From all that has been said, on this and other threads (often
ad nauseum), I feel sure most interested folk must surely have gained the impression by now that this was far from the simple "club runs out of money, club goes bust, club pays price" administration that so many blithly assume or attest?
Of course, some of us have said this all along, to face a barrage of derision and nastiness for our troubles, sadly too from moderators on other forums who should know better. Doubtless the barrage will resume, with increased intensity, once the results of the appeal are announced.
The only real new stuff for me that has come out on this thread is about the recent creditors meeting. Distilling the gist of it, it would seem from what has been said that:
- OK exercised his right to require the aministrator to convene a creditors meeting
- OK presented a claim - one presumes it was a formal "proof of debt"? - very much higher than the value ascribed to his claim in the Statement of Affairs drawn up by the administrator.
- it is unclear why OK's claim was very much higher than the amount recorded as owing to him in the company's books of account. It seems quite possible that , if the claim is valid, proper accounting records have not been kept - an offence under the Companies Act 2006. or, perhaps, he has included in his claim items where he has provided personal guarantees, so argues that HE should stand as the creditor? It all seems very unclear and very strange, and thus far no-one has been able to advance any plausible explanation for it. Dweeb would seemingly very much like to know where it came from. And so would I.
- That claim, provided admitted, would have enabled him to command a majority of the votes at the creditors meeting. As FA pointed out earlier, and in something I had not considered, this would have enabled him to initiate various actions including investigation into the circumstances behind and conduct of the administration. provided, of course, he funded it. One assumes that, when facing personal losses and claims that could well bankrupt you, you would use your best endeavours to stymie whatever you could. If so, then regardless of how responsible I hold OK for the catastrophe (=very much, but far from totally), I could fully understand this action.
- Then, it would seem, the RFL suddenly, and at the 11th hour, came up with a claim of its own as a creditor. Again, one assumes this was in the form of a formal "proof of debt". Again, something that was not recorded in the books and records of the company and, cursiously, something that the RFL seemingly did not lodge with the administrator at the earliest possibel opportunity. FA considers the nature and timing of this claim "odd", and would very much like to know where it came from. And so would I.
That claim, if admitted, was seemingly enoough to counter the claim by OK and, we assume, was sufficient to carry any votes against OK's position at the Creditors meeting? Certainly, the meeting looks to have approved the Administrator's proposals, and not agreed any further action regarding the circumstances behind and conduct of the Administration. That is now a matter of public record at Companies House (form 2.23b filed 21/5 - go pay your £1 to read it, so anyone asking "what happened at the creditors meeting?" can now shut up, since it is a matter of public record.
Readers may well note the curious amounts and timings of the respective claims seemingly lodged (from what our contributors on here report) by OK and by the RFL. And how the alleged RFL claim may effectively have stymied the alleged OK claim, as seems to be being suggested? Although some may still feel this was just a simple "club runs out of money, club goes bust, club pays price" administration, despite what seems to be a hell of a lot going on which is above and beyond what you would expect in such a situation?
Not that Bulls supporters are any strangers to there being much more behind an administration, and its conduct and ultimate resolution, than might first appear? Are we? 2012 redux?
I guess we will never know what would have happened, had Moore kept his mouth shut and not ever said anything to anyone about the (alleged lack of) points deduction? And I suspect we will anyway never really get to know just how extensive the role of the RFL may or may not have been in this whole sad, sorry debacle?
