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.

I thought you were sailing close to the wind by committing sarcasm, which I believe is in direct contravention of the AUP.

Who said that there was anything he "didn't have" as a director? Of course he did!

OK Bulls did have banking facilities, through Barclays. They didn't have merchant services to allow card or online payments.

Still nothing to support your £1m?

Both the Bradford Council loan and the Sky money from the RFL were underwritten by personal guarantees of repayment by Omar Khan.

Perhaps it is because once he stepped down and the business was placed into administration, these amounts had to be recorded for audit trail and proof of debts due - as the money from both Bradford Council and the RFL had actually been paid to OK Bulls.

Audit trail? What on earth can you be on about? It is gibberish. You're either a creditor of a company or you're not. There is nothing hard to understand.

Nor do you offer any reasonable explanation as to why this alleged "debt" did not appear until the night before the meeting OK called.

Still nothing on what happened at the creditors meeting, or any supporting proof for the £1m?

As mentioned, both the Sky money and Bradford Council loan were underwritten by Omar Khan. The Sky money WAS NOT a loan to OK Bulls. It was not recorded as a liability on the business. The RFL is not a creditor of OK Bulls.

The Sky money went into OK Bulls, so therefore had to be recorded at the creditor meeting. The RFL had to be able to prove where the money went to ensure it's guarantee was protected. The administrator was made aware of the arrangement as he was handling the financial affairs of Ok Bulls to whom the Sky money was paid.

Just as Omar Khan would have to evidence any money he paid in to OK Bulls, as you claim he has so the RFL made sure the Sky money was officially recorded.

Perhaps the RFL were not made aware of the company being placed into administration before it happened? Perhaps they were simply countering Omar Khan from playing silly buggers and protecting central funds?

Conversely Bradford Council was a creditor of OK Bulls. The loan agreement was between Bradford Council and OK Bulls, with Ok Bulls repaying approximately £50k of the £200k until it defaulted.

And if you believe that, you will believe anything!

I have several times summrised what happened at that meeting and stated that OK produced his proof to the administrator. I am not sure which bit you are having trouble with.
So why mention it again? Everybody who is interested has read all about these facts

Indeed it was not, any more than it is a loan to any other club. But who on earth argued it was a loan? Another of your straw men.

And yet claimed and got admitted as a £1m creditor. And thus voted to that amount. Odd, wouldn't you say?

"Recorded"? Why on earth would it need to be "recorded"? How would it be recorded? For what purpose? A creditors' meeting is attended by - and only by - CREDITORS. There's a clue in the phrase "creditors meeting". Your curious theory is just weird.

Again, nuts. How can there be any dispute as to how much distribution was paid to the Bulls? Unless you think it was paid in cash? The RFL was in fact (and very simply) claiming to be a creditor of OKB on the basis that it claimed OKB having gone into admin, had to pay the distribution money back. If the RFL was right, then it would be a debt. Owed by OKB. To the RFL. It is zero to do with any guarantee. If the RFL wanted to claim any money from OK personally then that would (obviously) be a matter purely between them and him. It would be nothing whatsoever to do with OKB and much less with the administrator of OKB. Either they could prove OK owed them money, or they couldn't. Either way, even you must realise that a creditors meeting of a company in administration is not the forum for a dispute between the RFL and a private individual about a claimed personal debt.

How do you suggest he was "Playing silly buggers"? He was either a creditor or he wasn't. What has that issue got to do with the RFL?

No , Sherlock. I have an equally profound revelation: Bradford Council is a council.

I've got fa slightly ahead on points here but Jim Watt's scorecard favours league dweeb.

I'm waiting for a Froch right hander.

Where's Harry?

From all that has been said, on this and other threads (often [iad nauseum[/i), I feel sure most interested folk must surely have gained the impression by now that this was far from the simple "club runs out of money, club goes bust, club pays price" administration that so many blithly assume or attest?

Of course, some of us have said this all along, to face a barrage of derision and nastiness for our troubles, sadly too from moderators on other forums who should know better. Doubtless the barrage will resume, with increased intensity, once the results of the appeal are announced.

The only real new stuff for me that has come out on this thread is about the recent creditors meeting. Distilling the gist of it, it would seem from what has been said that:

- OK exercised his right to require the aministrator to convene a creditors meeting

- OK presented a claim - one presumes it was a formal "proof of debt"? - very much higher than the value ascribed to his claim in the Statement of Affairs drawn up by the administrator.

- it is unclear why OK's claim was very much higher than the amount recorded as owing to him in the company's books of account. It seems quite possible that , if the claim is valid, proper accounting records have not been kept - an offence under the Companies Act 2006. or, perhaps, he has included in his claim items where he has provided personal guarantees, so argues that HE should stand as the creditor? It all seems very unclear and very strange, and thus far no-one has been able to advance any plausible explanation for it. Dweeb would seemingly very much like to know where it came from. And so would I.

- That claim, provided admitted, would have enabled him to command a majority of the votes at the creditors meeting. As FA pointed out earlier, and in something I had not considered, this would have enabled him to initiate various actions including investigation into the circumstances behind and conduct of the administration. provided, of course, he funded it. One assumes that, when facing personal losses and claims that could well bankrupt you, you would use your best endeavours to stymie whatever you could. If so, then regardless of how responsible I hold OK for the catastrophe (=very much, but far from totally), I could fully understand this action.

- Then, it would seem, the RFL suddenly, and at the 11th hour, came up with a claim of its own as a creditor. Again, one assumes this was in the form of a formal "proof of debt". Again, something that was not recorded in the books and records of the company and, cursiously, something that the RFL seemingly did not lodge with the administrator at the earliest possibel opportunity. FA considers the nature and timing of this claim "odd", and would very much like to know where it came from. And so would I.

That claim, if admitted, was seemingly enoough to counter the claim by OK and, we assume, was sufficient to carry any votes against OK's position at the Creditors meeting? Certainly, the meeting looks to have approved the Administrator's proposals, and not agreed any further action regarding the circumstances behind and conduct of the Administration. That is now a matter of public record at Companies House (form 2.23b filed 21/5 - go pay your £1 to read it, so anyone asking "what happened at the creditors meeting?" can now shut up, since it is a matter of public record.

Readers may well note the curious amounts and timings of the respective claims seemingly lodged (from what our contributors on here report) by OK and by the RFL. And how the alleged RFL claim may effectively have stymied the alleged OK claim, as seems to be being suggested? Although some may still feel this was just a simple "club runs out of money, club goes bust, club pays price" administration, despite what seems to be a hell of a lot going on which is above and beyond what you would expect in such a situation?

Not that Bulls supporters are any strangers to there being much more behind an administration, and its conduct and ultimate resolution, than might first appear? Are we? 2012 redux?

I guess we will never know what would have happened, had Moore kept his mouth shut and not ever said anything to anyone about the (alleged lack of) points deduction? And I suspect we will anyway never really get to know just how extensive the role of the RFL may or may not have been in this whole sad, sorry debacle?

I just hope there isn't a re-match....

Let's hope the referee steps in and calls it off then.

In all that's passed since I'd quite forgotten that, Adey, but yeah, I guess it has to be added to the litany of small, but ultimately significant, mess ups which have undoubtedly helped to put us where we are.

At last. That's it in a nutshell.

The only other issue of interest (except to a few on here) concerns the Sky money. i.e.
'You can stay in SL - but no Sky money this year'
ok, but can I have half this year and half next year instead?
ok - but if you go bust within two years the Club owes us the money back.
ok
and if we don't get it back from the Club, you owe us it personally.
ok

Cut the disingenuous cräp. I expressly said that was NOT how this looks to be, as you well know.

If it WAS, then I would join you and the many others in having no argument.

But it must be as clear as day to even the most wooden-headed denialist that there must be much more to all this.

I think initially it was a simple case of badly managed club runs out of money.

It is the attempts to avoid the responsibility and consequences which have become very tangled.

The other thing I would like to know more about is the RFL's decision to apply a 6 point penalty after BB2014 offered to pay all trade creditors in full over 5years. That seemed to completely wrong foot BB2014 and was not what they had expected after long & significant discussions with the RFL.

Is it something to do with the HMRC position that they can't accept payment if another creditor is getting nothing?

I can see a position where if trade creditors AND HMRC were going to be paid in full, but non trade creditors and Omar were going to get nothing, then the RFL would be comfortable defending a position where BB2014 didn't get a points deduction.

But the HMRC said they wouldn't accept that position.

Going off on a tangent - How would that work? I really cant see the conversation?

"BB2014 - Hi HMRC, you'll have noticed we've dropped £200k (which you were owed) into your account. And we've closed our account so you can't send it straight back.

HMRC - you blackhearted scoundrels. You knew we told you not to send us that money unless all creditors were paid. We will move heaven & earth to force you to take back this taxpayers money you cads...."

Any way, back on track. Here's my theory:

So the RFL plan started to unravel. Their priority is to make sure that HMRC get paid so that the RFL isn't as tarnished in the corridors of power. The trade creditors (RL fans, RL suppliers, local business folk) are less of a priority to the RFL. So they decide to hit BB2014 with the 6point penalty to force them to walk away. Which they did. Why wouldn't you? BB2014 thoughts - "So, if we pay off £500k of creditors, we get a 6 point penalty. RFL - yes. And if we pay off no creditors, we get a 6 point penalty, RFL yes."

So that is what I would like to know more about. Because the trade creditors were stuffed by that RFL process.

From what I remember, it was the RFL that said the HMRC would not accept any payment proposal (which I found a little odd at the time)