Derwent wrote:
The best available evidence is within the administrator's official report which says....
In return for the granting of the Super League franchise to OK Bulls, as part of the purchase Mr Khan agreed to take a 50% reduction in the amount the company would receive from Central Funding for two seasons. The oniginal proposal by the RFL was that no central fundmg would be paid in season one of the new company, It was subsequently agreed that this would be spread over two seasons. This arrangement was supported by a personal guarantee from Mr Khan which would be called upon to repay central funding advances if the company failed again within that two year penod
Indeed.
My problem with that wording has always been that it never made clear whether or not there was a contingent liability upon the company? The wording used there implies that the RFL could pursue OK whether or not there was, and whether or not the company actually made any repayment to the RFL?
It would concern me if there WAS a contingent liability upon the company, and at least the existence of said contingent liability was not referred to in the Administrator's Proposals. Not least because, in the unlikely event that there MIGHT be some dividend for the unsecureds, any crystalised RFL claim would massively dilute the claims of the remaining unsecureds.
Which was why my original conclusion was that it seemed unlikely that there would be such a condition applying to the company. Yet, if the RFL did indeed lodge a large claim, that would very much suggest that there WAS?
So it's got me beat!
.How about proving some of your claims. Not honest or noble to deride others claims without providing proof of your own, especially when their repeatedly blown out of the water by those who bother to download the legal documents from companies house.
