Mick has a track record of getting things wrong, despite claiming to in the know.

How about when he announced that all fans who'd pledged would receive free away travel to a game? Sang the praises of the old regime, sang the praises of the new regime. Singing the praises of who every going to have a go next!

A bit of positivity goes a long way, but blind optimism isn't always helpful

This comes from a Facebook group

May a Salford fan wish you all a happy Christmas and express the wish that your financial problems are sorted in the new year. Good luck.

Sorry , I just can't buy that. Saying the Bulls were debt free when OK took over is self evidently pointless.

I'm instintively suspicious of professional debt collectors in any case but increasingly so in this case

Pay back your loans and you should be OK

What a feckin g Shambles, the club go's down not because of the players or the performance. not because of the supporters. but because everybody wants their pound of flesh.

i can not see any happy ending or even a start to 2014 SL with this.

Doesn't anyone do due diligence these days?

Lets use a saying "Great men are born out of a fire and lesser men build the fire"

Why would the latest Directors work to benefit Mr Khan and not profit themselves? It would be great for anyone to sit back and profit from competent and committed management.

Mr Khan may have shares but how many and how are they distributed?

A single shareholder only needs 1 ordinary @ £1.00

What actually is he doing...playing poker?

The ground is owned by the RFL (correct me on that one if wrong) and the players and staff are employed by the company. If the company (Bulls) is about to fold why would any board on other clubs buy any on offer. Surely just waiting to pick them up from their agents would be sensible.

So what does Mr Khan own? after the debtors have been satisfied.

His reputation in business is crumbling before his eyes.

The latest board have clearly explained why they have stepped down and quite frankly I am as dismayed at the latest developments as anyone.

I just hope it is not a question of his ego and bitterness because he is embarrassed.

Goodness knows what the Bulls creditors are thinking!!

Presumably, but that does rely on the goodwill and cooperation of the vendor. You can't find stuff they don't want you to find, particularly stuff that's too recent to show up in annual accounts, and undisclosed loans have been mentioned.

If I was thinking of buying a company that had recently been in Administration, had a significant source of funding halved, had just announced that the existing owner had made some sort of loan totalling £900k and was reported to have had recent problems paying the wages, I would want to see a lot more than annual accounts before I went public announcing I was buying that company. To assume control of the company without having gone through the books with a fine tooth comb, and then find that there are major financial problems, seems to fall into the "well what did you expect?" category of disappointing outcomes.

What I don't understand (among many things I don't understand) is that the "new", now "old", directors say that they have put significant money into the club, even though they don't appear to own the shares. What was the basis of that funding? New loans? Why would they do that if OK was holding on to the shares? I could sort of understand them assuming control pending completion of due diligence, but would expect them to keep their brass firmly in their pockets until they knew what they were buying.

All very bizarre.

I can only assume that OK has a properly constructed Loan Agreement in place.

Also if the 3 Directors also used proper channels for their 'loans' then no doubt they may serve notice on the Company for their return.

Otherwise they should be treated as gifts.

Newco seems the only way out of this mess - to be 100% owned by RFL with a view to sell to a third party in 12 months time.

Surely he would have had to disclose that when he "sold" the club?

Well if not then the 3 outgoing Directors would have a good chance of terming the 'loans' as 'gifts'.

If that was the case why did they resign?

What you have here is a lot of misinterpretations. You say loan I say gift, you say would have to disclose loans I say should have disclosed loans, you say potato I say potato (obviously this last one does not translate to the written word but you get my drift). I think the crux of the matter seems to be that whilst Khan holds all the shares he refuses to admit he owns the club and therefore the liabilities.

Absolutely not, while Newco may be the only way out why on earth should it be owned by the RFL.? What a preedent that would set!

You can't help but think if the club was a pet animal it would be time for the last trip to the vet. But it now seems down to Khan where he goes from here. Makes you wonder if he has created this scenario because now the club has been straightened out he has had a better offer.

"Khan you bloodsucker. You're going to have to do you own dirty work now! Do you hear me? Do you?"

James Tiberius Kirk

I really hope Mr Khan is at work today, as the impasse is his choice in refusing to sell or pass on the shares (whichever is true)

I can only think that Mr Khan wants to make money and will hold on to them till a purchaser pays a price that is acceptable.

My opinion is that his position is untenable.

It will be interesting what the next statement from the club will be.

There was a moment when we might have had a chance to rescue the club, when the community raised more than enough money to buy it, but unfortunately that money was handed to the owners, rather than being held back and donated to Bullbuilder or a similar body who could then make a democratic decision on what to do based upon proper due diligence. Lots of people, including those directly involved with Bullbuilder, provided plenty of reasons why that was not advisable, many of which I could sympathise with and understand, and that moment passed.

There are other, larger and far more significant sporting clubs run in this way (as a co-operative or some variation), and my feeling remains that is the only way to bring the Bulls back and to rebuild something the whole City can take pride in, however it's a massive task and many people are thoroughly disillusioned and alienated from the club now.

The route we have gone down is unsurprising and sad, and includes, in my opinion the low of taking money from a payday loan company, one of the reasons I'd never buy a shirt (until they're gone) and a reason I know that some people failed to renew their season tickets. I am sure, like Salford and many other super league clubs, many people think a rich individual is the way to go, and maybe that's the only ways things can be rectified, but we've been here before time and again now, and it doesn't appear that there is anyone like that around for the Bulls.

If there is anyone interested in renewing the struggle for a fan run, democratically organised club then I'll be happy to put energy in to such a project, but until then, I imagine I'll be watching depressed from the sidelines as one bunch of clueless people after another ruin what was, and could be, a great club with a long and fine tradition.

This post will not be of any comfort


I still cannot understand why the RFL did their Fit and Proper Person Test on Whitcut if he was not going to become the owner/major shareholder.
Finding that another club had 'issues with a shareholder - [url=http://www.thejournal.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/cash-crisis-leaves-thunder-limbo-4471945Story[/url
[url=http://www.braintreeandwithamtimes.co.uk/news/2353523.tax_advised_jailed_for_money_laundering/About Shareholder[/url
[url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/family/love-rat-fraudster-tax-mans-1691276More About Shareholder[/url

makes for even more depressing reading.
From a wider perspective it is just a shame a similar scheme (FPPT) cannot be brought for shareholders as well as owners.

This latest news must be a huge blow for the coaching staff and players after their optimism of only a few weeks ago.

I hope things improve for you rapidly.For a 'small' sport there always seems to be controversial characters involved and not all for the good.

Keep the faith.

I disagree. From reading the statements from BOTH sides of this dispute I do not think OK is attempting to "make money" but trying to recover loans / guarantees that he has made. He says he has a contract agreed by two individuals to repay . He has taken out proceedings against those individuals ( not the club) so must believe that contract is legally enforceable. It seems that if the terms of that repayment had been met he would have transferred the shares --which I agree are worthless in themselves.
Other than their statement on Christmas Eve I have not seen any comment in the past 3 months that suggests the 3 resigning directors have put any money into the club.. In fact all the comments from Mr Moore in particular, imply that the new directors were seeking to operate in a businesslike way. The vast majority of fans applauded this approach even though we were sad that many employees were given notice of termination .
I stand to be corrected-- a disclosure of what money has been invested by whom will suffice.

Utter shambles. Time to put the dog down.

As has been said we have heard from both sides but obviously both sides will put their own spin on it. What have the RFL got to say about the issue? I believe they have been working closely with the 3 directors in question and also spent 3 hours with Mr Khan on Christmas eve trying to resolve the dispute.

We have heard snippets but that's all. We don't hear much at all from Ok, if anything, direcvtly, and very little indirectly. What we do hear, from all sides, seems massively conflicting. And, much of it can't be true, as in many cases the snippets are so conflicting that both can't be true.

Nobody has come close to trying to provide anything approaching a full picture, from either side.

And so we post endless lists of pertinent but futile questions, out of no doubt a sense of frustration, but ultimately we waste our time, as it seems clear that 99% of them will never be answered and even if they are, it is more likely than not that the answer would be contradicted by the opposite side.

The most basic question, despite the claims of some, remains unanswered: who, in law, owns the Bulls? The two sides seem to be (a) Moore & Co. who say OK owns the Bulls as the shares have never been transferred, but who wanted them to be transferred yet "without paying a penny"; the other side? Well, that much is almost silence, except we know that OK is suing MM (and RW) in personal capacities, and I explained the problems given we don't actually now what that litigation is specifically about; but (b) ONE explanation of the comments from the OK camp would be that it is OK's position that the equitable ownership of the club has indeed been transferred to the "new owners" since if he is not suing to enforce a payment which he thinks is legally due and payable, then what else can he be suing for? That is, there was either a legally binding deal to sell the club, or there wasn't.

And then there is the intriguing question of if they knew that so far they were not actually owners of anything, at all, then why would MM & Co. allegedly plough significant sums of their own money into the business? Not to mention why would they come in - and be allowed to come in - and basically run the place in al lrespects, including laying off numbers of staff, if they are not the owners? If I do not own a business, and am not employed by the business, then on whose authority do I sack staff?

The questions around the true "ownership" are just about as clear as the morass of mud under the cloying weight of which we are slowly sinking.