im just wondering if and when this report will be released? i seem to remember back in march at the start of the financial woes that we would find out what exactly happened i.e hoods vote of no confidence and caisley taking over in a report
any ideas when this will be released?

It was leaked around the time that OK bought the club. I have a copy that I can mail to you if you like

IIRC the report that was leaked wasnt the full admin report. just a preliminary one. The full one is due round about now I think.

The report to the DTI is unlikely to appear in the public domain...unless someone with a vested interest leaks it.

The administrator has to report to the creditors periodically. Only those close to the matter will know how much of the full story has been included, and how much has not. The threat of litigation looms large over all such activities, after all, as do commercial sensitivities, so a balance has to be struck.

Guilfoyle seemed quite willing to drop out bits of information when it seemed to suit him - on several occasions I thought highly unprofessionally and lending weight to the arguments of the conspiracy theorists. Whether that will continue, who knows? FWIW, I suspect that whatever spin Guilfoyle might put on it, this is one job he would rather forget. But only those close to the matter will know for certain whether or not he really achieved any of the objectives set for him.

Mr Guilfoyle confirmed last week when we spoke that the report to the DTI will be delivered (safeguarded) on the 29th December.

Hmmmmmmm

Who would litigate and on what potential grounds? (gen question)

My own view is that the report should be made public for the following reasons;

1, Bradford people gave £500,000, former players gave medals, mementoes etc, fans of other clubs gave money - there has to be some accounting, or at the least an explanation for where it went.

2, The worst thing to possibly happen is for parts of the report to sneak, piecemeal, onto this board or the T and A. We all KNOW, that will happen.

3, The secrecy surrounding the Harris deal, Orford, the ground sale, even the sale of the Burgii, led to deep suspicions that the club were actually lying. We need a culture of transparency to rebuild the faith of supporters.

4, This needs to be put to bed, once and for all. If there is a risk of litigation then there should be nothing in the report which doesn't stand up to rigorous analysis. Gerry is a smart political operator and if they get this report out before the season starts it could be framed as both a rebirth and the final thick black line being drawn under this sorry mess before the season starts. Along with everything else going positively, it could actually be a boost. Everything has to be done to avoid the whispering about former directors, their wives, their companies, their friends, blah blah, that is very damaging.

Must confess to a sneaking desire to know the 'truth', in so far as the truth can be determined and demonstrated (to quote yes minister), but, basically, it is only prurience and not a need. The period this report would refer to is gone, finished, over.. and what we currently have is untainted by it, so far as I can see. In truth, I'd be happy to forget the whole lot of it.

I have no real doubts about where the £500k went - there is enough information available to me to work it out. It bought another two and a half months, and paid off the bank.

I would prefer to see a fully objective and independent report. We will not ever get that.

The administrator IMO cannot be seen as necessarily independent and objective, since he was apopointed by the replacement board and one presumes with the concurrence of a majority of the then-shareholders, having been previously engaged to carry out a "review" (the precise terms of reference of which we have never been told) on their behalf. In any case, he would only report on matters having a direct impact on what finally happened - I doubt we would see anything much about Harrisgate or Orfordgate or Burgiigate, which would limit its usefullness anyway, although the business of the sale of the ground stinks enough to very much warrant an independent examination.

Short of an independent inquiry - which I am sure we many of us would love to see happen, but never will since who would fund it, and why? - I cannot see any other objective and independent reporting ever likely to happen. Which for me is a great pity, since I would dearly love to know what REALLY happened, and not just what various parties on both sides have told me, or told others, what they say happened - in some cases totally different versions of the same event. I suspect few of those involved would emerge with much credit, although I think Ryan could stand accused of little more than naivity and trusting in others.

Which means that, sadly, yes we are likely to continue to see piecemeal and selective leaking and reporting, and no definitive answers - just more ammunition for those seeking to use it. Indeed, the worst thing that could (and I agree doubtless will) happen. Better nothing is said at all IMO, and we all move on, than stir it all up again especially if it looks to outsiders that scores remain to be settled. Raking over what happened will not change anything, and is IMO likely to bring negative publicity at the worst possible time.

In the absence of an independent report, the administrators report is as near as we're going to get, and like you say, is challenge-able (sp) if including false info. I agree though, Guilfoyle is not independent by association. I didn't mean the report will include info on Harris, Orford etc merely that by using the 'confidential' 'undisclosed' trick and then briefing privately they caused a breach of trust which will only heal with transparency. The report maybe biased in tone but it would be a very grave matter were it biased by omission or falsehood.

Were I advising the board and I strongly suspect Gerry will need no advising on this, it would be to get as much 'out there' as soon as possible. If the team struggle early on, it will provide good cover for what appear to be issues over player budget - something all boards need when picking up a mess like this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what's it to do with Gerry? Or indeed OKB? Unless I'm missing something, they are as much or as little entitled to receive a copy of anything released re the administration as you or I?

My assumption was based on Gerry Sutcliffe being Chairman of the club and MP for the area which makes his involvement/responsibility somewhat greater than mine. As a former minister I'm guessing if anyone knows the procedure for getting reports of this nature released, he will.

How did the administrators report into the collapse of MG Rover get into the public domain?

While we might not know the details we know what the outcome was the club came within a hairsbreadth of disappearing.
I am just glad we survived in SL and will be spending my time looking forward to 2013. I always finf a good rule is not to waste your time worrying about things you cannot chsnge.

rlThe form of return that every insolvency practitioner has to submit to the Insolvency Service regarding the conduct of each director of an insolvent company.rl

Posted so people can see that the report that Guilfoyle has to make is probably not at all what most people assume, or might have been led to expect.

This is a statutory report, which has to be completed in every case for every insolvent company. Nothing in any way special about Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd.

Since it is intended to be used, where necessary, as a basis for bringing criminal proceedings against a delinquent director (i.e. disqualification) (and/or likely to be used in evidence in any action for recovery of funds etc against the director by the IP? FA advise?) then I rather doubt this would become a public document?

Can't see any way that the NON-DIRECTOR honorary chairman of a DIFFERENT company would have any rights to see the report on the conduct of a director of another, legally-unconnected company? And as a sitting MP, he would anyway need to be seen to uphold the highest moral standards, would he not? And I must say that in various meetings with him since his involvement, he has only ever come across to me as genuine, honest and thoroughly reasonable and responsible.

AS MB said earlier, all we are likely to learn is what parties close to the affair, and maybe with axes to grind and scores to settle, choose to tell us. Unless of course criminal action for disqualification is brought against any former director of BBH Ltd - the possibility of which is IMO very remote indeed.

You don't think it's a legitimate enquiry of a sitting MP to find out what happened to hundreds of thousands of pounds of money donated by his constituents? Or, for that matter to act on behalf of a constituent who may have been a creditor? Far from it being irresponsible, I'd suggest it's his job to try and find out what happened.

I take your point about the document forming the basis of any potential prosecution but I find it hard to believe these documents are meant to be kept secret indefinitely. Were the DTI not to recommend prosecution what would be gained?