Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Mon Dec 30, 2013 12:10 pm  

Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:

under Superleague operating rules the players' contracts are protected.

Link?
In any event, this is now a power game not a matter of legal niceties.

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Mon Dec 30, 2013 12:27 pm  

The coral Stand is a tangible asset, but I would imagine there are other intangible assets. Such as income from SKY.

The difficulty for anyone loaning money is knowing for sure how much is already secured on the same asset.

Checks can be made, but I assume the reason why lots of clubs get into problems is because they have lots of creditors loans secured against the same assets.

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:39 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

The coral Stand is a tangible asset, but I would imagine there are other intangible assets. Such as income from SKY.

The difficulty for anyone loaning money is knowing for sure how much is already secured on the same asset.

Checks can be made, but I assume the reason why lots of clubs get into problems is because they have lots of creditors loans secured against the same assets.

If it is a properly registered charge it will show on the Companies House website - anything from a bank or other finance company would be most likely be formally registered, but you also have the HMRC who don't give much leeway to sports clubs (for some reason?) for overdue taxes - so immediate concerns would be paying the wages, and keeping the tax man happy. I think some time ago good old Ryan confessed to "overlooking" tax payments so OK Bulls Ltd will already be on HMRC's watch list. I really feel for the players and remaining staff - not the way to start the New Year, and wonder how much of the cash from ST sales is left now even before the season has started?

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:51 pm  

I seem to remember that the Securities company had been sold a pup? Wasn't it reported that RW told them his share represented the capital, whereas in fact he owned 1%?

If RW really did borrow 180K then weher did it go? It wasn't money for running expenses, as i understood it, but to buy OK shares - we seem to be sure RW never paid OK for those shares so does that mean RW still has the money? What then happened to it?

In a hypothetical case, if an employee borrows a six figure sum using his employer's business as a security, and then keeps the money, wouldn't this interest Inspector Knacker? In any case, presumably it would be at least strongly arguable that the transaction was outside the authority of the employee and so was a matter between the lender and the individual?

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:15 pm  

The Nightmare continues and if it could be possible - gets worse.

New Co must be formed & given special dispensation to play RL out of Odsal/Horsfall/VP in SL.

Clean Slate - Spend 80% of Income only - but will it be done?

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:19 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

In a hypothetical case, if an employee borrows a six figure sum using his employer's business as a security, and then keeps the money, wouldn't this interest Inspector Knacker? In any case, presumably it would be at least strongly arguable that the transaction was outside the authority of the employee and so was a matter between the lender and the individual?

At this time of year I would prefer to have a bit of harmless banter about where everyone will finish in the league next season. Would not even dare to speculate on anything related to the Bulls now, but I would speculate that it might not be a good year for a certain RW Esq from what you say above?

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:25 pm  

Job's knacked basically innit?

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:32 pm  

I take it we're now beginning to get some leaks from the "make or break" meeting of stakeholders that the Express reported in today's issue.

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:36 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I seem to remember that the Securities company had been sold a pup? Wasn't it reported that RW told them his share represented the capital, whereas in fact he owned 1%?

If RW really did borrow 180K then weher did it go? It wasn't money for running expenses, as i understood it, but to buy OK shares - we seem to be sure RW never paid OK for those shares so does that mean RW still has the money? What then happened to it?

In a hypothetical case, if an employee borrows a six figure sum using his employer's business as a security, and then keeps the money, wouldn't this interest Inspector Knacker? In any case, presumably it would be at least strongly arguable that the transaction was outside the authority of the employee and so was a matter between the lender and the individual?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it reported whitcut took out loans against the company to cover the losses made by the concert? Is it possible these are the loans in question?

Also, didn't ok make whitcut, general manager? Meaning he could of taken out the loans, as if he were chairman, and not tell ok about it?

[Bullseye]

Re: Moore, Calvert and Watt step down : Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:47 pm  

Highlander wrote:

I take it we're now beginning to get some leaks from the "make or break" meeting of stakeholders that the Express reported in today's issue.

Are we?