Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:44 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Edsel

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:03 pm  

Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:

I'm banned from the Wakefield board after pointing out the flaw in Carter's financial management - basing his financial projections on a requirement to get gates of 17K. Despite the fact that a) the next game is against London and b) the ground only holds 6K.

I thought you were sailing close to the wind by committing sarcasm, which I believe is in direct contravention of the AUP.

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:16 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Liar. I have told the forum what happened at the creditors' meeting.

What did happen at the creditors meeting?

Liar. For the umpteenth - and final - time, THE EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED AT THE CREDITORS MEETING AND ACCEPTED TO THE TUNE OF AROUND £1M BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.

What evidence was produced and by whom at the creditors meeting? Where is there any acknowledgement of this happening?

And, like your usual guesswork, you guess wrong.

Guesswork?

Look you idiot the creditors meeting was called, inter alia, BECAUSE the administrator had OK in at only around £400K. It is not up to the administrator to produce anything to support a creditor's claim - even my dog would probably understand that much.

When did OK claim his figure was £1m? What did he produce to support this. Remember he had stepped down as a director at least 3 months before. What did he have at the meeting that he didn't when he was a director?

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:20 pm  

Who said that there was anything he "didn't have" as a director? Of course he did!

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:28 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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

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.

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.

OK Bulls did have banking facilities, through Barclays. They didn't have merchant services to allow card or online payments.

Still nothing to support your £1m?

Both the Bradford Council loan and the Sky money from the RFL were underwritten by personal guarantees of repayment by Omar Khan.

Perhaps it is because once he stepped down and the business was placed into administration, these amounts had to be recorded for audit trail and proof of debts due - as the money from both Bradford Council and the RFL had actually been paid to OK Bulls.

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:40 pm  

Audit trail? What on earth can you be on about? It is gibberish. You're either a creditor of a company or you're not. There is nothing hard to understand.

Nor do you offer any reasonable explanation as to why this alleged "debt" did not appear until the night before the meeting OK called.

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:39 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Audit trail? What on earth can you be on about? It is gibberish. You're either a creditor of a company or you're not. There is nothing hard to understand.

Nor do you offer any reasonable explanation as to why this alleged "debt" did not appear until the night before the meeting OK called.

Still nothing on what happened at the creditors meeting, or any supporting proof for the £1m?

As mentioned, both the Sky money and Bradford Council loan were underwritten by Omar Khan. The Sky money WAS NOT a loan to OK Bulls. It was not recorded as a liability on the business. The RFL is not a creditor of OK Bulls.

The Sky money went into OK Bulls, so therefore had to be recorded at the creditor meeting. The RFL had to be able to prove where the money went to ensure it's guarantee was protected. The administrator was made aware of the arrangement as he was handling the financial affairs of Ok Bulls to whom the Sky money was paid.

Just as Omar Khan would have to evidence any money he paid in to OK Bulls, as you claim he has so the RFL made sure the Sky money was officially recorded.

Perhaps the RFL were not made aware of the company being placed into administration before it happened? Perhaps they were simply countering Omar Khan from playing silly buggers and protecting central funds?

Conversely Bradford Council was a creditor of OK Bulls. The loan agreement was between Bradford Council and OK Bulls, with Ok Bulls repaying approximately £50k of the £200k until it defaulted.

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:18 pm  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

Perhaps the RFL were not made aware of the company being placed into administration before it happened?

And if you believe that, you will believe anything!

Re: Points deduction poll : Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:25 pm  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

Still nothing on what happened at the creditors meeting, or any supporting proof for the £1m?

I have several times summrised what happened at that meeting and stated that OK produced his proof to the administrator. I am not sure which bit you are having trouble with.

LeagueDweeb wrote:

As mentioned, both the Sky money and Bradford Council loan were underwritten by Omar Khan.

So why mention it again? Everybody who is interested has read all about these facts

LeagueDweeb wrote:

The Sky money WAS NOT a loan to OK Bulls.

Indeed it was not, any more than it is a loan to any other club. But who on earth argued it was a loan? Another of your straw men.

LeagueDweeb wrote:

The RFL is not a creditor of OK Bulls.

And yet claimed and got admitted as a £1m creditor. And thus voted to that amount. Odd, wouldn't you say?

LeagueDweeb wrote:

The Sky money went into OK Bulls, so therefore had to be recorded at the creditor meeting.

"Recorded"? Why on earth would it need to be "recorded"? How would it be recorded? For what purpose? A creditors' meeting is attended by - and only by - CREDITORS. There's a clue in the phrase "creditors meeting". Your curious theory is just weird.

LeagueDweeb wrote:

The RFL had to be able to prove where the money went to ensure it's guarantee was protected.

Again, nuts. How can there be any dispute as to how much distribution was paid to the Bulls? Unless you think it was paid in cash? The RFL was in fact (and very simply) claiming to be a creditor of OKB on the basis that it claimed OKB having gone into admin, had to pay the distribution money back. If the RFL was right, then it would be a debt. Owed by OKB. To the RFL. It is zero to do with any guarantee. If the RFL wanted to claim any money from OK personally then that would (obviously) be a matter purely between them and him. It would be nothing whatsoever to do with OKB and much less with the administrator of OKB. Either they could prove OK owed them money, or they couldn't. Either way, even you must realise that a creditors meeting of a company in administration is not the forum for a dispute between the RFL and a private individual about a claimed personal debt.

LeagueDweeb wrote:

Perhaps the RFL ...were simply countering Omar Khan from playing silly buggers and protecting central funds?

How do you suggest he was "Playing silly buggers"? He was either a creditor or he wasn't. What has that issue got to do with the RFL?

LeagueDweeb wrote:

...Bradford Council was a creditor of OK Bulls. ...

No poop, Sherlock. I have an equally profound revelation: Bradford Council is a council.

Re: Points deduction poll : Wed Jun 04, 2014 5:37 am  

I've got fa slightly ahead on points here but Jim Watt's scorecard favours league dweeb.