I'm sure you're righT and to be fair, I'd guess it's a case of paying for what someone knows rather than what they do. Doesnt make it any less gauling though.



Perhaps I'm just sore having been bent over by accountants and solcitors in the past

Can't be d explaining what this is about, why this process is being followed, and especially the significance in the wording of the administrator's letter regarding there being no prospect of a dividend for the unsecured creditors. Or, for that matter, anything else in the comprehensive and pretty enlightening report that I now have a copy of. No intention of putting up with more shìt like I read on here after my previous update.

I could explain it too, but I am currently picking my toys up that I have thrown out of my pram. Sorry everyone

This is a likely scenario thats happening between the OK/GS bid and Red Hall www.youtube.com/watch?v=EET6lYJqnro (keep the sound off)

This is a likely scenario thats happening between the OK/GS bid and Red Hall www.youtube.com/watch?v=EET6lYJqnro (keep the sound off)

Is anybody offering odds on us having a new owner in time for Saturday's game? I want a bet.

While it would be good to see a bit more certainty on the future ownership it did strike me as a touch ironic that looking at our recent results we have probably had our best run for several seasons when everyone's favourite administrator has been in charge of the club?



So perhaps they could annouce the new deal after we have beaten FC by a 100 to boost up our scoring difference? Uncertainty and superstition go hand in hand.

T&A reports RFL Board meeting today... decision could be tonight!!!!

Doesn't the deal even if the RFL are happy with it, have to be agreed with the Creditors as has been mentioned and that could be after the Catalans match??

Well it has to be agreed by the administrator, so I guess it's his job to sort out how it impacts the creditors - after all it's his job is to get the best deal he can for the them. Maybe he's had meetings with them, or at least the big ones....maybe.



From my own recollections of being an unsecured creditor many years ago, my votes, and even attendance at meetings, weren't worth the bus fare so from my pov I reckon it's largely down to the Administrator.

That's pretty much how I see it, and anyway as the leaked letter simply states that there'll be NO dividend to unsecured creditors, you could say, what difference would ANY deal make? I.e. if whatever happens, they receive Nil, then what could be a worse deal for them than that? If that's the best offer, how could the administrator get a better deal? By definition, he can't.

It would seem that there will be ramifications, for whoever takes over, if sufficient isn't repaid though. It already appears that there will be some financial impediment imposed, reduced Sky money being mentioned as a starter. I guess we'll know more, as and when the details become available, but it's pretty certain that there will be 'consequences' if repayments aren't made.

I think that particular "ramification" relates to our rather unusual relationship with our landlord. With the RFL being both our landlord at Odsal and controlling the central funds that gives them a way of "recovering" part of their debt. I am sure the lawyers who contribute to the forum could give an opinion on whether this could be deemed to be unfair preference but I think it would be safe to say if this is the case creditors who aren't in the same position as the RFL - HMRC for instance - will not be best pleased even if it is legal.

The letter is neither leaked nor confidential. It will have been sent to at least 1200 people (shareholders and creditors, albeit I suspect the postman will have had difficulty delivering a significant number of those to the former). The document is therefore effectively in the public domain. As are all such letters issued as standard practice in such circumstances. I have received any number of them over the years in respect of insolvent customers.



Since I am not a named recipient of the letter, I would suggest that the publication of any specific content of the letter and its attachments (which include the Statement of Affairs and the Creditors List) should be left to someone who was a named recipient. There is indeed much to discuss.

No.



The creditors are entitled to vote on the joint administrators' PROPOSALS, as opposed to specific deals which are wholly within the province of the joint administrators, if more than 10% by value request, by 6 September, that a meeting be convened.



The joint administrators make it clear that they do not expect there to be any prospect of a dividend for the unsecured creditors, and so are effectively telegraphing to them that convening a meeting would be futile. I would expect that the extent to which asset realisations will be applied to paying the joint administrators' fees accrued to date and still to be incurred could have had a significant bearing on the joint administrators' conclusions.

Much could depend on HMRC's view of life. Take the Rangers FC case as an example - HMRC rejected their proposed CVA even though it was a financially better deal than liquidation. They did so because they considered that accepting a CVA would weaken their ability to pursue the directors individually for what they perceived as being illegal actions in respect of tax and disposing of assets. I'm not suggesting that any Bulls directors have done anything wrong but HMRC are getting much tougher and they may wish to look at the transfer of the Bulls' major asset (Odsal lease) shortly before going into administration (as an example). Its all speculation of course but where HMRC is involved then anything is possible.

But

a) how exactly could they do this and

b) unless the lease was transferred at an undervalue, (and I see no reason at all to suspect that), what difference would it make? If we had not sold the lease, then equally we wouldn't have received the purchase price either. We either have a lease, or the sale proceeds of the lease, surely?

a) We don't know what the creditors ratio is - what is being proposed is basically a CVA and you need >75% of total creditors by value to agree to it. If HMRC are owed more than 25% of the total creditor value then they can reject it. The creditors do not have to agree to the administrators proposals - he is there to get the best deal for them as ultimately its they who pay him, not the business involved. Usually in these cases the company's bank and/or HMRC make up the vast majority of the creditors and so smaller creditors get no say. Its difficult to say in this case as we have not seen the creditors list.



b) As I said, I don't know the details of the Odsal deal and it may all be perfectly fine. But if HMRC suspect that any directors have acted illegally then, using the Rangers case as a recent example, they will wish to retain the right to pursue them individually.

I do not beleive any CVA will be on offer, so there will be nothing for HMRC to reject.



The only thing they can object to is the joint administrators' general proposals, which would require them to request a ceditors meeting be convened. If they DID require a meeting to be convened, and a creditors' committee formed, they would have to fund the administrator (or subsequent liquidator) to pursue such investigations. It would seem unlikley they would at the same time seek to stop or delay the sale of the club - what the hell would be in it for them? The net result would most likley be LESS assets proceeds available to meet creditor claims, I would suggest.



HMRC not objecting to the present proposals would not prevent the liquidator - and you will hardly be surprised who is proposing himself for that role - from pursuing any action against directors or former directors - or the RFL, maybe under the auspices of an action for fraudulent preference - if there seemed any realistic prospect of success and the creditors (or maybe at least one shareholder...) were prepared to fund the liquidator to do so.

HMRC is easily the largest named creditor, and well over 25% of the total.



The Joint Administrators propose that the assets are sold and company is wound up. They do NOT propose a CVA.

Why would there be a CVA if there is no money? Are you confusing the proposals as a whole, with the deal to sell the Bulls? They are two different things. The proposals relate to the old company, which will be wound up. But before that, the Bulls business will (hopefully!) have been sold off.



The administrator can, in the course of his duties, do whatever he wants. Including making staff redundant, and including selling some or all of the assets. Those individual deals are not something the creditors get a say in. That's my understanding of it anyway.





I have no idea about that, though see no reason at all for saying or even suggesting illegal activity, all I am saying is I don't see any connection between any such matters, which may or may not arise in the future, and any proposed sale. If a given bidder buys the business, why would they care if HMRC, or anyone, pursued former directors individually?

The Rangers case certainly has made HMRC adopt a harder line on sports clubs, but remember there are actual criminal investigations going on in that case and the amounts involved dwarf the ones at Odsal.



The lease deal would never be questioned in this context- it is a documented transaction which would have involved both lawyers and the council as the site's owner. It is much more likely that behind the scenes more questions would have been asked of the RFL and the commecial sense of the transction to them.



I would suspect that with the benefit of hindsight the actions of the various directors will be judged to have been inept but would be very surprised if any formal action would be taken - and as has been mentioned in several posts even if there was potentially a case to answer there is no point in spending money when there is no hope of actually recovering anything.

Ah but the people that bought the lease have put a bid in to buy the club so the lease would technically be back with the Bulls......naughty naughty rfl

Do enlighten us as to how that might be so, and why anyone would have been naughty? Being mindful of the AUP.

Does that mean we also get all the cash from the sale of TV rights?



Or is it more likely that just because an organisation owns two distinct things that those things do not then automatically get ownership of each other?