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.

Liar. I have told the forum what happened at the creditors' meeting.


Liar. For the umpteenth - and final - time, THE EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED AT THE CREDITORS MEETING AND ACCEPTED TO THE TUNE OF AROUND £1M BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.


And, like your usual guesswork, you guess wrong.


Look you idiot the creditors meeting was called, inter alia, BECAUSE the administrator had OK in at only around £400K. It is not up to the administrator to produce anything to support a creditor's claim - even my dog would probably understand that much.

And if you knew this figure to be incorrect you would know it to be incorrect. Whether FA was a creditor or knew a creditor would be irrelevant.

There is difference between you knowing this figure is wrong, and you not being aware of this figure.

Why, none of that would be relevant to what YOU have said.

The only one indulging in a fallacy here is you. It is a clear and obvious logical fallacy. If you KNOW this figure to be incorrect then you have your own definitive information to the contrary. The fact you dont, and you are relying on an absence of evidence in favour as your proof PROVES that you dont know. It you know definitively as you state then FA's evidence is irrelevant because you can prove the opposite. If you cannot, then you cannot possibly know.

I am not claiming either way. You are. Perhaps it is time you provide your definitive evidence?

So, you're right even though everyone else is not only saying you're wrong, but providing evidence to support exactly WHY you're wrong? Good luck with that.

FA's evidence? sorry, at best hearsay without an independent authoritative source. When i see an amended statement from the administrator, I will consider that evidence,

Good to know. I'm sure the thing most people on here crave, above all, is to hear the outcome of your ruminations once you have "considered" such "evidence" as the administrator may provide to you. I know that it's top of my list, and that the administrator will be yearning for your approval.

Maybe you should attend the 16 July hearing. You might learn a bit more there.

All this kindergarten stuff is irrelevant anyway. The Bulls went bust, again, big style. If there's no cash left from what the new owner paid the Administrator for the Club (after the Administrator's fees are taken) then there's nothing for anybody. No cash for creditors, whatever their claims might be, and no points back for the Bulls.

pot calling kettle black!!!

Again, I prefer to wait to hear the outcome of the experts view of the points deduction rather than some wooden top caught in a groundhog day. the appeal is not about whether the creditors are going to get anything back, Marc Green hasnt said he will do that, that was Moore. The issue is whether the insolvency event was due to force majeure, ie unavoidable. Not having the money to pay the taxman is not unavoidable. I doubt that Marc Green would shell out money to pay for independent witnesses to tell him what he already knows.
And theres a few dates that on the face of it do not add up. on the 20th January Moore was stating that the cuts had just about been made and whilst not quite there the future was looking more stable, and also that agreement had been reached about transfer of control and it was proceeding to contracts. On the other hand 10 days later theres an admin order (apparently the insolvency event) that seemingly catches out Moore and the RFL.

Adey, point of information please: The Administrator would do a bank reconciliation as part of his duties to sort out the mess: if OK had paid £1m rather than £400k into the Bulls the Administrator would have noticed it. However, if OK had simply paid direct ie not put it through the Bulls books, what status does it have in an admin situation?

From the initial statement from the Administrator it is clear there isn't a copper for any of the creditors, so no effort will be put into examining the numbers or digging out the truth. So you could claim to be owed £20m and basically the Administrator would shrug his shoulders and say "Whatever".
But as Adey points out it's kind of ironic that OK's arguing he was owed more but it wasn't reflected in the books - the accuracy of which both he and the other Directors were responsible.

Indeed.

Seems to me that various parties to this whole sorry saga are seeking to rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic to reflect their version of events...months after it sank.