Not having a go at you as we are all entitled to an opinion on this one - opinion being all it is for now.

However your attitude which is justified as opposed to Sandal Cats which is equally justified does highlight the difference between the camps.

I think what SC is say or hoping is the same as me however forlorn it may appear for now. I'm hoping that Ted is indeed innocent and has done what he is alleged to have done for good reason. This is not because I support Ted, it's not personal. I think even the most rabid anti Ted poster would be relieved if this all turned out to be a storm in a tea cup.

Why? Because let's remember one thing - this is not about Ted or you or Mopsey or TRB or even my blessed self - its about the club.

If you don't like Ted and you want him out then fine, but it can't be done at the cost of the club and 10 hard years of earning SL status. NO FECKING WAY!

If Ted and the BOD have done wrong then get em out. However they go because they have done wrong not because a section of fans don't like em.

For heavens sake lets take a step back for a few days and see what transpires.

Yes the statement was a poor effort but there is nothing in it you can hang em for. As SC says it's what's not in it that matters. Whilst ever the BOD give politicians answers to simple questions then they are not helping themselves. WE WANT STRAIGHT ANSWERS TO STRAIGHT QUESTIONS - nothing to sensitive just who owns the clubs only asset.

Me personally I want Ted to go regardless of the final outcome. Not for any personal reason - just for the fact that he has lost the trust of all fans - not just the shouters but all fans - and I don't think he will ever regain that even if it turns out he is innocent. That may be unfair but that's life and he/they seem to have lost the plot.

Lets just hope he isn't as bad as some paint him and the chance arises for him to leave with some dignity and the club find a new leadership. Again I don't wish this for Ted out of any personal reason, I wish it for the sake of Wakefield Trinity which isn't Ted Richardson.

We need to move on quickly or we are dead. Lynching Ted won't help either way, I want him out on good terns with the Trinity house in good order. It would appear to be unlikely but it should be what we all want.

Totally agree.

Ted has always stated publically that he want's to step down and will do do so if there is new investment. It would appear that there are new investors (4) interested in taking on the Club. Ted now has the opportunity to fulfil his aim and hand over the leadership of the club. I would love Ted to achieve his aim, step down and keep the name of Wakefield Trinity out of the dirt.

I only hope that the decision on the new owner is taken in the best interest of Wakefield Trinity and no one else and that new owner offers the Club investment and a sustainable future rather than more of the same and we just "paper over the cracks" as Clan said last night and lurch to the next crisis and round of administration.

We appear to have a great opportunity to take the Club forward - for God's sake don't lets blow it.

ted will want money and not step down for nothing...

Hence i think we will go into admin...

dark clouds are over us now...



I think there is alot more to it, Which will probably come out in due course...

BUT and i hope and

we will start to see the light at the end of this long dark tunnel



Sooner the better...

Following on from the points covered by Sandal Cat regarding the 4 suitors. Is there anyone out there with a working knowledge of Administration? If, as seems likely, WT go into adminstration, how do the administrators judge the 'best' offer? Is it based purely on the suitor who offers the largest amount to 'buy' the club - something akin to a secret bid scenario, or can other 'bidders' see the level of other bids?
If it is based on the best offer, then this may not be in the longer term best interests of the club as a lower bidder may have greater resources for the future or perhaps has greater expertise. Anyone?

Well here's the link to the notices that will tell us our fate. We can go into admin anytime up to the hearing or beyond if the hearing gets adjourned. www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/ ... es/1249879

Well here's the link to the notices that will tell us our fate. We can go into admin anytime up to the hearing or beyond if the hearing gets adjourned. www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/ ... es/1249879

The administrator will do whats best for the creditors,although it will be the present board that will choose the administrator !!

[url=http://www.redpassion.co.uk/forums/crusaders-rugby/69930-list-crusaders-creditors-full-administrators-report-9.htmlHope This Helps[/url

Its helped give me headache and i'm only a third of the way through it




Thanks for that.

Chairman: Ted Richardson
Vice Chairman/Finance Director: Eric Timmins
Managing Director: Diane Maskill
Director: Ray Barnes
Associate Director: Richard Venables
Chief Executive: James Elston
Operational Director: Francis Stephenson
Football Director/Head Coach: John Kear

So the statement came from the eight named above? The same eight who claim they will resign if the right offer comes in?

If that happens, will Kear leave too? Or are his two roles (FD / HC) separate contracts?

What is known of the other board members that aren't family? Do others have a grief with all of them, or just the family? Or is a collective gripe against all of them?

Also.. if we went into administration, wouldn't the above names be unable to become directors again for a number of years? Or is that if the company is wound up completely? How does that work?

O'Hara's

Quote ="Herbert Splatt"Chairman: Ted Richardson Vice Chairman/Finance Director: Eric Timmins Managing Director: Diane Maskill Director: Ray Barnes Associate Director: Richard Venables Chief Executive: James Elston Operational Director: Francis Stephenson Football Director/Head Coach: John Kear So the statement came from the eight named above? The same eight who claim they will resign if the right offer comes in? If that happens, will Kear leave too? Or are his two roles (FD / HC) separate contracts? What is known of the other board members that aren't family? Do others have a grief with all of them, or just the family? Or is a collective gripe against all of them? Also.. if we went into administration, wouldn't the above names be unable to become directors again for a number of years? Or is that if the company is wound up completely? How does that work?'" Check to make sure the final few names are actually "Directors", not senior managers with fancy "director" titles. That is quite common. I haven't checked, but its £1 from www.companieshouse.gov.uk - go to "webcheck". Directors are only banned if their conduct has merited it. It requires a specific formal process. Relatively few directors actually cop a ban, and none should who have acted responsibly. From what I have read about Richardson, its possible he COULD be in trouble - but its premature to judge based solely on what you read on hear or in the papers. My guess is it is very unlikely any of them will. hth ps: just had a quick (free) look: Barnes was appointed in 2008. The first three - have they been on the board a while? for earlier appointments, you can't see the name without paying for a report/document, but the last board change before then was 2001. I would be almost certain that Elston, Stephenson and Kear are NOT Directors, and their positioning on the list suggests that. Venables ditto - and his title "Associate Director" is one regularly used to give someone's ego a fancy title that actually means bugger all. Again, his position on the list gives further support to the point re the other three. If I could be d with spending £1, and pratting about with the hard-work payment a d download process, I could tell you for sure. Surely one of you guys can download the latest Annual Return or the Current Appointments Report?

Quote ="Herbert Splatt"Chairman: Ted Richardson Vice Chairman/Finance Director: Eric Timmins Managing Director: Diane Maskill Director: Ray Barnes Associate Director: Richard Venables Chief Executive: James Elston Operational Director: Francis Stephenson Football Director/Head Coach: John Kear So the statement came from the eight named above? The same eight who claim they will resign if the right offer comes in? If that happens, will Kear leave too? Or are his two roles (FD / HC) separate contracts? What is known of the other board members that aren't family? Do others have a grief with all of them, or just the family? Or is a collective gripe against all of them? Also.. if we went into administration, wouldn't the above names be unable to become directors again for a number of years? Or is that if the company is wound up completely? How does that work?'" Check to make sure the final few names are actually "Directors", not senior managers with fancy "director" titles. That is quite common. I haven't checked, but its £1 from www.companieshouse.gov.uk - go to "webcheck". Directors are only banned if their conduct has merited it. It requires a specific formal process. Relatively few directors actually cop a ban, and none should who have acted responsibly. From what I have read about Richardson, its possible he COULD be in trouble - but its premature to judge based solely on what you read on hear or in the papers. My guess is it is very unlikely any of them will. hth ps: just had a quick (free) look: Barnes was appointed in 2008. The first three - have they been on the board a while? for earlier appointments, you can't see the name without paying for a report/document, but the last board change before then was 2001. I would be almost certain that Elston, Stephenson and Kear are NOT Directors, and their positioning on the list suggests that. Venables ditto - and his title "Associate Director" is one regularly used to give someone's ego a fancy title that actually means bugger all. Again, his position on the list gives further support to the point re the other three. If I could be d with spending £1, and pratting about with the hard-work payment a d download process, I could tell you for sure. Surely one of you guys can download the latest Annual Return or the Current Appointments Report?

Quote ="Adeybull"Check to make sure the final few names are actually "Directors", not senior managers with fancy "director" titles. That is quite common. I haven't checked, but its £1 from www.companieshouse.gov.uk - go to "webcheck". Directors are only banned if their conduct has merited it. It requires a specific formal process. Relatively few directors actually cop a ban, and none should who have acted responsibly. From what I have read about Richardson, its possible he COULD be in trouble - but its premature to judge based solely on what you read on hear or in the papers. My guess is it is very unlikely any of them will. hth'" Cheers for that Adey, the titles were from the WTW website, so I had to trust its as much what they want us to believe. JK has been described as a director in the press previously.

Quote ="Adeybull"Check to make sure the final few names are actually "Directors", not senior managers with fancy "director" titles. That is quite common. I haven't checked, but its £1 from www.companieshouse.gov.uk - go to "webcheck". Directors are only banned if their conduct has merited it. It requires a specific formal process. Relatively few directors actually cop a ban, and none should who have acted responsibly. From what I have read about Richardson, its possible he COULD be in trouble - but its premature to judge based solely on what you read on hear or in the papers. My guess is it is very unlikely any of them will. hth'" Cheers for that Adey, the titles were from the WTW website, so I had to trust its as much what they want us to believe. JK has been described as a director in the press previously.

'Managing Director' is such an ironic title. And still, three people with titles which are very similar roles.

director of coaching i believe. Cant imagine he has contributed to the club financially

The only directors who were going to resign if the £500k came forwards were the Executive Directors - Ted, Eric Timmins & Ray Barnes.

Richard Venables & Andrew Wright are unpaid, non-exec directors while the rest are paid employees of the club who sit on the BoD as part of their role at the club.

As Adeybull has said, only the Executive Directors could find themselves being banned IF it was established they had done something that warranted a ban - but that is for someone else to decide rather than the contributors to this forum.

Hopefully going into admin will allow the employment of Ted's daughter to be terminated. If she is still at the club, it will be a joke

See my update to my post re director status - seems to accord with what RDM posted just above.

A non-executive director is still a director with full legal liabilities if they are registered as a Director. The law makes no distinction between and Executive and a Non-Executive Director. The key point is are they a "True" director?

And yes, only "True" directors are exposed to being banned, and that decision is taken elsewhere and after the report on the directors' conduct submitted (by law) by the Administrator and, if appointed, the Liquidator, and speculation is both futile and also potentially libelous, to be honest.

Agreed. Need a completely new start.

The "Non-Exec" directors were not formally named as directors on the 2010 annual return to Companies House. As per my previous post, Ted, Eric & Ray are named as directors while Diane Maskill was named as Company Secretary.

Usually the company secretary is a director , they are the one responsible legally , every limited co has to have a company secretary

Wrong pal.

They may be a director, but do not have to be. In quoted companies it is very unusual for the Secretary to be a director. Many many very small companies have the owner as the sole director, and his.her spouse as company secretary.

Every company does NOT now have to have a Secretary. My personal service company does not.

The secretary has certain legal responsibilities, and is usually the only real "Officer" of the company when the term "Directors and Officers" is used. But the Secretary's legal exposure is a fraction of that of a Director.

Been both, on various occasions and in various companies.;

I did say ' usually ' as in my experience ( wrongly it would seem

) it has been a director as ' secretary '

And you were completely wrong on your other two points. At least in your first point you allowed yourself a back door!

Not the first time I've been wrong , and doubtful it will be the last