Quote Adeybull="Adeybull"The wording looked quite clear to me - OK proceding against individuals not the club? That would seem to suggest relating to the transfer of ownership rather than relating to monies owned by the club? And that there are no grounds for anyone to suggest OK is trying to bring the club down, as I have seen said elsewhere. Given he is owed money by the club - regardless of amount - that would make no sense?
There will always be two sides to any argument. Moore et al must feel very confident of their position, after the very public vilification of OK and Whitcut at the Forum and in the statements released. It was inevitable that the targets would respond.
I fear we could see a public battle for the hearts and minds of the supporters, though - just like we saw between the Hood and Caisley camps in the playpen. And, just like then with some supporters knowing - to a greater or lesser extent - some of the tale, but no-one knowing it all (even now, well after the event). With the supporters - and far more importantly the club players and staff - the largely-impotent ones stuck in the middle. Like last time, ultimately the history books will record more of the truth of it all, although like last time I doubt they will ever record it all.
One thing the history books DO record though, here and now, is that OK did step in and we still have a club because he did. Whether folk like me found him hard to deal with, and his attitude difficult, would never have been relevant had he not been the one to step in. The new board's issue with OK seems to boil down to them alleging OK was out of his depth, and placing his trust in others who let him down. Well-meaning but naive? And they seem to have avoided making any criticism of Gerry Sutcliffe, despite his equally high-profile role in saving the club and its subsequent activities. The targets seem very specific. I have long wondered what - or who - persuaded OK to step in in the first place, and how. I doubt he will be thanking them right now.
I guess this would be a very good time indeed for a wealthy doctor or music promoter or similar to manifest himself.'"
To be honest Adey you have hit a lot of nails on, maybe, a lot of heads. I felt totally confused at the News Omar was doing a statutory on the Bulls when the company of OK Bulls was sold to the two Directors first named. Particularly in light of all the "in with the new(Directors) and out with the old!" reports seemingly already logged at Companies House.
As you said that didn't make any sense when it could only be a personal matter of the purchaser agreement, between the parties involved? But certainly we won't know anything for a fact, unless we had been a fly on the wall at that time.
Good post Adey, feel a bit better reference the actual Club survival, which is still tenuous but less so at this moment. It's real tough being a Bulls fan is it not?
