It seems to me that the relevant part of the form to be completed is 16a which asks for details of any "unfit conduct". l agree with Adey in that I don't know how much use this formal return would be to interested but not directly involved parties such as members of this forum.
As regards Gerry Sutcliffe I doubt whether 100's of thousands was donated by Bradford South constituents. However your point regarding MP's (not just Sutcliffe) acting for constituents who were creditors of the old company is germane.
Like you , I would dearly love to know the true objective story of what happened and why. I just don't know whether the "administration" route is the best way to gather that knowledge.
Oh for a David Conn type investigative journalist to uncover the truth!

The chance of any legal action being taken against any directors is rather lower than an alien landing outside the town hall and buying the winning lottery ticket. If you couple this with the basic legal concept of limited liability for shareholders then however much you huff and puff no-one who suffered a loss as a result of the misguided actions of the previous company is going to get a penny.
As per the pledge money that kept the club running for a few more months so there is no mystery there.

I don't disagree. I just don't know how we make those judgments without seeing the report. The spectre of David Conn is interesting. I strongly suspect one of his key starting points would be the administrators report.

TBH, it seems quite clear (to me at least) that the donated money went to plug the hole left by the withdrawn bank funding, and then to enable the operation to hang on for a further period up to the administration - which was anyway consistent with what we were told at the time, once you stripped all the smoke and mirrors bollox about the nasty evil HMRC and tax bills out of it - I personally don't think there is any huge secret to be discovered about what happened to the £500k. To me that is far and away the easiest of the questions to answer. I have it on good authority, from outside the club, that Hood had lined up administration for if the Pledge failed, and for shortly after Easter. In the event, the directors (old and new) all found they were able to continue in business until June, AFTER the bank got out, so that's a QED for me.

The £500k (and I personally put in about 0.2% of that, and was collectively involved in a further 0.5% so I have as good a reason as most to want explanation) to me is not the issue, although I can fully understand why to most people it is probably the most visible part of the whole debacle and therefore needs explaining. And, as it happens, I am one of Philip Davies' constituents - if I wanted my MP to investigate, I'd have to try and attract HIS interest not Gerry's...

What I am much more interested in is the background to the stadium sale, the role of the RFL, and the loan repayment and its term; what the Hood board's plans were for bringing costs and income back into line given the truly alarming gap that seemingly opened up in 2011 (I presume, with hindsight, they had spent all the 2011 season ticket money, received late 2010, in keeping the ship afloat in Q4 2010 and so had to first run to the RFL early 2011 - when the debenture was put in place) and how much the catastrophic on-field performances of 2011 stymied any such plans; whether what I understood to have happened over Orford is indeed the full story; what really happened over Harrisgate, and who did or did not say what and did or did not do what; how the "new" board post-eviction felt able to continue trading, and yet clearly incur additional tax liabilities that they were unable to pay (remember, Guilfoyle has to report on Coulby and Agar's conduct too, you would hope just as objectively...and I think there are plenty of unanswered questions over their period of office especially since they were the in-situ directors when the music stopped); and a whole load of other financial questions.

But all I expect to appear in the public domain on most or all of the above is what anyone, quite possibly with a vested interest chooses to selectively tell us. Unless of course one of our illustrious RL hacks finally does their job and runs a fully-researched story ...

A business went bust. So do lots of others, sadly. That does not necessarily mean anyone did anything illegal, and it does not even necessarily mean anyone was especially incompetant (although I am sure that, as a minimum, the Peter Principle will be seen to have been demonstrated in spades in this case...) or over-optimistic (although hindsight is wonderful). But I would feel a lot more comfortable if I knew that none of what has gone on and is likely to go on had anything to do with scores being settled, and that the fans were not again being taken for fools.

Heh. Fat chance.

............?

With all these aliens about that might happen! Directors have more rights than the common man (woman or child) who else could destroy all they come into contact with, then walk away and start again. Morally they should be brought to book but legally - snow ball and Hell springs to mind.

In fact, though, company directors have far more legal responsibilities than the "common man". And certainly far far more than the self-employed common man, when it comes to a business falling over, albeit the latter instead faces the horrid direct prospect of personal bankruptcy. To bankrupt a company director when a business foalls over, you'd have to demonstrate trading whilst insolvent, wrongful trading or some other civil-actionable breach of duty.

Or for that matter controlling shareholders, who seem to have fekk all legal responsibility for anything.

I suspect that if there are any possible, any conceivable grounds, for any kind of action whatsoever against Hood, however tenuous, in tru Ahab fashion some of those with strong vested interests may have no hesitation whatsoever in ruthlessly pursuing. So worry not on that score.

Are you horsing around?

I'll stand to be corrected, but I can't see any [ifinancial[/i incentive in any former shareholder or director bringing an action in this particular case. The value of the shares must have been nominal at best and the company was sold at a knock down rate (as known as the best offer, or more colloquially, what it was worth) which probably didn't even cover the cost of admin, so why would any rational person risk a clearly expensive lawsuit (not sure there is any other kind) just to prove a point?

Not sure you could describe the actions of any of our ex directors/ shareholders over the last couple of years as rational TBH. Apart from the bad publicity for new owners don't really care if they all bankrupt themselves suing and counter suing each other trying to apportion the blame. Just glad that none of them have any involvement in club going forward and were starting with a clean slate.

Indeed.

Although there may be some people - acting or ostensibly acting on behalf of creditors - who might be very pleased if they could somehow secure a contribution from former directors towards the deficiency as regards creditors? Which would of course mean demonstrating e.g. trading whilst insolvent. Maybe some people would regard achieving that as a victory of sorts, even maybe regardless of cost? Who knows? Although they might run the risk of getting confused with a big white whale somewhere along the way.

Didn't I read that Hood & Bennetts Firm NAK were owed 70+ Grand, so I expect that will written off as a tax loss?

That is very fair point Mat, though in my own defence, I had factored in the thought that in the cold light of day, even the financial realities might have become, ever so slightly, clearer. As I said in the original post though, I do reserve the right to be wrong, both about the financial aspects and the silly levels some people will descend to, just to make a point.

In the same way the original billed income was part of taxable profits, yes.

Remember to net off the VAT.