He doesn't have timers bitch about our club but had time for twitter?

IF the RFL did say Wakey would be relegated if they went into admin and now we're In admin I would be screaming from the roof tops of injustice. Put pressure on the RFL.

Indeed. And a good question.

Until the Statement of Affairs is filed, we can only speculate, that's the trouble. And try and interpret whatever information IS available.

So, I guess you would logically assume because the total amount owed, including OK's loan account, was more than the funds available to settle all the liabilities when due, even after any additional monies were available? But we do not know. In particular, we have no idea what the terms of repayment for OK's loan were, or whether they were linked to the share sale and purchase agreement? At least, I certainly don't.

There is a second situation, not necessarily reflecting insolvency, where administration can be used as a resolution process. That is where there are irreconcilable differences between shareholders. You might consider that that applied here (too?), although since the only shareholders were seemingly OK and Green's company, that does not necessarily stack up by itself either?

The wording of the original announcement seemed to indicate that, as a result of agreement to transfer the shares breaking down, Green took steps to enforce his security by putting the company into administration. Maybe he considered that, whilst the ownership issue remained unresolved, it was unlikely ANYONE would be able to settle his debt anytime soon? And, if interest was clocking up rapidly, then action was needed? I really have no idea, and so can only speculate.

The best guess I can come up with, and I said this in an earlier post somewhere, is that maybe it was down to a combination of all the above?

Weres this piece of info come from?

It sure would be, yes. I agree.

My assumption, based on everything that has been reported, is that it was OK putting his own money in, and not on any commercial basis. I think a key bit of evidence for this might be [url=http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12196/8851363/in the wording of this statement,[/url [url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/10587678.Bradford_Bulls_owner_Omar_Khan_injects___900_000_to_pay_wages/and here too.[/url.

I've seen nothing to suggest it was a commercial loan at arm's length, and given the statement about cash flow issues and not being able to pay the salaries, I'm not sure who would lend money on commercial terms in such circumstances. And certainly on an unsecured basis. Mr Green's company made a loan, and took security for it. But yes, if nevertheless it was an arm's-length commercial loan, then it should be treated exactly the same as any other creditor. And the consequences for non-payment should be the same too.

Two important lessons can be learnt from this mess:
1) Don't spend more than you earn
2) If you do need help with cash flow timing - be very careful who you borrow from and be dam sure you can pay it back if the bloke you borrowed from has a baseball bat.

I fear Adey's attempts to find logical explanations for the actions of the last few year's will prove futile as it looks very much as if the BOD were flying by the seat of their pants most of the time, and as for Whitecut is he the only person the RFL have ever declared to not be suitable?

Wasn't Widnes's elevation to SL delayed for similar reasons?

LMFAO in both those statements Mr Whitcut states [i"Bulls general manager Ryan Whitcut said: "The funding issue is to cover us for the rest of this year and next, so there will be no more issues."[/i

So he didn't know about the HMRC bill that was due or that the Bradford council and Mr Greens loans would need to be paid back



Well you keep spinning the spin adey, you're doing a great job

Not even attempting to try and explain the actions of the last administration. Concluded ages ago that many were illogical and made little sense to me!

Not spinning anything. Just giving my take on what I see. I suspect some of that take may not be to the liking of the latest administration either, but so be it.

But, regarding your specific point from those statements, I am in violent agreement with you. Although Green's loan was taken out much later - when OK stepped down, and maybe plugged a gap when his funding came to a halt, I can only speculate? And the HMRC liability is likely to be far more recent even than that. But yes, time has showed what a joke those statements were. I did not post on here (or anywhere) from early April to late November. Maybe I had views about what I saw happening or being said?

Presumably in your world the penalty for driving without due care and attention is 9 points? The fact that in real life the incident is objectively assessed and you may get anything between 3 and 9 points, or even no points at all, must really mess with your head. Everything is so black and white isn't it.

What is the penalty for posting on an internet forum without due care and attention?

As an outsider looking in (if its possible to see in through the murk and confusion) and trying to put aside the minute details (if that is possible).
At some point, hopefully before the season kicks off, the RFL will make some kind of decision about dealing with the situation.
What would be seen as fair by the Bulls supporters?
1. Expulsion from the league - that is what Wakey were threated would be the consequence of admin, the company owning the bulls went into admin prior to the takeover.
2. A 6 point deduction lowering to 4 if evidence of creditors being paid up is given.
3. A 4 point deduction.
4. No points deducted, as you have done nothing wrong.
Whatever the outcome this is another sorry day for the leadership of our game, our game and your club.
Before anyone suggests I'm crowing - as a supporter of Wakefield, we have little to crow about as we have been let down and been a let down to the game ourselves.
I think the devil is in the detail though on this one, so i guess it might all come down to the detail in the end.