Re: Points deduction poll : Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:56 am  

Highlander wrote:

But the HMRC said they wouldn't accept that position.

From what I remember, it was the RFL that said the HMRC would not accept any payment proposal (which I found a little odd at the time)

Re: Points deduction poll : Wed Jun 04, 2014 9:20 am  

Adeybull wrote:

- 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.

If the nature of the RFL's claim is as I understand it to be then you would not expect to see it within the company accounts. From the company's point of view it would be classed as Contingent Liability and therefore not included within the accounts, except perhaps as a note to the accounts.

I suspect that there has been a game of "tit for tat" here. The RFL's claim was against OK and his personal guarantee to repay all SL monies in the event of another insolvency event. I suspect that OK has tried to include this guarantee within his creditor claim and so the RFL have contra'd it as the ultimate creditor of that amount, e.g. it may be due to OK in the first instance but is ultimately due to the RFL via a signed legal agreement, a kind of first charge if you will.

Re: Points deduction poll : Wed Jun 04, 2014 9:40 am  

Highlander wrote:

So that is what I would like to know more about. Because the trade creditors were stuffed by that RFL process.

Of course, if we engage in more flights of fancy (another subject Bulls supporters are no strangers to, given the regular flights of fancy we have to endure from those who do not wish us well...) then we could improve on that, could we not? In one particular flight of fancy, for example, a plan to see the creditors paid, with a quid pro quo of no points deduction or special measures, might or might not have been stymied by the actions of the likes of, e.g. Carter and the Wakefield Supporters Trust? Albeit in response to certain very unwise statements by a certain then-chairman previously alluded to, which may or may not have put the RFL in a position where they were unable to follow through on the plans hitherto?

As I said, just one total flight of fancy, albeit one that might occur to a creditor who could have been paid, and could now not be paid as a result? But maybe one to bear in mind, in the face of any vitriol that may or may not eminate from some of those who have demonstrated by their actions they do not wish us well?

Re: Points deduction poll : Wed Jun 04, 2014 9:49 am  

Remember the RFL told the Bulls to go into admin and there will be no points deduction or ludicrous Sky money penalty

Re: Points deduction poll : Wed Jun 04, 2014 9:51 am  

Derwent wrote:

If the nature of the RFL's claim is as I understand it to be then you would not expect to see it within the company accounts. From the company's point of view it would be classed as Contingent Liability and therefore not included within the accounts, except perhaps as a note to the accounts.

I suspect that there has been a game of "tit for tat" here. The RFL's claim was against OK and his personal guarantee to repay all SL monies in the event of another insolvency event. I suspect that OK has tried to include this guarantee within his creditor claim and so the RFL have contra'd it as the ultimate creditor of that amount, e.g. it may be due to OK in the first instance but is ultimately due to the RFL via a signed legal agreement, a kind of first charge if you will.

Would not be in the least bit surprised.

Although if the RFL HAD secured a PG from OK, that should not be anything to do with the company at all? Unless the deal between the RFL and OKB for the central funding included a clause allowing the RFL to seek to recover some or all central funding in the event of insolvency? In which case, it would indeed be a sort of contingent liability, a bit like the BBH contingent liability to repay the council the Odsal settlement, pro rata, should the club stop playing its home games at Odsal.

And, maybe, the RFL did not bother to lodge a formal claim initially because of the "yeah, whatever" explanation FA rightly gave earlier regarding further claims when there is no prospect of dividend?

And they lodged a claim only when OK lodged HIS claim, which (uncontested and if admitted) would have given him majority voting rights at a creditors' meeting?

IF we knew that such a clause WAS in place regarding the RFL and the central funding (another one of these agreements not in the public domain?) then that would certainly explain the RFL's action?

Like so many aspects of this disaster, so much of the damage is being done due to speculation - wild or otherwise because key facts necessary to form a reasoned judgment are not in the public domain. And may never become so.

Re: Points deduction poll : Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:02 am  

Adeybull wrote:

Would not be in the least bit surprised.

Although if the RFL HAD secured a PG from OK, that should not be anything to do with the company at all? Unless the deal between the RFL and OKB for the central funding included a clause allowing the RFL to seek to recover some or all central funding in the event of insolvency? In which case, it would indeed be a sort of contingent liability, a bit like the BBH contingent liability to repay the council the Odsal settlement, pro rata, should the club stop playing its home games at Odsal.

And, maybe, the RFL did not bother to lodge a formal claim initially because of the "yeah, whatever" explanation FA rightly gave earlier regarding further claims when there is no prospect of dividend?

And they lodged a claim only when OK lodged HIS claim, which (uncontested and if admitted) would have given him majority voting rights at a creditors' meeting?

IF we knew that such a clause WAS in place regarding the RFL and the central funding (another one of these agreements not in the public domain?) then that would certainly explain the RFL's action?

Like so many aspects of this disaster, so much of the damage is being done due to speculation - wild or otherwise because key facts necessary to form a reasoned judgment are not in the public domain. And may never become so.

Well we do know that there was a signed agreement between OK and the RFL that all SL monies would be required to be repaid if there was another insolvency event because that has been reported publicly in the press, and is also stated in the administrator's background to insolvency report.

What we don't know is the precise nature of that agreement, which is what is causing the confusion. For instance, it may have been the case that the agreement was that the company was responsible for the repayment but it would default to OK being personally liable should the company have insufficient funds to meet the liability. In which case, the RFL would be perfectly entitled to lodge a creditor claim initially against the company for the amount in question. The administrator would then formally declare that the company could not meet said liability and so the RFL would then have proper recourse to pursue OK for the money.

Re: Points deduction poll : Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:21 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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.
So why mention it again? Everybody who is interested has read all about these facts
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.
And yet claimed and got admitted as a £1m creditor. And thus voted to that amount. Odd, wouldn't you say?
"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.
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.
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?
No poop, Sherlock. I have an equally profound revelation: Bradford Council is a council.

Are you still here? Nothing yet on what Khan produced to prove his £1m claim? Nothing to show that it was accepted by the administrator?

Sky money went into OKB, OK gave a personal guarantee of repayment should OKB enter admin. Sky money DID NOT & WILL NOT appear as a liability on OKB accounts. OKB DID NOT have any liability to repay the funds OK DID & DOES.

As stated the RFL registered their agreement with OK with the administrator to ensure that monies paid into OKB were provable and recorded accurately in OKB's financial accounts. As can be seen OK has attempted to claim investment figures he simply cannot prove. The RFL was simply protecting it's position.

As governing body, and as the organisation that would be funding the running of the business during admin, the RFL was rightly involved in the discussions with the administrator.

You are nothing but an ill informed, ignorant troll.

Re: Points deduction poll : Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:25 am  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

Are you still here? Nothing yet on what Khan produced to prove his £1m claim? Nothing to show that it was accepted by the administrator?

Sky money went into OKB, OK gave a personal guarantee of repayment should OKB enter admin. Sky money DID NOT & WILL NOT appear as a liability on OKB accounts. OKB DID NOT have any liability to repay the funds OK DID & DOES.

As stated the RFL registered their agreement with OK with the administrator to ensure that monies paid into OKB were provable and recorded accurately in OKB's financial accounts. As can be seen OK has attempted to claim investment figures he simply cannot prove. The RFL was simply protecting it's position.

As governing body, and as the organisation that would be funding the running of the business during admin, the RFL was rightly involved in the discussions with the administrator.

You are nothing but an ill informed, ignorant troll.

Grief. You really don't know when to sto digging.

Re: Points deduction poll : Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:32 am  

Derwent wrote:

Well we do know that there was a signed agreement between OK and the RFL that all SL monies would be required to be repaid if there was another insolvency event because that has been reported publicly in the press, and is also stated in the administrator's background to insolvency report.

What we don't know is the precise nature of that agreement, which is what is causing the confusion. For instance, it may have been the case that the agreement was that the company was responsible for the repayment but it would default to OK being personally liable should the company have insufficient funds to meet the liability. In which case, the RFL would be perfectly entitled to lodge a creditor claim initially against the company for the amount in question. The administrator would then formally declare that the company could not meet said liability and so the RFL would then have proper recourse to pursue OK for the money.

Yup. That's pretty well as I see it. Sadly, we can't be certain, and you can't take common-sense or normal sensible agreement-making for granted in anything in this arena!

Re: Points deduction poll : Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:37 am  

Derwent wrote:

Well we do know that there was a signed agreement between OK and the RFL that all SL monies would be required to be repaid if there was another insolvency event because that has been reported publicly in the press, and is also stated in the administrator's background to insolvency report.

What we don't know is the precise nature of that agreement, which is what is causing the confusion. For instance, it may have been the case that the agreement was that the company was responsible for the repayment but it would default to OK being personally liable should the company have insufficient funds to meet the liability. In which case, the RFL would be perfectly entitled to lodge a creditor claim initially against the company for the amount in question. The administrator would then formally declare that the company could not meet said liability and so the RFL would then have proper recourse to pursue OK for the money.

Nice to see a couple of posters using some common sense.

OK and RW should be torn limb from limb for the practices they followed when running OK Bulls. They are entirely responsible for the mess that evolved.

OK will pay the price as he is being pursued by Bradford council for repayment of the £200k, and the RFL look as if they will pursue for the £900k he guaranteed.

OK was never 'ill'. The alleged £900k he invested just a month before he stepped down was a ruse. It didn't happen. RW was his front man handling the whole 'story' behind his exit, and the whole legal case for not buying shares is a ruse.

OK wanted out and followed a plan that he thought would get him out without too much collateral damage. It worked for a while because, as is the case in rugby league, everyone blamed the RFL.

It is now becoming apparent that the entire blame lies with those who ran the club, and the group of 'directors' who all jumped on board then jumped ship when it ran aground.

Hopefully Bradford Bulls will recover from this sorry episode.