Quote bobsmyuncle="bobsmyuncle"If Ryan signed the RFL declaration for a fit and proper person which includes: (g) I have not been an Influential Person of 2 or more companies that have entered into an Insolvency Event whilst I have been an Influential Person of those companies in the 10 years preceding the date of the completion of this Declaration. and If 2 or more companies where he was a director had gone into liquidation then his statement would have been incorrect. If there had been even more companies, lets say 4 for example, then it would look really bad for him.'" I'm no expert on these things (and the T&A article backs up what you're saying) but I'm pretty sure 2011, 2007 and 2006 are less than 10 years ago....? companycheck.co.uk/director/9117 ... AN-KOUKASH *edit I'll throw [url=http://companycheck.co.uk/director/902417702Simon Moran[/url into the equation as well

Quote bobsmyuncle="bobsmyuncle"If Ryan signed the RFL declaration for a fit and proper person which includes: (g) I have not been an Influential Person of 2 or more companies that have entered into an Insolvency Event whilst I have been an Influential Person of those companies in the 10 years preceding the date of the completion of this Declaration. and If 2 or more companies where he was a director had gone into liquidation then his statement would have been incorrect. If there had been even more companies, lets say 4 for example, then it would look really bad for him.'" I'm no expert on these things (and the T&A article backs up what you're saying) but I'm pretty sure 2011, 2007 and 2006 are less than 10 years ago....? companycheck.co.uk/director/9117 ... AN-KOUKASH *edit I'll throw [url=http://companycheck.co.uk/director/902417702Simon Moran[/url into the equation as well

Agreed.

It wasn't long ago I was replying to one of your posts on here, discussing Whitcut's clear lies in public statements, that he then contradicted himself with (the wages issue and the business plan submission). All the things that were discussed as reasons to not trust the new board, were things Whitcut himself had said. I don't consider it a bad thing that he's been removed.

As someone said to me today, it's only right we give the rest of them the benefit of the doubt, as nobody else on the board has made any blatant lies in public statements (unless you count Robbie during the initial wages problem). It's very very difficult to put any trust in anyone at the club at the moment, even when none of the remaining board appear to have done anything wrong yet. It's up to them to build that trust back.

1, I didn't see any evidence of 'clear' or 'blatant' lies.

2, He was trying to minimise the fallout from something beyond his control, at the same time as selling the club to potential investors, sponsors (without which we are f***ed) and reassuring suppliers of all the stuff you need to run the club. What did you think he should say, "It's touch and go if I can keep the lights on"?

The players were paid within a few days and nobody died.

Perhaps the gap between the ratification and yesterday was a handover and notice period.

I would prefer them to say nothing than give us lies. I appreciate there may be reasons behind it, but if you want people to trust you, you don't come out and say one thing, then completely contradict it a couple of months (or even days/weeks) later. Which is what Whitcut did with the wages situation (the second month), and with the business plan submission. Don't preach about being honest with people and having transparency, then come out and give off a load of bull (if you pardon the pun).

You think there was a serious option to say nothing? Maybe I'm wrong but I'm guessing you don't know precisely what information he had, what events or circumstances he was trying to manage or just how things may have been changing from one moment to the next. On this basis, to call him a liar is going overboard. Faced with an impossible situation he made a call to say the least damaging thing possible in the hope it got sorted out. It did, bills and wages were paid.

Had he told the 'truth' as you see it and lost the confidence of creditors, sponsors and maybe even the input of one of the guys who came on board, he'd have been hanged on here. And rightly so!

Why are people speculating when the T&A already states, in clear terms, that RW is out "after failing the sport’s governing body’s fit and proper persons test".

Not much ambiguity there. However, if you were still struggling, it goes on:



Other people suddenly coming on the scene and getting on board suddenly starts to make much more sense, though what makes no sense at all was the publicly announced official ratification just a short while ago, when it is not feasible that the RFL didn't already know then what they know now.

Exactly

Broadly agree with your assessment FA. Perhaps the RFL were attempting to help us out for a change, as it seemed important for us to get a fairly swift answer re the ratification situation, assuming they knew of RWs lack of credentials, it may not have been relevant to the ratification process due to the other 3 directors being of sound mind and body, so to speak?

Couldn't see them missing that as that was/is part of the overall process of what they class as "Due Diligence" I think?

Anyway, enough of shenanigans at the Bulls. Let me completely forget rugby league for a moment, and post a picture you might like

Let me know if you guys that pm me got there replys