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: ??

Actually I ain't read the majority of it FA. I was bored after the first couple of pages. TBH I cannot believe that it is still going on.

Town hall clock springs to mind with you

Quote ="mystic eddie"icon_confused.gif'" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Edsel

Quote ="mystic eddie"icon_confused.gif'" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Edsel

To your first point, essentially, yes. To your second point, I'd suspect no - but with a slighly lower degree of assurance.

As a director of a company, once you know (or ought to know) that it is unable to settle its debts as they fall due, then there are a string of specific requirements you MUST comply with, to avoid the offence of wrongful trading, by trading whilst insolvent. One of those requirements (put simply) is that you must not prefer (i.e. pay/settle) one creditor in preference to another. To do so, without a compelling commercial reason necessary to minimise the loss to the body of creditors, is what is called a "fraudulent preference". Any such payments are liable to be recoverable from the recipient by the administrator or liquidator. Also, note that trading whilst insolvent effectively lifts the protection of limited liability, in that any director so doing can become personally liable for debts of the company.

Prefering a creditor by the COMPANY, without compelling justification, is clearly a no-no. Should a director - or, maybe more to the point, a principal shareholder, chose to settle a debt of the company personally, you start getting into grey areas. I guess technically, the director then effectively stands in place of the original creditor, through an increased loan account creditor, and therefore the quantum of creditors remains unchanged. Just its composition has changed.

If you are wondering whether, if OK paid any debts of the company personally, and if by doing so was guilty of making a fraudulent preference, based on the above I'd say probably not. But, to be safe, you'd need an insolvency lawyer to opine on the particular circumstances.

Following FA's comments earlier, it may well be that some of the debt OK claims as due to him arose precisely BECAUSE he argues that he paid, personally, liabilities of the company. As long as he paid these while the company was solvent, there can hardly be an issue anyway, regardless?

The administrator, in his "proposals" report, alludes to some monies being paid BACK to OK, reducing his loan account. teh administrator goes on to say that he would investigate these seeming repayments, to ascertain whether the constitued a pruadulent preference. As indeed he has a responsibility anyway to do. Separate issue to your point, though.

I know we don't need to worry about anyone who finds this thread boring (or does not understand it's contents) complaining. Since they can have no reason whatsoever for reading it in the first place, knowing its nature and contents.