if we had not had the 6 points deducted at the start of the season we would still be in 13th place, would we still have the coaching staff we have now, would Sammut, Scruts, and Cavel have left. food for thought

But first, they will use their discretionary power to instruct an independent firm of experts to provide evidence to assist them in deciding who are to be the independent announcers.

You can't say that. We have no idea what would have happened has BB2014 not felt bounced out. Who knows who would have left? Impossible to say, but as dayvez says had we kept something like a pack I'm sure we'd have had more points in the bag.

I was in Leeds station Wetherspoons on Friday, as were Big Nige & Ralph. Unlike me they were on a table of lovely ladies. It's strange what comes into your head after 6 pints of Acorn's splendid [iSur Votre Velo[/i. I went home instead & slept through Wire v Rhinos.

Players left because Ok Bulls was in administration. BB2014 is irrelevant to the points deduction. John Bateman was sold by OK Bulls prior to administration.

So sweet FA is a creditor? That's the only way he can be confident of his £1m invested figure.

Bore off!

is LeagueDweeb still pretending to be in the know? i thought it was pretty much confirmed they were simply on a wind up? Are they still persisting?

So despite arguing vehemently against it. You now accept that if someone were a creditor, or were given information from a creditor. They could be confident of that figure.

What this tells us is, that you accept that what FA is saying could possibly be true. Yet you have argued it definitely isnt. These two things are mutually exclusive. Something cannot possibly be true if it definitely isnt. This makes it pretty obvious you dont have a clue either way and were trying to bluff your way out. You were trying to hide behind an absence of public information rather than having your own definitive information.

If you were someone who knew this figure to be incorrect, you would know it was incorrect by having your own definitive different information. What information FA had would be irrelevant. We now know you dont have this different definitive information. You bluffed. Your bluff was called. You are a busted flush. Know when to walk away from the table.

I believe he's adopted a strategy that if you dig down long enough, you'll start digging up

The creditors will not know anything other than the amount of money they are individually owed, through the claims they have lodged with the administrator.

FA has based his whole £1m on nothing more than a figure 'believed' to be £900,000- as speculated upon by the local newspaper at the time Ryan Whitcut was trying to engineer a way out of OK Bulls for OK.

Perhaps what you need to do is actually look closer at the behaviour of OK and RW and the sequence of event behind the scenes, plus the activities of both in the lead up to the meltdown.

There is not one shred of evidence to support the figure FA claims. It's a fallacy, and quite frankly beyond comprehension that OK would pump in £1m then within a month look to sell his stake in the company for just 20% of that amount.

I am guessing that FA is Gerry Sutcliffe, as he is the only other person who has claimed the £1m figure as genuine.

The administrator has never produced anything to support this figure. He hasn't communicated anything to anyone, let alone creditors, since his statement of affairs report.

Please feel free to provide any evidence yourself that will support a completely false claim. Of course that is unless you think there is no need for anyone to support claims they make.

I think you'll find that I am right. This will become clear once the final report is produced.

You are Poirot & I claim my 5 Belgian truffles.