Re: T&A Reporting : Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:06 pm  

bobsmyuncle wrote:

I did wonder when this would come out. Things are getting a wee bit messy
Safeguard Security Group Ltd of Leeds hold a Deed of Debenture over OK Bulls Ltd dated 30/9/2013.
It represents a fixed and floating charge over assets and is payable on demand.

*A ltd co can legally have 1 shareholder. OK Bulls did

Is the date significant? When did OK sell up? (or not sell up, depending on how you interpret todays info)

Re: T&A Reporting : Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:51 pm  

Highlander wrote:

Is the date significant? When did OK sell up? (or not sell up, depending on how you interpret todays info)

This is probably related to the deal OK struck to bring finance into the club - either a loan or borrowing facility. The lender - who also seem to have 1 share - have a debenture ( eg a legal charge or security) over the Bulls assets to cover them in the event of non-payment. In the same way if you take out a mortgage - the bank/building society has a charge over the property which if you don't keep up your repayments means they could enforce the charge and put you in the street.

Re: T&A Reporting : Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:48 pm  

OKs case as previously stated several weeks ago int eh tna is against the person Mark Moore (and RW) not the Bulls. MM has already said no more cash into the bulls, so if OK succeeds (depending on the assurances (aka due dilligence) given by him to MM etc etc) then that does not affect the bulls. But hold on, OK isnt going to relinquish the Bulls because he hasnt received the no doubt pittance offered by MM? To continue to own a business that needs to save £400K to break even? A few bob from MM or major shareholder of a business going into liquidation? OK wants to cauterise the wound, not keep it bleeding.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: financials and blame game : Sat Dec 21, 2013 10:24 am  

I've split this from the T&A thread as we'd drifted away onto other things.

[Bulliac]

Re: financials and blame game : Sat Dec 21, 2013 11:12 am  

Pumpetypump wrote:

I've split this from the T&A thread as we'd drifted away onto other things.

We've had dozens of threads condensed in to one - is this the first ever case a thread being split?

Re: financials and blame game : Sat Dec 21, 2013 12:48 pm  

good question Bulliac, part of the general trend for mods to be more proactive, such as BE rattling his sword a few days ago. Where will it end?

[Pumpetypump]

Re: financials and blame game : Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:15 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

We've had dozens of threads condensed in to one - is this the first ever case a thread being split?

I like to periodically tinker with the moderating sub menu just to see what all the buttons do. My favorite is definitely ban.

Re: financials and blame game : Sun Dec 22, 2013 9:08 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

such as BE rattling his sword a few days ago. Where will it end?

Penis substitute. With respect.

Re: financials and blame game : Sun Dec 22, 2013 10:53 am  

This paragraph from the T & A on Peter Hood

He said: “We were able to show that in May 2012, when Mr Bennett and I stepped down, the club had substantial cash at bank, it had repaid all of its historical loans from RFL/Super League, and it was able to deal with ordinary trade creditors."

Makes me wonder why Sod Hall and the SL Clubs deliberately shafted the Bulls unless Caisley/Coulby then Guilfool royally effed up

Re: financials and blame game : Sun Dec 22, 2013 11:37 am  

Blotto wrote:

This paragraph from the T & A on Peter Hood

He said: “We were able to show that in May 2012, when Mr Bennett and I stepped down, the club had substantial cash at bank, it had repaid all of its historical loans from RFL/Super League, and it was able to deal with ordinary trade creditors."

Makes me wonder why Sod Hall and the SL Clubs deliberately shafted the Bulls unless Caisley/Coulby then Guilfool royally effed up

On the face of it you would ask - so why did we go into administration if there was cash in the bank and no creditors? Might just be semantics but he says specifically "trade creditors" not all creditors - HMRC for instance. Also at the time while there might have been cash in the bank - they could have reached the stage of the season with £50k in the bank - a further £1m of costs to pay - but no more significant income.

The problem we seem to have had with Hood & Co, then Coulby and it would seem last year with OK/RW was that we consistently spent more than could be brought in - and Charles Dickens summed that situation up very well: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery." he seems to have had penned several other very suitable saying for the Bulls predicament including: " Credit is a system whereby a person who can not pay gets another person who can not pay to guarantee that he can pay."