Looks like Whitcu*t does:

Taken from twitter so I can't vouch for its authenticity

Notice he doesn't mention the money he borrowed from green using club as security.

Interesting that he mentions that the Pre-pack administration was set up by all parties(incl the RFL) to get rid of Omar.

If that letter is from W. And IF the bit about the rfl advising for the admin to get rid of khan is true, then I can see interesting times in court ahead, and IF any of that is true then I can see why mr green might well feel there is a case to at least discuss about the whole administration and sanctions being questioned.

Unfortunately it raises more questions than it answers, but cleArly, when you also consider fa's oft quoted and correct piece about the timing and protocol of the deduction the rfl do have questions to answer. Hopefully we'll get more details from the inquiry. But I'll not hold my breath for a satisfactory explanation.

Lots of allegedlies in that statement.

Also assumptions about not wanting their sort????

Who would these sort be??

All sounds a bit dubious to me. He talks of the administration being set up by certain parties, yet he was not there.

That is very interesting, we will get a footnote at the end of the rag duckman like always.

What does whitcut mean by "Omars sort?" possible racial discrimination from the governing body, someone will get lynched for that mention?

Blake solly the chief of licensing ADVISED bb2014 not to pay Omar thus sending them into admin, think if even part of this letter is true it is going to get extremely interesting extremely quickly and some will fry for they part in this, or even bring the RFL crashing down around their high horses.

Well, depending on how true this is (and you'd think that Mr Green and his people would be interested in this as it seems to give legs to their challenge to the points deduction) it's certainly a different twist on the whole situation.

Understanding is a 3 edged sword. Their side, your side and the truth. But as the waters have been mudded and muddled so often I doubt we'll ever know the whole truth

For all the lies etc. that we seem to associate with Whitcut, I do get the feeling that there is a bit of truth in what he is saying.

For a number of months now many have thought that the whole 'administration' was a little questionable. I remember commenting at the time that the administration was a way of ousting the majority shareholder.

There are a few damning claims against certain members of the RFL, what would be interesting now would be for the 3 amigos (Watt, Calvert and Moore) confirmed if any of these allegations were true. They have an axe to grind with the RFL and this would ruffle a few feathers.

Wonder if the RFL will respond?

Moore has already stated,

"I am also extremely surprised by the current position of the RFL, given the fact that they have guided us and advised us on the majority of decisions made over the past five to six months. We were more than grateful of their assistance, as they have been integral in getting us to this stage.
"More frustratingly, this process has been amplified by the fact that administration could have been avoided."

Whitcut is saying Solly told Watt, Moore and Calvert not to pay OK and Moore is effectively saying that the RFL advised placing the club in administration. It's not precisely the same but it's certainly very close and the RFL ratified the change of ownership with some haste.

When the original administration took place I was rather surprised how quickly a new owner was found (BB2014) without the administrator announcing a deadline for bids from potential buyers. It all seemed to happen instantaneously.

Hearing gets delayed and then a matter of hours later, Whitcut releases this statement.

Completely unconnected events, or one as a consequence of the other? Who can say...

Maybe worth a flying visit on here, to make an observation:

Reading that letter, and his unequivocal wordings, it would appear to me that Whitcu*t has either libelled Rimmer and Solly...or he has damned them.

If the former, one suspects he may be getting a solicitor's letter pretty soon?

If the latter, it could make Rimmer and Solly's positions at the RFL (and, by extension, the position of the RFL) untenable?

Depending on what (indeed, if any) of that is true and he can actually prove.

btw Davey, the Administrator explained in his report why he accepted the prepack - no funds to allow for a normal marketing exercise first, he said, so time was of the essence, seemingly. For anyone who might suppose "he would say that, wouldn't he?", not being party to the transaction I could not possibly comment.