Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 3:51 am  

All this kindergarten stuff is irrelevant anyway. The Bulls went bust, again, big style. If there's no cash left from what the new owner paid the Administrator for the Club (after the Administrator's fees are taken) then there's nothing for anybody. No cash for creditors, whatever their claims might be, and no points back for the Bulls.

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 6:58 am  

pot calling kettle black!!!

Again, I prefer to wait to hear the outcome of the experts view of the points deduction rather than some wooden top caught in a groundhog day. the appeal is not about whether the creditors are going to get anything back, Marc Green hasnt said he will do that, that was Moore. The issue is whether the insolvency event was due to force majeure, ie unavoidable. Not having the money to pay the taxman is not unavoidable. I doubt that Marc Green would shell out money to pay for independent witnesses to tell him what he already knows.
And theres a few dates that on the face of it do not add up. on the 20th January Moore was stating that the cuts had just about been made and whilst not quite there the future was looking more stable, and also that agreement had been reached about transfer of control and it was proceeding to contracts. On the other hand 10 days later theres an admin order (apparently the insolvency event) that seemingly catches out Moore and the RFL.

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:05 am  

Adey, point of information please: The Administrator would do a bank reconciliation as part of his duties to sort out the mess: if OK had paid £1m rather than £400k into the Bulls the Administrator would have noticed it. However, if OK had simply paid direct ie not put it through the Bulls books, what status does it have in an admin situation?

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:39 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

Adey, point of information please: The Administrator would do a bank reconciliation as part of his duties to sort out the mess: if OK had paid £1m rather than £400k into the Bulls the Administrator would have noticed it. However, if OK had simply paid direct ie not put it through the Bulls books, what status does it have in an admin situation?

The administrator drew up the estimated (my emphasis) Statement of Affairs, which was an attachment to his statutory "Administrator's Proposals" report (not, as troll Dweeb wrongly said, a "statement of affairs" report, btw) from the books and records of the company. (It is actually the responsibility of the directors, but absent that then the administrator has to do it, to the best of his ability).

If transactions were not recorded in the books, then it is unlikely the administrator would be able to reflect them in the estimated Statement of Affairs. It seems to be OK's argument that there were indeed such transactions, maybe including transactions paid direct by OK which were not put through the company's books, from what limited information is in the public domain.

If, say, OK DID settle valid OKB liabilities personally, then entries should have been made in the books to establish the costs and liabilities, and the settlement thereof through OK's loan account. If such entries were not made, that would not preclude OK claiming as a creditor of the company for the value of such items settled. But his task in "proving his debt" (a specific legal process) would be very much more difficult. The administrator would add any prima facie valid or supportable creditor claims to the list of creditors (the Statement of Affairs is never updated - it is a one-off document). But OK woould need to "prove his claim" for that claim to be admitted for any possible distribution to creditors.

The administrator, as empowered, advised creditors that he did not intend to convene a creditors' meeting, since there was no prospect of a dividend for unsecured creditors. Creditors can nevertheless require that a meeting be convened. It seems, again from what little is in the public domain, that OK exercised that right. I guess because, inter alia, he disputed the value of his claim as reported by the administrator?

A key point arising out of all this: the directors are responsible for maintaining proper books of account. Failure to do so is a criminal offence. OK would seem to be arguing that his claim was understated because part at least of it was not recorded in the books of account. Which, for his claim to succeed, risks him being hoist by his own petard, maybe?

The administratopr referred in his report to "accounting irregularities". No more detailed explanation was forthcoming.

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:49 am  

From the initial statement from the Administrator it is clear there isn't a copper for any of the creditors, so no effort will be put into examining the numbers or digging out the truth. So you could claim to be owed £20m and basically the Administrator would shrug his shoulders and say "Whatever".
But as Adey points out it's kind of ironic that OK's arguing he was owed more but it wasn't reflected in the books - the accuracy of which both he and the other Directors were responsible.

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:58 am  

Indeed.

Seems to me that various parties to this whole sorry saga are seeking to rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic to reflect their version of events...months after it sank.

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:27 am  

Adeybull wrote:

A key point arising out of all this: the directors are responsible for maintaining proper books of account. Failure to do so is a criminal offence. OK would seem to be arguing that his claim was understated because part at least of it was not recorded in the books of account. Which, for his claim to succeed, risks him being hoist by his own petard, maybe?

The administratopr referred in his report to "accounting irregularities". No more detailed explanation was forthcoming.

1. According to the form lodged at Companies House, what date did OK cease to be a director of OKB?
2. Who signed the forms lodged at Companies House notifying the appointments of other directors of OKB?

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:40 am  

On the (reasonable) assumption that the amounts OK is claiming relate to the time he was in office, irrelevant to the question I responded to.

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:43 am  

Wooden Stand wrote:

1. According to the form lodged at Companies House, what date did OK cease to be a director of OKB?
2. Who signed the forms lodged at Companies House notifying the appointments of other directors of OKB?

It only costs you a quid to download the forms from the Companies House web site

However after all that has gone on it would not surprise me to see a "x" in the signature section, and resigning does not remove the legal obligations on you as a director for the duration of your appointment.

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:59 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

And theres a few dates that on the face of it do not add up. on the 20th January Moore was stating that the cuts had just about been made and whilst not quite there the future was looking more stable, and also that agreement had been reached about transfer of control and it was proceeding to contracts. On the other hand 10 days later theres an admin order (apparently the insolvency event) that seemingly catches out Moore and the RFL.

But there is no surprise whatsoever, if you listen to what I have been telling you. Funny, that.

Northernrelic wrote:

From the initial statement from the Administrator it is clear there isn't a copper for any of the creditors, so no effort will be put into examining the numbers or digging out the truth. So you could claim to be owed £20m and basically the Administrator would shrug his shoulders and say "Whatever".
But as Adey points out it's kind of ironic that OK's arguing he was owed more but it wasn't reflected in the books - the accuracy of which both he and the other Directors were responsible.

I think it's very common knowledge that in the early stages, OKB had no banking facilities so of necessity everything went through other already existing accounts eg my season ticket purchase money went to a company linked to the Lister Hotel as no doubt did all others at the same time.

My understanding, which I've said before, is that when the statement of affairs was released, the administrator had not contacted OK and that curious omission could explain why he did not have the information.

Adeybull wrote:

Seems to me that various parties to this whole sorry saga are seeking to rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic to reflect their version of events...months after it sank.

The relevance of the £1m is to do with control. If OK holds the majority then he can force an investigation into the administration. If he is not the majority creditor then he can't. Some may suggest in the latter scenario, the space under the carpet might be rather full. It is of course possible some people might prefer carpet to investigation.

Of course, the RFL ought to keep proper books and records etc. just like OKB or any company, and some may find it odd therefore that if they were owed £1m, that wasn't in the statement of affairs either. Nor did it appear at all until the eleventh hour before the creditors' meeting. Perhaps the RFL had simply forgotten.

Bradford Council, you may think, might be pretty neutral in the administration; wouldn't they simply prove their claim and stand by and just observe? Of course, if you do the arithmetic, it would be the case that any call for an investigation into the administration could be thwarted, if OK was outvoted, and we know the Council had £200k-worth of votes. If the Council did not abstain, but sided with the RFL, OK would have been outvoted.

It seems to me that a better analogy might be seeking to bury the technical drawings of the bulkheads and watertightness etc., ships logs, speed, direction charts, iceberg warnings etc. that might shed some light onto why the Titanic sank. I'm sure some might say "Look, the boat's on the bottom, don't ask any questions, what difference does it make? Just move on". But I don't think that's how it works, nor how it should work.