dunno, an internet forum maybe?


Is this a shock to you? I have this picture where in your real life you see the bus is a number 72 going to Leeds but you will not get on it as that is hearsay, and you can't ask the driver cos he might tell you "yes, I'm going to Leeds", but why should you believe him, he could be lying, where is his PROOF? Your life must be hard.

You keep harping on about Stat Demands, so I assumed (recklessly, perhaps) that there was some actual point to that bit of your drivel. I clearly made an error that you might at least be partially lucid. Soz.

No son, I don't "seem to think it would have been", I have unequivocally stated that it is disputed. Your neurons can't apparently process this point.



Still not dared check, so you can hold on to that last vestige of denial, I see.



Would you? Really? You'll be delighted when you are confirmed as a lying canute? How odd!

So, just to recap. The case number you randomly generated is fake. It cannot be checked anywhere because it doesn't exist. For the same reason you cannot name the parties this number relates to. For the same reason you can't name the solicitors acting on behalf of any parties. For the same reason you haven't said which parties have allegedly contested the debt.

Now, for all the reasons given above, you should just trot along back to your troll shed and find another angle for your endless trolling and lies.

What does a troll shed look like?
I want one.

the old tram shed in Saltaire turned into a Troll shed and then back into the Old Tramshed. Its a dangerous place, my mate Wilkie got run over on the Bingley Road side by a bubble car which was written off. He had a slight bruise and carried on to the chippie to get chips and scraps.

do you think anyone is falling for this crock of ?

I understand the aim of your trolling is to waste everyone's time by getting people to repeat the same things over and over and over and over and over and over and over at you. Im just wondering if you think anyone with a brain is falling for it?

Also why don't you use your usual username?

For the information of everyone else except you, the case is now at the directions stage and a timetable will be set by the end of July.

That's so bizarre, it has to be true.

Indeed. Bonfire night iirc, or should I say Bombfire Night as it was a Messershmidt bubble car. Anyway, the Troll Shed you so desire will cost you a bob or two.

Well OTT but those trolley buses turning around Saltaire roundabout used to spark like - bonfire night - and it scared the s**t out of me on the way to Albert Road Junior School, tho not as much as Miss Fisher did when I got there.

I was a brilliant idea when you think about it - recycling all those defunct aircraft canopies as motor vehicles. Aren't bubble cars due for a comeback? Retro has been 'chic' for a while now.

Maybe we've run out of WW11 aircraft canopies.

Yes they have all been eaten at dinner parties in Wigan

In tribute to our long-departed friend, who may for all we know still be allowed to read things even if sharp pencils are probably banned:





Yes, a little. If you count judgments of the High Court.



It's been a while. You can only run for so long, but you can't hide.

FA -- I just hope your post does not rekindle LeagueDweeb's interest. It's bad enough that Mystic E has reemerged.

So are we getting the points back now then or what?
How is that going to work?

I think at this stage we will have to redeem them for prizes.