Why is OK personally liable for repayment of Sky money? I don't get that.

The administrator thinks that OK Bulls went bust owing Omar about £400k. Omar thinks that he's actually owed £1.3m? the £400k + the £900k that the article is going on about.

But the carcass of ok bulls was bought by mark green for £200k, which paid the administrator then himself. Leaving £0 for the other creditors, including Omar.

The £900k Omar got from the RFL central funds will have gone straight to wages for players. So I also am unclear on why the RFL want it back, as it hasn't been lost to the game or anything.

The RFL were always very keen to stress that over the last 2years their main concern was paying the players & competition integrity. Omar paid the players & built up big debts as well.

Of course, if the RFL got any of this money, they would immediately use it to pay off the creditors

who lost out again when the RFL rubber stamped Omar as the correct man to take the club forwards last year.....

Let me get this right…

OK agreed/was forced to give up a years sky money split over 2 seasons
OK agreed/forced to sign a deal where if the Bulls were insolvent in 2013/14 season he would repay all central funding received

So Bulls actually look like losing 1.5 years funding approx.?? WTF RFL/OK?
Surely if the Bulls were insolvent (as occurred) there wasn’t enough money, not a surplus to pay the RFL back……

Am I reading this right?

Based on the administrator's report OK personally guaranteed:

1) The loan of £200k from the council
2) He also guaranteed to repay the Sky Money we did get in the event of us going tits up again.

I can understand the first one, less so the second but who knows what went on behind closed doors at the time of the first administration.

It would appear that OK - as the owner - personally guaranteed to repay the Sky Money we did get if we went bust against - as distinct from the Bulls having to repay it. Even if he had had a few £m spare I would never have signed a deal like that - still act in haste - repent at leisure.

Well, it all sounds like force majeure to me...






"[iForce majeure is generally intended to include risks beyond the reasonable control of a party, incurred not as a product or result of the negligence or malfeasance of a party, which have a materially adverse effect on the ability of such party to perform its obligations"[/i


OK's financial and negotiating skills were clearly risks beyond resonable control of any other party linked to Bulls since.

Indeed - whatever OK's faults, he is surely not so stupid as to enter into that agreement on the facts presented. OK is not stupid that is for sure.. There must be further details that are not public yet as only an idiot would have entered into that deal

Anyone can quote random extracts from the rules. However your extract is as relevant to the point as any Enid Blyton book. The point isn't that they don't have powers to deduct points etc., nor that no appeals procedure exists. Nobody is arguing that.

Basically, yes. The agreement in relation to all this (and including the penalty to receive half the distribution of other clubs) was confidential but the RFL have clearly put it in the public domain.

If OKBL didn't complete its fixtures in 2013 and 2014, then it had to repay all distributions. Obviously, if the club couldn't complete its fixtures, that could only be because it went tits, and so any such repayment clause would be largely academic, which will be why they got OK to personally guarantee the club's obligations.

Keen observers will note the irony of Mr. Carter whingeing about how in contrast to the Bulls situation, he put his house on the line. Kudos to him for that, but it seems OK put not just a house but his bollox on the line for the cause.

As I've been in sunny Spain, does anyone have a report of what went on at the creditors' meeting?

If that is the case then the appeal for points should be a hell of a lot stronger - the deal offered to OK (and accepted) was untenable and unworkable - it was a non starter, OK should have walked (glad he didn't) - the RFL if all the above info is true, have placed sanctions on the club over and above what is reasonable punishment, I get the feeling that Mr Green knows this and a certain Mr Carter is going to very upset soon.

No doubt even if OK did pay the whole of the distribution back, the clubs would vote to distribute that amongst themselves too.

to quote you specifically: [iThere is no rule that allows (or disallows) any such appeal. But if you say the a right of "appeal" by someone (the new owners) who have never actually had a ruling made against them, then please refer me to that rule. If you can, I will of course gladly accept its existence.[/i

Here it is:

4.7 In the event of a member ceasing to be a member upon notice from the Company by virtue of Acquisition, Change of Control or Insolvency Event, the Board, at its absolute discretion, shall have the right to readmit the member or admit a new member as a member on any terms as it sees fit, which for the avoidance of doubt, may include financial, administrative and/or sporting sanctions. In the event of membership continuing the Board may determine that membership shall be deemed to continue to subsist as if the member had not ceased to be a member at all. The Board will from time to time set out policy for the exercise of its discretion but is not bound by such policy or precedent decided under such policy or previous policy and the Board shall be entitled to amend any policy with immediate effect

you may need to refer to other sections of the membership byelaws, particularly the early ones such as

"Acquisition" means the acquisition (whether by purchase, transfer, renunciation or otherwise) of the whole or a substantial part of the assets or undertaking of any member;

"Change of Control" means that there is any change in the person who controls a member, and for this purpose "control" shall have the meaning given to it in Section 416 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

These two need to be read together with the definitions and interpretations section, where the definition of "owner" is noticeably absent.

Taking it all together, a new member is still "the member" as if they had never had membership withdrawn. It therefore follows that the member can be penalized when one person is in control of the member, and under the general rules of discipline and appeal tribunals, can appeal against that penalty even though there has been a change of control of "the member".