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.

The very fact that the club bought services from a company whose directors/owners (and or their wives) were also directors of the club would be investigated in regard to preferential payments.

In the same context, there would be scrutiny if directors used incoming funds to discharge personal debt guarantees. Again this could be considered a preferential payment if it pre-empted a
a directors personal liabilty.

All/most companies who go bust could be argued to have traded while insolvent. They key criteria which would provoke further scrutiny is whether directors were considered to be benefiting themselves in the process, knowing or having likely knowledge that creditors were about to get bent over.

The transactions with NAK were fully disclosed as required in the accounts - and there is no law preventing companies with joint management/ownership trading with each other. As NAK ended up being one of the largest creditors of the company I think you have some way to go yet before you have proved your case that any of our benighted and mercifully former directors gained personally from the disaster they manifested upon the club.

The one thing which I asked about at the time, and which I don't yet know the answer to, related to the former company's bank.

We got differing stories from the former management and from the bank, which was very odd in itself.

However, I understood the position to be that prior to the farrago of the RFL loan/lease transactions, the club had a sizeable overdraft, and the balance of information suggests that this overdraft was basically called in.

It was also my understanding that the amount owed to the bank (but nowhere else) was secured by directors' PGs.

Did the directors end up having to stump up their PGs to the bank? If not, how was the bank paid off? (If indeed it was paid off. As nobody connected with the shenanigans has ever given public details of the situation).

As I understand it paying the overdraft off was main use (along with paying one of the tax bills) made of the 500k raised from us. Seem to remember that hood and Bennett couldn't stand down as directors until their PGs were discharged by the overdraft being cleared but this then left club with no operating capital. Hence the need for advances of the sky monies to pay the wages.

Thankfully it's not my case and you're quite correct as to the law not preventing companies with joint management/shareholding trading with each other. My point was that when one of these companies goes into admin or liquidation, the transactions between the two will be scrutinised for any evidence of possible irregularities. Such evidence maybe the purchase of goods at inflated prices or the sale of goods at particularly low prices.

Or, the sequence of events allowing directors to discharge PGs as FA refers to.

Pure suposition but imagine the following conversations:

Scene one - Bank

Bank Manager 1 " Why goodness me George the Bradford Bulls account seems to have received a substantial sum of readies from someone living at "the Red Shed" or some plebian name like that"
Bank Manager 2 " While my word, I know those golly good sorts down at HQ have spent the last ten years telling us to give money to any one asked, but apparenently there was a bit of an incident and now we are not to lend money to anyone"
Bank manager 1 " While that was fortuitous just as the nice Bull chaps have gone into credit for the first time since that nice Welsh gentleman deposited a postal order in 1963 - we better remove their overdraft facitlity pretty sharpish eh!"

Scene 2 - large hole in Ground in South Bradford
Peter " Oh ****"
Another " What can be the matter Peter?"
Peter " We don't have any money and that squad of ours need paying at the end of the month"
Another " Well do you have any fans left or did they all follow that nice Mr Mcbanana chap to Hull"
Peter " I saw some last week - do you think they could give us some money?"

And the rest - as we know is history

I think standard end of admin form is to:

1) Check enough money to cover fees
2) If surplus after fees - then invoice more fees
3) print standard word doc about having taken lots of time checking conduct of directors and found nothing - then post 2nd class

Believe me if they thought anything could have been easily recovered from the directors as a result of their actions they would have done - but this is very, very rarely the case and they would have needed to have been caught taking cash out of the till.