Questions for Adey (or anyone who understands the current situation)....

As all the players and assets have been transferred (purchased off the administrator) is it safe to assume that the new company didn't take any of the cash raised against the previous company (crazy suggestion but leads onto the next point)?

For example, all the season tickets purchased and sponsorship deals signed, the cash raised (presumably to help get through the season) has now gone to the administrator, leaving new company with a bank balance of '0'.

Would it have been possible for the directors to transfer any funds to the new company before calling in the administrator, leaving the new company with a healthy start, or is this the largest indication that the new owners/directors have put their hands into their pockets (as they need to pay wages etc.)

One last question... Who is the actual owner of the new company? OK owned OK Bulls as he was the main shareholder, does anyone know how the shares are split with the new owner(s)? There is a lot of talk regarding the new directors but is there a specific owner, if so, I suppose there is a chance that this owner could different to the directors listed.

All the assets will have been purchased (not simply "transferred"icon_wink.gif by BB2014 from the administrator of OKB. Price paid unknown, at least at present. Those assets include intangible assets (such as goodwill, maybe player contrcacts) as well as tangible assets (coral stand, equipment, stock). No bank balance will have been purchased - pointless anyway, why pay cash for cash, and the bank accounts are all frozen on appointment of administrator. ANy book debts will be collected by the administrator.



Season tickets are actually a (big) liability of OKB. Almost certainly the lasgest single (non-OK) liability. BB2014 has confirmed it is taking on that liability, so that will doubtless have reflected in the net price paid for the assets.

Any sponsorship already paid to OKB has gone, forever. Any sponsorship invoiced by OKB but noit yet paid will be a book debt, collected by the administrator. If that sponsorship covered future periods, it is unlikely the sponsors would pay it or be obliged to.

Future sponsorship - BB2014 will need to enter into into new agreements with Provident and other sponsors. All the old agreements with OKB will be voided by the administration. I assume BB2014 will have made sure Provident et al are onside. If I was a sponsor, I would be MUCH happier now OK is gone and I am dealing with a professional team, to be honest.



NOT from OKB (which anyway HAD no funds) - that would at best have been a "fraudulent preference", if there was any debt due, and at worse downright fraud/theft. Will not have happened. If it had (and it wiull not have), the administrator would pick it up and seek to recover it, AND we would be looking at the Plod egting involved.

BB2014 was incorporated in November, so it was an existing vehicle. If the owners of it put funds into it between then and now, that is a matter for them. As a minimum, they will have put funds in for the initial share capital - but that is always a modest sum (the share capital of my own company is only £100, for example).



BB2014 was owned by Moore, Calvert and Watt 1/3 each, last time I checked.

You do not have to own shares to be a director. RHP in his video says he is now a director of BB2014, as well as those three. Assuming he actually MEANS a "Director" - and not one of these confusing "associate director", "non-executive director", "director of janitorial services" or other descriptions that convey status but nothing more, he may or may not now have shares in BB2014. If he has, and bought shares off the other three, we will not know until the first Annual Return is filed.

Adey - Have to say I dont agree with you here and cannot understand your logic to ignore the monies inserted by OK.

In effect he was a Director. He then paid in monies which were his or monies from his Company. I am not privy to the split.

So the Administrator will see outstanding monies to OK in his Loan account and also possibly a Trade Creditor for monies from his business.

Surely he cannot decide 'Oh Im not going to pay him - or pay them - hes honour bound to act correctly.

The saga could run and run and although my club should be OK (touch wood) I can see a huge revolt amongst such as Wakey, Cas, London fans etc.

Perfect, cheers for the response Adey.

This makes me think that the new owners are placing capital into the new company (out of their own pockets), ensuring we can get through the season. I feel far more confident in the new company, knowing the owners have more of an incentive for the business to work.

The fact that Moore has today said that the players are ring-fenced proves that the funds are there for them to finish 2014.

Happy days!

I think we are confusing two separate points here.

You are totally correct in what you say, as far as the administrator is concerned. To him, a creditor is a creditor is a creditor. The only distiction is in pecking order.

Preferential creditors get paid first, but since these are nowdays usually limited to certain employee claims, and all the employees were TUPEd across to BB2014, there are unlikely to be any of those. Next come any debenture holders secured by floating charge. In this case, the moneylender. He looks certain to be paid, I'd say, out of the proceeds of the asset sale to BB2014 and any book debt collections, as well as any existing cash at bank. He will of course have known this, hence I am sure him taking the steps he did to realise his security.

Then in this case, it gets interesting. The rest are usually "unsecured creditors", and - if there is anything left after the Prefs and debenture holder/s have been paid, and of course the administrator (can't see this guy costing a fraction of the scandalous amount Gargoyle & co made, especialy given its a prepack) - then they get a dividend of x p in the pound, all treated equally.

Of course, if perchance a creditor has subordinated his debt behind the interests of other creditors (i.e. agreed by deed he does not get paid until all the other creditors have ben paid) then he ranks last anyway, and is invariably fekked. I raise this only because it is not uncommon, when a business is financed mainly by loans instead of equity (as OKB was) that lenders, key suppliers or other stakeholders/regulators require such debt to be subordinated. I do not know if such was the case here, but if it was then of course it shoots down mcuh of the inaccurate arguments that some people are putting up anywauy).

But, back to the unsecured creditors. It is quite possible, and not totally uncommon, for the new company to voluntarily agree to settle with some or all of the unsecured creditors. That is what BB2014 have said they intend to do, if I understand it correctly. In such cases, they can decide who to pay if they want, since it is voluntary. (if there ARE any specific rules here, I have not come across them professionally before but would welcome someone improving on my answer). So they could elect to settle with normal creditors, I presume including HMRC (in fact, it had BETTER be) but not OK, or for that matter any other unusual or non-rugby creditors.

I would presume the price BB2014 paid for the assets will have reflected any such intent, since by settling unsecured claims they reduce the amount that the administrator has to seek to settle, and thereby improve the dividend prospects of any creditors that remain in the old company.

If you want a recent precedent that I am familair with, go check out the administration of Brintons Carpets (Major, long-established carpet manufacturing group) not long ago. The bsuiness was sold in a prepack (as here) to a new vehicle (as here) owned by a US private equity group (no such luck...) that undertook to settle all the normal supplier claims but not the financing deb and any funnies. Thereby saving the business, causing no loss to suppliers, HMRC etc, maintaining the goodwill of suppliers and stakeholders, and ensuring the loss fell where it should have - on the owners, quasi-owners and financiers of the business. I am hopeful we will see similar here. Time will tell, obviously!

PS: IMO Early Bath's post here is just the sort of sensible, considered contribution to the debate that should be welcome and appreciated. Compare and contrast with the unhelpful, subjective hissy fits from the likes of Wooden Stand.

Who is this security guy and what role has he played in this? Is he a goodie or a bad guy?

Essentially a moneylending business, that appears to have advanced we think £180k (that was the figure bandied about) and doubtless on very onerous interest rate terms at around the time OK stood down but before (seemingly) Moore et al were appointed. When Whitcu*t was pretty well in sole charge. At least that is how it seems, although only the key protaganists know the full tale.

Unlear what that loan was for. Various different alternatives have been bandied around. Serves little purpose dwelling on the reasons here - if you as an individual took out a payday loan (as this seems to be the corporate equivilent of) then the reasons whay you took it out are irrelevant. What matters is that you have to pay it back, and quickly, or you are in deep doo doo at short order. And can expect a visit from some gentlemen wishing to discuss repayment with you in a relatively robust manner.

In this case, it went further. The lender was given security over the club's assets. This is a bit like a mortgage - debtor does not pay, you can take steps to seize the house to get repaid. That is called a "fixed charge". In this case, the lender had what is called a "floating charge", which means he cannot (now) just step in an seize assets (that used to be called receivership, and was effectively canned a couple of decades ago in favour of administration). Instead, his usual remedy is to apply to the High Court for the appointment of an administrator, to take control of the business and seek to settle the creditors (in order) whilst trying to preserve a business as a going concern.

And that is what has happened, it would seem. The moneylender, holding a floating charge (also called a "debenture"icon_wink.gif applied to the High Court on Friday morning, and secured the appointment of an administrator. At least, that would appear to be the legal form of it.

Its actually even more complicated than that, because it seems someone also sold these guys 1 share out of he 100 shares in issue. So they are also a shareholder in OKB.

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

As for whetehr he is a goodie or a baddie? Are Wonga goodies or baddies? Who is the real baddie? The lender? Or whoever borrowed the money in the first place?

Sensible if a points deduction is to be avoided.
Having avoided a deduction, might not the newco then make a pretty derisory offer to these unsecured creditors who presumably couldn't do a right lot about it.
Which to my mind is why a points deduction should be made. I've no axe to grind with Bradford but for the RFL to do otherwise would put it in an incredibly weak position in terms of governance.

After going going into Administration for the second time in next to no time, it should be 6 points deduction for Bradford Bulls (or 4 points if ALL creditors are paid off in full).

How any Bradford supporter can put some invented label on Mr Khan (like "non-rugby" creditor) is unbelievable. He bought your flip pin' team for you last year for goodness sake!

What's more, if OK Bulls Ltd ultimately suffers insolvent liquidation (goes bust) then Bradford should be relegated to the bottom division.

You really need to start understanding how all this works. Want me to give you some "useful links" on corporate insolvency?

Of course OKB will be liquidated in due course. It is inevitable. There is no other outcome. Totally irrelevant, since the act of insolvency is the appointment of the administrator. Liquidation merely kills the corpse off for good.

Bitter, Bitter man....

Another sensible, reasoned contribution IMO. Just wish they were all like Early Bath and yourself.

Its a very valid point. I would hope and expect the RFL will obtain [iformal, enforceable[/i assurances from the board regarding the payment proposals. And only then decide on the question of points deduction or other sanctions. Indeed, if you read Moore's latest statement, he seems to recognise precisely that, in apologising for jumping to conclusions earlier about this issue.

Indeed, I cannot see other clubs wearing it if this is not the case?

I believe there are precedents for this in the cases of other clubs - e.g. those who used the CVA route to resolve their financial situation.

Seemingly. But his only justification for his arguments seems to be because he said it should be so. And not helped by clearly not understanding how corporate insolvency and recovery works, or the distinction in substance between owner and creditor.

Compare and contrast, as I said, with the likes of Early Bath and Clearwing on here, who raise important and valid questions, calmy and reasonably with no histrionoics, and explain clearly what and why.

Yes.

Note that we none of us know if he might have done. I was speculating. If I was a bank lending to the club, It is certainly something I feel sure I would have insisted on, and in any case it could have been necessary to try and avoid a going concern qualification in the accounts. But it may be a total red herring.



Legally, no difference between individual and corporate creditors. Treated the same. And in substance I would see no difference either.



The invisible man? If he was owed any money, either personally or through a corporate vehicle, then again would be a normal unsecured creditor.



Quite right. He is not.

Any "preference" would be by BB2014 volutarily settling with some or all of the OKB creditors. That is a matter between BB2014 and the creditors, and something the Administrator could take account of I guess in settling the price for the assets. AMybe the price to be finalised once the amount of the creditors paid is finalised? But, to the extent creditors remain unpaid and with the administrator, he has to declare the same % dividend - if any - to all of them.



So I think would everyone, tbh. And I think that is what may well eventuate, IF BB2014 settles with all the normal creditors in a similar way to how you did through the CVA. FRor the avoidance of doubt, btw, a CVA is an act of insolvency too. And you have just nicely explaine, for the benefit of the hissy-fitters, how an act of insolvency need not lead to a points deduction provided no financial advantage is gained.

Paying Wilkinson out was a good action, IMO. Given all he had done for the club over many years, and all the expenditure he had settled personally. The situation here with OK is probably a lot messier, for a whole raft of reasons debating of which on here would at best be unhelpful and including the involvement of others like the MP. Wilkoinson was clearly in there for the long haul, and not looking to get his money out at an early oipportunity. So I am very glad for him that he was settled with.



Chuffing ludicrous IMO, and totally disproportionate. Had I been the RFL, I'd have maybe said something like "right, we are going to pick a match and a player, sort of at random but similar in both cases to the one in question. And a time. And not tell anyone the details. Except the referee of the match. And then, at the appointed time, you got said man sent to the sin bin. Something like that, anyway. And, if he was just about tro score or stop a try at that point...well so be it. But anyway...

Hope the above helps a bit?