Thanks for the simplistic black/white view again. I don't think that any RL person could argue the fact that the foundation of the problem has been successive mismanagement.

Unfortunately, the help the RFL have offered has been inconsistent, varying wildly from "light touch" to apparently vindictively excessive.

The short-sighted ness has been a problem, which is probably more to do with the lack of a clear strategic plan from the Rfl. Some decisions, which in the short term seemed reasonable, have with hindsight proved to be damaging in the medium term.

The RFL have said that they have been helpful & supportive. And you take that at face value.

The alternative view would be that they gave a man (Hood) a large chunk of cash to throw at a situation where he had already lost a lot of cash. How much oversight had they? Did they just give him enough rope to hang himself with?

Then they took the stadium. Again, the alternative view would be that they recognised a member club was in a distressed state and took advantage, by taking the only asset they had for below market rate.

They were then taken in by the new owner ( as were everyone else, except they had the responsibility to check & approve) which continued the slow motion train wreck. And that doesn't look at everything that happened over past 6 months.

So yes, as the governing body, with oversight & responsibility for good governance in the game, I think the RFL have failed in this area.

The RFL runs the game for the benefit of all stakeholders. It has more and better things to do than micro manage Bradford Bulls.
,
It did not "take the stadium". Bradford Bulls freely entered into an arrangement offered by the RFL to help the Club. The alternative could have been the bank, to which the Club owed a lot of money, taking the ground.

The RFL was not "taken in". It's 'fit and proper person test' is, as I've made clear previously, a BACKWARD LOOKING test. It is not intended to predict FUTURE behaviour.

Thank you for repeating the published RFL line. We'd prefer a bit of original thought though?
,


"to help the club"? As it happens, IIRC Hood told some of us that the idea to sell the ground was his, in a discussion with Wood on a train. But, regardless of how it arose, it was a deal done between Hood and one or more heirarchs at the RFL. That deal, far from helping the club, did absolutely immense damage to the club

Oh dear. You really don't know how these things work, do you?

The bank could only have seized the ground if they had a fixed charge on the freehold. Which they did not. The fact is, if BBH became insolvent, the long lease reverted to the council. The bank could never have realised ity in any way as security.

If BBH became insolvent whilst still holding the long lease, the best scope for Natwest to recover what it was owed would have been for the administrator to secure a decent price for the goodwill and other intangible assets - including a transfer of the lease to a new owner. Being a floating charge holder, the bank would then have had first dibs once the prefs were paid. Any in any case, the bank was only in for about £1/4m or so.



I never said it was "taken in". They either failed to conduct due dilligence when advancing the original loan - which should have meant Wood & co being ejected from office in most commercial organisations - or they knew what they were doing, and where it might lead.

As for the "fit and proper" test, well do you really think the leopard changed its spots so dramatically after the takeover?


I really wish you would just stand back from the line Wood and co have been pedalling, and look at their actual actions leading up to and throughout this whole ongoing train crash. The train crash was due entirely to the various people who owned and ran the club. I don't think there is any argument about that? The scale of the crash, the extent of the casualties, and the long-term consequences of it, seem to me though to owe much to the actions of Wood & co.

Something folk might want to think about? Moore & co were pilloried in various quarters for "walking away" from the club, when they were told about the (to them) unexpected points deduction AND, more seriously, continuing special measures. They said those actions by the RFL effectively consigned the club to relegation and (the subtext) possible financial oblivion. They said they could not allow themselves to be associated with the next train crash. Hood and Khan, by contrast, elected to try and carry on despite the overwhelming financial burdens. Who got it right?

When have I ever said any such thing? You do love your lies. Why do I need to ask him about the concert? WTF has that to do with anything now?


No. It is not a case of "belief". I have been reliably informed that OK was allowed to vote approx. £1m at the creditors' meeting and on the basis of that it seems very clear the evidence he produced must have been directly responsible for the upgrade. You of course are in denial about the creditors meeting.

So he says. I have never said I "Believe" him but I certainly see no reason to disbelieve him, it is certainly perfectly possible. As has been explained in detail to you but as normal you've simply ignored.

It is unfathomably stupid of you to keep flogging your dead horse. Anyone with a brain - seeing it means so much to you - could and of course would have very easily checked it out.

I can, though. So could you if you checked it for yourself.

I have already stated that no hearing date has been fixed yet. As normal you just weren't accepting incoming.

I can. And of course, many times, I have. You could too, if you checked it for yourself.

I bet you also don't believe man landed on the Moon, and that the Earth is flat. If your irrational beliefs make you happy then great. I can lead an ass to water, but I can't make it drink.

Whitcut is a two bit shyster. He's the only person who has claimed Khan put £1m in. His business history & his actions whilst in charge at Ok Bulls show him to be a credibility free individual, but you believe what he has to say. Reliably informed, by who? There is nothing to support your claim.

There is no court case. So 6 months on from the stat demand, there is still no hearing date, you can't say which solicitors are involved, or which parties. If the number you say is the case number was genuine, you would be able to say who the parties were, who the solicitors are and where the case was to be heard. You can't.

Walter Mitty has nothing on you.

No, he isn't.

What do you gain by repeating this lie? I'm scratching my head here.

I have been informed of the same thing via three creditors who attended the meeting, or their representatives. But don't let solid information stand in the way of your delusions.

I have repeatedly told you the hearing is not a stat demand hearing, it isn't my fault that you are so stupid, you do not understand this rather basic point.

I have repeatedly said I do know which solicitors are involved, and that you could ascertain the information, but you somehow prefer this mental campaign to convince yourself you might still be right. Why don't I say on here, now, who they are? Because I know your style! here would be no point, as you would just say i was lying about that too! See? You're rumbled! It shows a manic delusional personality, or desperate trolling. As it amuses me to watch you disappearing up your own ass I am happy to keep winding you, but I'm really not sure what you're getting out of this beating.

I have repeatedly said which parties, what is your problem, you surely can't be so thick as to keep forgetting?

Indeed, and that's why I can! But why haven't you simply CHECKED that the number is genuine, which it is, instead of wasting your time constructing ever more desperate scenarios where it might be fake? I mean, it's just not a rational approach, however much amusement it's providing us with, at your expense.

He certainly hasn't. You're a bit like the delusional child of Walter Mitty and the Black Knight would probably turn out, but more OCD.

No it was the mismanagement of the club wot done it - the worst you could accuse the RFL of is dropping the hospital pass the various owners of the Bulls threw them.
However I wont be holding my breath for the history book as it is well known that history is written by the victors - and that certainly isn't going to be the Bulls.

The backward bit of Whitcut was why he didn't step up as a director in the first instance with OK Bulls. The forward bit was the clearly useless business case & forecast the OK mob put forward.

No-one is saying it is a stat demand hearing. Apart from YOU that is. At least try to make you unsubstantiated claims consistent and dont contradict yourself
Where is the contradiction? If you'd check the chronology & context, it's clear that the claims about a stat demand issue were first. No one said the Khan 'claim' had been contested, and even if it is has there's no mention of any hearing being about a stat demand.

The reason being that insolvency proceedings would have already been started and completed if the stat demand had been issued and not contested.

The fact that it is over 6 months down the line since the whole process allegedly began shows that there is nothing ongoing. HTH

Because it would make absolutely no difference to your perverse position.

I haven't made any claim. I have provided facts.

So far as you are concerned of course it is. As is every single thing you have ever been told, or read, in your life. In particular, pretty much everything you would discuss with random people. Like, oh, I dunno, an internet forum maybe?

So, just to recap. The case number you randomly generated is fake. It cannot be checked anywhere because it doesn't exist. For the same reason you cannot name the parties this number relates to. For the same reason you can't name the solicitors acting on behalf of any parties. For the same reason you haven't said which parties have allegedly contested the debt.

Now, for all the reasons given above, you should just trot along back to your troll shed and find another angle for your endless trolling and lies.