Mr. Moderator, can I just point out that I am (once again) complying with what the moderators have requested. The personal attacks are totally one-sided, and getting more than a bit irritating now.

(Edited as per Feeble's advice below.)

Might help your case if you didn't refer to mods by their first names, Adey. Makes nutty Eddie's accusations sound more plausible and its a little funny how you've suddenly started doing it.

?? I've always done it with Sam, from time to time, nothing new there. As I have with our friend Craig too, from time to time. I guess since I use my own first name on here, the thought never entered my head about what you suggest. Don't really see anyway why I should have to make "my case", though. House divided...all very sad.

So, when a deal was signed to buy OK's shares, how was it negotiated and agreed? Accidentally? It is an odd thing, that. To agree to buy someone's shares for £300K when you have no intention of doing so. Perhaps you could explain how that one works?


One of us is a perpetual liar, and as I have said, it isn't me. This particular mistake of yours, which you keep repeating, PROVES you to be a liar. Why? Because you don't say you simply "don't know of" any case, or that you've not heard of the case. You bluster that "THERE IS AND NEVER WAS" a case. And accuse me of perpetuating "a lie". No room for doubt, then. You are telling the forum that YOU KNOW, and therefore you know I "am lying".

So let me tell you the case details. It is - and has for very many weeks - been proceeding in the High Court at Leeds under case number A30LS219. In fact, oddly enough, OK started these legal proceedings at the time that he publicly announced in the local press that he had started these proceedings.

You have been a busted flush for a while, but your gamble on your wild guess that there was no case has failed, and you are a now proven LIAR. Well done you!


The remainder of your lies, like the above, can therefore be safely ignored as the invented product of your febrile imagination.

But it isn't is it? The RFL clearly stated one of the reasons for not accepting the financial bid & forecast was because there was no investment funding going forward.

Moore & then Whitcut both failed to detail what their plans were, but both chose to blame the RFL. That's afar wasier than actually talking figures and admitting they had no money to invest.

The same people signed on as directors at OK Bulls and had allegedly agreed to purchase the shares of OK Bulls from Khan. They then found, miraculously, financial transactions that one of the directors who had been running OK Bulls knew nothing about?

I think wh\t you'll find is Khan left Whitcut with the job of off loading the business asap. He almost pulled it off, but when the irregularities came to light they backed off. Khan realising his plan had been rumbled played the victim and said he was going to take legal action. He never did and hasn't.

The big difference you don't seem to understand is that the RFL were able to step in to vet purchasers pland once the business was in admin.

Prior to admin the only test was fit and proper as it would be the only influence they could have.

Oops! You LIED again

What's up troll - cat got your tongue?

For the avoidance of doubt, Moore told me and others personally some months ago that Khan had instigated a legal action against him and Whitcu*t over failure to proceed with the share purchase.

But he clearly must have been lying, since LiarDweeb assures us - categorically and unequivocally - that no such action was ever initiated.

The deal was agreed based on false information supplied via Whitcut who was still working for Khan.. Once the deception was rumbled, the buyers back ed out & reverted to their original plan.. BB2014 was set up to take over once OK Bulls failed, which it did.

You have said previously there were no details of cases publicly available. Now you are quoting case numbers and courts. Curiously you aren't linking to any court sites where these details can be verified.

YOU are the perpetual liar and troll.

Wait ... what are you rambling about now ... I have previously said that there are no public lists of such civil cases available on t'internet, but you think it's "curious" that I'm not linking to any court sites despite me having explained there aren't any such sites? That is pretty amazingly dense, even for you!

You didn't get sight of any documents? Which solicitor was apparently acting for Khan?