Well we will agree on that - however the basic principals of running an effective organisation be it Microsoft, a charity, a council or a corner shop are the same just on a different scale. There are actually thousands of not for profit organisations in the UK (Bullbuilder for example) - and while they might not be trying to make a multi-million profit they don't want to loose money either. So while successful sports clubs might require top up funding from their owners if they want to compete for trophies - I would be surprised if any of these sugar daddies would take additional losses due to incompetent management lying down?

Northern Relic has summed up precisely how the Bulls should have been run.

What any successful businessman also needs are a clear set of rules not the make it up as we encounter insolvencies by the RFL/Super League.
The withholding of Sky money by way of penalty was known about by OK/Sutcliffe on purchase of the club.
You therefore cut the cloth to fit that loss in guaranteed income.
Ok let it drift and as the successful bidders (Moore @ Co)pointed out even after his resignation last sept he continued to have influence as a shadow director in telling Whitcut who to pay.That is in the administraters report.

That if insolvent was unlawfull.

You dop not borrow £150K on 6 weeks terms at 8 pc per month to cripple the club unless you are
1.Seriously desperate having exhausted all other avenues
2.Are attempting to offload without been truthfull to the prospective new owners,who were running the club by then,as to the true financial state of the company been sold.
3 Are attempting to raise the finance to buy OK out with company money (as the RFL have inferred)

The appeal will be determined on the basis of
1.Was admin avoidable
2.Is there intent to settle the creditors

In relation to 1) the answer is no it was not avoidable.
As far back as September the company was insolvent with nothing but a prospect of little income through the winter.
The new lot wanted to put the sick patient into admin in November.The RFL baulked and said "No way"
There was no money to pay the HMRC in jan when the wind up petition was presented.

So we have an owner by default which is better than no club.

This is still about survival until Sky dosh returns.
Ok and his cohorts are entirely to blame.

Wages should have been slashed early on in his tenure.
Together with all overheads.

No sugar daddy and it will always be like this.
The salary cap takes most of the Bulls income.
Which is dropping weekly 6100 there for the crucial match with Salford.
3500 of them paid up.Gate receipts on day must therefore be no more than £40000.
The wages bill is still £100000 a month.
Simple little indicators as that bring the reality of the Bulls problems to mind.
Little alarm bells and lights in the head of OK should have meant it never came to this.
Marc Green will have to fund these shortfalls going forward or we will be back where we have been for three years very quickly indeed.

But it has not come from OK, the administrator has not spoken to OK, and it is simply untrue. As well as completely not credible. having sold his shares, why would he WANT any more involvement and having BOUGHt teh club, why would Whitcut act on anyone's "directions"?


I have no clue why he did it. Those seem fair possibilities.


Indeed he will, which makes the talk of "running like a business" in terms of "only pay out what you get in" seem absurd. [i And[/i he ain't even a sugar daddy, [iand[/i that's when we only have not far off a skeleton squad to fund.

"why would he WANT any more involvement" Depending on whose figures you believed OK had between 450,000 and 1,100,000 reasons to be involved!

Well spotted xx

If I had a million tied up in a failing business that could be turned around I would want someone in there watching out for things.

FA seems to have really liked Ok.

Ok and Whitcut have been through all this before with Lister Hotel.
They appear joined at the hip.
I could say worse but will button it in case Raisemeup jumps to defend their behaviour.
Bad news always hurts sadly.
But please don't turn on the messagers

yes we will if the herald is blowing his trumpet from the inner depths of his *hole. somewhere in that monologue lies the odd gem. how do you know Moore etc wanted admin but the RFL didnt let them? Evidence not tittle tattle please.

This really doesn't follow, though, does it? If MM and RW had actually paid for the shares, then they would have bought the shop, and that would have been that.

You may choose to think that had MM & RW bought the company, they would for some reason still have taken directions on how to run it from the seller, but I don't think that is remotely believable.

And if OK really wanted "involvement" and to run the company, it would be odd that he chose to walk out, and chose to sell his entire shareholding, wouldn't it? He already HAD involvement. These suggestions make no sense at all to me. If anyone can put forward a scenario involving the known facts that would make sense, I'll happily consider it.

You're blowing [ikisses[/i now?


You are rambling. Your points amount to the business being a basket case, and Whitcut and Khan not being fit to run a whelk stall, thus having ruined the club. Fair summary?

But now suddenly it was a "business that could be turned around"? Was it? Based on what?

And while you would want "someone" in there "watching out for things", given the state of the books, and if you really thought these things, are you seriously telling me that that someone you would choose would be Whitcut? Seriously? As opposed to him being the last person?

Why wouldn't you, for example, instead of walking away, take over yourself? You can watch out for things better that way> Or why wouldn't you, if you were too ill to remain, finally appoint someone at least at capable whelk retail level?


In this discussion personalities are surely completely irrelevant? At any rate, OK saved teh club, and all i have said is I will always be grateful to him for that.


They do? They are certainly joined in civil proceedings where OK is the claimant and Whitcut is a defendant. Do you think that counts?

You are asking for sensible suggestions for the actions of the various actors in this sorry tragedy - this implies they understood the facts and their implications and would then act with common sense. When the magnitude of the problems started to become apparent OK decided (sensibly?) to staunch his personal cash haemorrhage, but probably harboured some distant hope that under new - but connected - ownership that the creditors, with him being the largest - would get at least some of their money back. The event which would crystallise his loss would be for the OKBulls to pass into administration which is how things finally turned out.

Can't see how the Appeals Panel can possibly give any points back. Claiming that the club was financially soundly run in 2013 but some "force majeure" I.e. An act of god, like an earthquake or something caused the administration, is frankly laughable.

You may be right but I'm keeping my powder dry. Let's see what happens. I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of points come back. Then again I'd even less surprised if there was no change.

Anyone see what they said on Boots n All tonight?

Apparently the Wakefield chairman said he would quit if we were given our points back.

Someones feeling a tad nervous!