Points deduction poll

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "You don’t say … as opposed to all the other SL clubs, who presumably decline to take their full allocation of Sky money as the season goes on… ?

Eh? You’ll have to restate that question in a way that makes sense.

We knew the RFL would pay wages etc to keep the club ticking over, and if necessary the RFL/SLE (through “Neonrain”) would even have acquired the club albeit on a temporary basis, the obvious reason being the integrity of the comp as opposed to one club dropping out. Do you think this is an insight or something? It isn’t.
Is that a fact? Well, I think I had better get off to the optician after this post because I am looking at them and clearly hallucinating. They stateIt's a statement of fact that the money paid to P$A was over and above the full allocation already taken by the club. You seem to think this amount of money should have been written off?'"

But you’re just stating the bleedin’ obvious, to the point of banality! And you are also skating over the fact that new owners, while not saving the old company (and so technically having no responsibility for its debts) nevertheless are expected by the RFL to offer to make payments despite tis total lack of obligation, and their proposals are part of the factors considered in deciding on sanctions.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "There was no expectation from the RFL. Any proposals put forward for dealing with liabilities were entirely the decision of prospective owners'"

You clearly don't! It states "[iAs part of the agreement and to meet the requirements of the RFL the purchasers are to make an offer to all ty does not say anything to the contraryrade creditors in the sum of 100p in the £[/i".

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "The RFL had no requirement regarding payment to creditors, and your letter says nothing to the contrary '"

Oops!

So, come on, was the administrator lying? Well?

Absolute tosh and nonsense, as if BBNL chooses to pay anything to anyone, then it is not part of the affairs of OKB. At all. MG is not involved personally for the first thing. Secondly, the payment would be from BBNL not MG personally. Thirdly neither MG nor BBNL are in any way a party to the administration.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "MG is SSG. He agreed the debenture deal. He placed OK Bulls into administration.'"

If for example Acme Pies were owed £1000 by OKB and BBNL want to continue to trade with Acme Pies then they might choose to make a payment equal to what Acme Pies were owed by OKB. This would not concern the administrator. He only distributes such funds (if any) remaining when he has got in THE DEBTS DUE TO OKB. Anything BBNL chooses to pay is clearly not in the category of debts due, because BBNL does not owe a penny of OKB’s debts. Which is kinda the whole point, as you yourself sort of pointed out, of MG Not buying and keeping alive OKB.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "You seem to be struggling with the fact that MG is SSG & BBNL. The scenario you paint above would be what a CVA would cover. A route MG chose not to employ as it would have meant spending money he did not wish to. He would have been aware of the level of funding required to ensure a reduction in the 6 point penalty, but instead chose to set up BBNL and begin with zero liabilities /quote]

But, as you’re seemingly a lawyer, if BBNL did choose to make the £1K payment to keep Acme Pies sweet, please enlighten us all what offence they would have committed?

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Perhaps you ought to read up on Insolvency?'"

If I felt sorry for Acme Pies, and sent them a cheque for £1K, would I be in jail too?

When Bullbuilder and others collected money and paid effectively some cash in lieu of wages to those who were working for nothing, and should have been paid by the club, did that make each person who put coppers in the bucket a criminal as well?

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Oh dear, you are being rather silly now'"

Were all the buckets delivered to the administrator so he could divide them between all creditors? We're gonna need a bigger jail.
We all know that the RFL plainly announced sanctions against BB2014, based on BB2014’s business plans etc. They announced so. We all thought BB2014 had bought the assets only it turned out that they actually hadn’t. But the penalty was announced aimed at BB2014 and not at OKB. BB2014, it turns out, obtained a licence to run the club from the RFL for 1 month. So they were RUNNING the club and had a licence to do so and as such were a temporary member, even though it turns out they did not own the club, although they had signed a (conditional) contract to do so. The end result was the de facto 6 points disappeared off the League table whilst BB2014 was operating under a temporary licence and therefore undoubtedly it was BB2014 which was sanctioned. However the sale fell through, the licence expired, and the operation of the club thus reverted to OKB, which was being run by the administrator. He appealed against the decision in that capacity, i.e. as the person running OKB, and did so in order to preserve any right of appeal as this might enhance the price he could sell the assets for, but the sanction was clearly not applied to OKB.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "No sanctions were announced against BB2014. The points deduction was made against OK Bulls and would have had to have been accepted by any potential new owner. It is exactly the same situation as the points deduction from BB Holdings. A points deduction was applied PRIOR to any change in ownership. You need to check your information.'"

No! OK owned the business until he sold the shares (if he did, that remains in litigation). The shares are of course not exactly worth a lot but the administrator RUNS the business and can SELL the business or parts but he never OWNS the business.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "There is no litigation in regard to any sale of shares of OK Bulls'"

I don’t think anyone on here claims BBNL were proposing to make any or any substantial payments to OKB creditors, simply because I’d have thought it would have been public knowledge if they did, but the fact is you are speculating, as no announcement has been made one way or the other. It would be interesting, when comparing the comments made by RFL re debtors, and indeed the quote from the administrator's letter that referenced RFL requirements, to know why different requirements would apply now.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "There is no speculation on my part. In order for any reconsideration of thepoints deduction to have taken effect, MG/BBNL would have had to make payments to creditors via the administrator. This has not and will not be happening.'"

As you so often do, you have it the wrong way round. The administrator tried to say OK was only owed £400K. (Without speaking to OK). OK insisted on a creditors meeting. At that meeting OK produced documentation evidencing his financial input and the administrator eventually revised and admitted OK’s claim at the increased figure of £1m approx.
The struggle is exclusively yours. The concept of a company being a legal person is one you need to get your head around. Until you do you’ll just keep looking increasingly silly.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Feel free to provide any evidence of this, such as a revised statement of proposals or any documentation/statement from the administrator'"

I have corrected so much of your misinformation that it seems pointless to repeat, as if you didn't bother to read the corrections first time, why would you now? Or maybe you just haven’t read it. But sticking just to this particular piece of your catalogue of misinformation, I am stating the facts, and you have it wrong. The position was summed up in a T&A report following the creditors meetingTo clarify, you are citing a newspaper report as evidence for your claim? Perhaps you could provide a link?'"