1 - What you say in the first paragraph is not my view, is not a view I have ever put forward, and (other than in the minds of any whom it suits to think or suggest that) is not a view supported by any evidence.

2 - The questions are quite clearly not aimed directly at the current owner (although his answers would be enlightening), or fans on here. They are quite clearly aimed at the key protaganists t in this debacle - the RFL, Moore & Co and to an extent Green, as well as the likes of Khan and Whitcu*t. I posted the same questions in several other places. Have a read of rlthis threadrl for a rather wider discussion of the questions. I seem to have accumulated 30 likes so far to my original post, which is quite a lot for that place, so I must be doing something right?

3 - The questions, as you will see from the extra paragraph in that and other places, are a clear invitation to journalists and others who are far better placed to get to the bottom of things, to see if THEY can get some answers. And the T&A journalist rang me up earlier precisely in response to that post. In a brief discussion, we each ascertained that we did not have many of the definitive answers. I had nothing new I could tell him, and vice versa.

4 - I already know some of the answers some of the protaganists would (or did) give, since they have told me. But, given there are always two sides to any argument, I would want to hear the other side. And compare the answers, and any disagreements, and THEN try and form a view. It seems to me that many people have already formed a view, without having heard the responses from both sides. I say again, the only people who are likely to be able to get to the bottom of what really happened - if anyone is - will be the likes of journalists. And there must be wider stories in all this, not least the roles of the various politicians, and of one in particular.

5 - the reason for posing the questions is simple: I do not believe we have anything like the whole explanation for what has happened. Any more than we did over Iconicgate (that was quite good, the guy who coined that! I might steal it...), the first administration, the sale to OKB, and what happened under OK's tenure. Some folk may be content to let it lie, and just accept the present disaster for what it is. Some other folk would prefer to know how the hell we got to this disaster, and what lessons might be learned. And who really are the guilty men. I am one of those, and I can see I am not totally alone, even if doubtless in a minority. THAT is why I posted what I did. To provoke some thought; maybe some consideration that things may not be quite as clear-cut as some folk - many folk outside of the Bulls fanbase - might believe or want to believe; and, just maybe, some more probing questions to get some better explanations.

If anyone has a problem with any of that, just put me on ignore and don't read what I say. Simple.

At a secret meeting with the RFL it has already been agreed that if the Bulls were relegated then they would have special dispensation to pay whatever salaries they liked. The RFL were dead set against it, but when it was pointed out to them how much this would annoy, they loved the idea.

PS as we are majoring in Latin today, can I just point out that your post contains a [inon sequitur[/i since obviously, if certain people didn't know about the contracts then, by definition, they wouldn't be "know alls".

Nonsense. The current owner will have very limited information on previous management and effectively none at all for most of it. Why would he? Where would he get it from and why would he be remotely interested in (say) what happened under the Caisley, or Hood, regimes?

The independent panel would know practically nothing at all, since none of the issues raised by Adey were anything to do with them, and they never even got to considering such extremely narrow single-subject remit as was given to them as the Bulls apparently didn't even qualify to get their appeal heard. So what on earth would they know about any of that historical stuff?


What are you trying to say? That because maybe no answers can be gained, no questions should be asked? If I want to come on here, or anywhere, and ask or answer questions, then it is up to me. And as it happens I have found out a great deal over the years either directly via these forums, or indirectly in private communications with members of these forums.

To use your "fishy" turn of phrase, anyone who has even read anything in passing of the debacles of events in recent years, if they have learned anything at all, it must surely be that the stench of fish would overpower a thousand Grimsby docks in a summer heatwave. How naive are you?

I'm just waiting to see what deal we get when we tell the RFL we aren't paying full rent for the ground when we are in the Championship.

Let's play at VP next year, might save a few quid?

BB2014 was set up because Moore & Co had no intention of buying OK Bulls. In just the same way as OK Bulls was set up with Khan having no intention of buying BB Holdings.

Easiest way to start debt free.

There is and never was a legal case being pursued by Omar Khan for his shares not being purchased. Why do you keep perpetuating this outright lie? You'd have to ask Moore what Whitcut didn't tell him. The administrators statement of proposals clearly references this.

BB2014 was not accepted by the RFL because no agreement was reached on a sale. BB2014 business plans were negotiated with and rejected by the RFL.

Once these plans were rejected and BB2014 informed, a points deduction was handed down. BB2014 didn't walk away because of the points deduction. They walked away because they didn't have any money to invest.

Even just as a set of words thats nonsense. Not even judging it in relation to reality but on its merits as prose its just fsking nonsense.

Of all the lies you have put forward over the past few weeks (seems like years), this is the funniest.

So lets get this right, BB2014 (Moore, Calvert, RHP and Watt) were told by the RFL that they would not accept their bid, yet this is the first that anyone has EVER heard of this.

So the statements from the Board (at the time) about not accepting to be placed into 'special measures' (due to them being respectful business men apparently) was just a smokescreen as the RFL had actually told them that they could not own the club, so they all lied so that the truth could be kept from everyone for no apparent reason?

Wow - I think you have just outdone yourself! I'm impressed (and not is a good way!)

Also, I must have imagined of the meeting between the RFL, OK and the members of BB2014 in December, in which they agreed the sale price of the club (to only find that OK changed the details at a later date). I must have some imagination!

It is similar to how if he likes a poster he always has to try and convince us of their right to be heard.

It is like the Court of King Characterless.

Shall we stop falling out on this subject and concentrate on the Leeds board.They have already got 2 topics titled "Robbed"

If that's all we've got at the moment to make us feel better I'll take that right now

All this in fighting isn't very edifying is it?

You're all grown men aren't you?

Let's give it a rest please.

Mr. Moderator, can I just point out that I am (once again) complying with what the moderators have requested. The personal attacks are totally one-sided, and getting more than a bit irritating now.

(Edited as per Feeble's advice below.)

Might help your case if you didn't refer to mods by their first names, Adey. Makes nutty Eddie's accusations sound more plausible and its a little funny how you've suddenly started doing it.

?? I've always done it with Sam, from time to time, nothing new there. As I have with our friend Craig too, from time to time. I guess since I use my own first name on here, the thought never entered my head about what you suggest. Don't really see anyway why I should have to make "my case", though. House divided...all very sad.

So, when a deal was signed to buy OK's shares, how was it negotiated and agreed? Accidentally? It is an odd thing, that. To agree to buy someone's shares for £300K when you have no intention of doing so. Perhaps you could explain how that one works?


One of us is a perpetual liar, and as I have said, it isn't me. This particular mistake of yours, which you keep repeating, PROVES you to be a liar. Why? Because you don't say you simply "don't know of" any case, or that you've not heard of the case. You bluster that "THERE IS AND NEVER WAS" a case. And accuse me of perpetuating "a lie". No room for doubt, then. You are telling the forum that YOU KNOW, and therefore you know I "am lying".

So let me tell you the case details. It is - and has for very many weeks - been proceeding in the High Court at Leeds under case number A30LS219. In fact, oddly enough, OK started these legal proceedings at the time that he publicly announced in the local press that he had started these proceedings.

You have been a busted flush for a while, but your gamble on your wild guess that there was no case has failed, and you are a now proven LIAR. Well done you!


The remainder of your lies, like the above, can therefore be safely ignored as the invented product of your febrile imagination.