1. According to the form lodged at Companies House, what date did OK cease to be a director of OKB?
2. Who signed the forms lodged at Companies House notifying the appointments of other directors of OKB?

On the (reasonable) assumption that the amounts OK is claiming relate to the time he was in office, irrelevant to the question I responded to.

It only costs you a quid to download the forms from the Companies House web site



However after all that has gone on it would not surprise me to see a "x" in the signature section, and resigning does not remove the legal obligations on you as a director for the duration of your appointment.

But there is no surprise whatsoever, if you listen to what I have been telling you. Funny, that.



I think it's very common knowledge that in the early stages, OKB had no banking facilities so of necessity everything went through other already existing accounts eg my season ticket purchase money went to a company linked to the Lister Hotel as no doubt did all others at the same time.

My understanding, which I've said before, is that when the statement of affairs was released, the administrator had not contacted OK and that curious omission could explain why he did not have the information.


The relevance of the £1m is to do with control. If OK holds the majority then he can force an investigation into the administration. If he is not the majority creditor then he can't. Some may suggest in the latter scenario, the space under the carpet might be rather full. It is of course possible some people might prefer carpet to investigation.

Of course, the RFL ought to keep proper books and records etc. just like OKB or any company, and some may find it odd therefore that if they were owed £1m, that wasn't in the statement of affairs either. Nor did it appear at all until the eleventh hour before the creditors' meeting. Perhaps the RFL had simply forgotten.

Bradford Council, you may think, might be pretty neutral in the administration; wouldn't they simply prove their claim and stand by and just observe? Of course, if you do the arithmetic, it would be the case that any call for an investigation into the administration could be thwarted, if OK was outvoted, and we know the Council had £200k-worth of votes. If the Council did not abstain, but sided with the RFL, OK would have been outvoted.

It seems to me that a better analogy might be seeking to bury the technical drawings of the bulkheads and watertightness etc., ships logs, speed, direction charts, iceberg warnings etc. that might shed some light onto why the Titanic sank. I'm sure some might say "Look, the boat's on the bottom, don't ask any questions, what difference does it make? Just move on". But I don't think that's how it works, nor how it should work.

Passenger liner sinks with loss of hundreds of lives - external and funded body responsible for marine safety investigates, and recommendations enacted into law.

Small company, badly managed goes bust - no deaths, a few scorched wallets. Sure folks on here might want to know a little of what really happened but there is no cash in the bank for even a cursory investigation. So as ever apart from a few tweets from parties seeking to put their part in the mess in the best light- speculation is the best we are likely to get.

None of which in any way absolves the then-directors of their responsibility for keeping proper books of account. Something that would be especially important given the scenario you outline? Are you suggesting a breach of s.386, Companies Act 2006?

Whatever the administrator should or should not have contacted OK about (and, as the principal shareholder, I would have expected at least some contact with him), there should have been no initial reason to contact him in his capacity as a former director regarding the books of account. That would likely come later, as part of the enquiries into the conduct of past and present directors, or in response to any subsequent queries raised.



Good point - and agreed. And potentially puts the RFL's very late assertion of a debt owing to THEM in an interesting light, then? A potential connection I admit I had not made until now.



My "Titanic" analogy referred to "various parties". Which may or may not have included the likes of Whitcu*t and the RFL. I am aware that some argue that the RFL must be in this crock of shìte up to their eyeballs. Whether this is or is not the case, I suspect the crock may nevertheless need to be pretty large? To make room for all those sharing some responsibility for the disaster.

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

The council voted with Omar. They still lost

What an absolutely embarrassing p!s$ing fest this thread is.

whats the point in cutting a statement to say what you want it to say rather than what it did say? Do you think you have made some kind of point here?

1. OK resigned as a director on 24th September 2013

2. They were filed electronically so nobody signed them

I have no knowledge of how OKB did or did not keep their books or records, and have never suggested proper accounts shouldn't be kept, of course they should.