Actually I ain't read the majority of it FA. I was bored after the first couple of pages. TBH I cannot believe that it is still going on.

Town hall clock springs to mind with you

Quote: mystic eddie " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Edsel

Quote: mystic eddie " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Edsel

To your first point, essentially, yes. To your second point, I'd suspect no - but with a slighly lower degree of assurance.

As a director of a company, once you know (or ought to know) that it is unable to settle its debts as they fall due, then there are a string of specific requirements you MUST comply with, to avoid the offence of wrongful trading, by trading whilst insolvent. One of those requirements (put simply) is that you must not prefer (i.e. pay/settle) one creditor in preference to another. To do so, without a compelling commercial reason necessary to minimise the loss to the body of creditors, is what is called a "fraudulent preference". Any such payments are liable to be recoverable from the recipient by the administrator or liquidator. Also, note that trading whilst insolvent effectively lifts the protection of limited liability, in that any director so doing can become personally liable for debts of the company.

Prefering a creditor by the COMPANY, without compelling justification, is clearly a no-no. Should a director - or, maybe more to the point, a principal shareholder, chose to settle a debt of the company personally, you start getting into grey areas. I guess technically, the director then effectively stands in place of the original creditor, through an increased loan account creditor, and therefore the quantum of creditors remains unchanged. Just its composition has changed.

If you are wondering whether, if OK paid any debts of the company personally, and if by doing so was guilty of making a fraudulent preference, based on the above I'd say probably not. But, to be safe, you'd need an insolvency lawyer to opine on the particular circumstances.

Following FA's comments earlier, it may well be that some of the debt OK claims as due to him arose precisely BECAUSE he argues that he paid, personally, liabilities of the company. As long as he paid these while the company was solvent, there can hardly be an issue anyway, regardless?

The administrator, in his "proposals" report, alludes to some monies being paid BACK to OK, reducing his loan account. teh administrator goes on to say that he would investigate these seeming repayments, to ascertain whether the constitued a pruadulent preference. As indeed he has a responsibility anyway to do. Separate issue to your point, though.

I know we don't need to worry about anyone who finds this thread boring (or does not understand it's contents) complaining. Since they can have no reason whatsoever for reading it in the first place, knowing its nature and contents.

I thought you were sailing close to the wind by committing sarcasm, which I believe is in direct contravention of the AUP.

Who said that there was anything he "didn't have" as a director? Of course he did!

OK Bulls did have banking facilities, through Barclays. They didn't have merchant services to allow card or online payments.

Still nothing to support your £1m?

Both the Bradford Council loan and the Sky money from the RFL were underwritten by personal guarantees of repayment by Omar Khan.

Perhaps it is because once he stepped down and the business was placed into administration, these amounts had to be recorded for audit trail and proof of debts due - as the money from both Bradford Council and the RFL had actually been paid to OK Bulls.

Audit trail? What on earth can you be on about? It is gibberish. You're either a creditor of a company or you're not. There is nothing hard to understand.

Nor do you offer any reasonable explanation as to why this alleged "debt" did not appear until the night before the meeting OK called.

Still nothing on what happened at the creditors meeting, or any supporting proof for the £1m?

As mentioned, both the Sky money and Bradford Council loan were underwritten by Omar Khan. The Sky money WAS NOT a loan to OK Bulls. It was not recorded as a liability on the business. The RFL is not a creditor of OK Bulls.

The Sky money went into OK Bulls, so therefore had to be recorded at the creditor meeting. The RFL had to be able to prove where the money went to ensure it's guarantee was protected. The administrator was made aware of the arrangement as he was handling the financial affairs of Ok Bulls to whom the Sky money was paid.

Just as Omar Khan would have to evidence any money he paid in to OK Bulls, as you claim he has so the RFL made sure the Sky money was officially recorded.

Perhaps the RFL were not made aware of the company being placed into administration before it happened? Perhaps they were simply countering Omar Khan from playing silly buggers and protecting central funds?

Conversely Bradford Council was a creditor of OK Bulls. The loan agreement was between Bradford Council and OK Bulls, with Ok Bulls repaying approximately £50k of the £200k until it defaulted.

And if you believe that, you will believe anything!

I have several times summrised what happened at that meeting and stated that OK produced his proof to the administrator. I am not sure which bit you are having trouble with.
So why mention it again? Everybody who is interested has read all about these facts

Indeed it was not, any more than it is a loan to any other club. But who on earth argued it was a loan? Another of your straw men.

And yet claimed and got admitted as a £1m creditor. And thus voted to that amount. Odd, wouldn't you say?

"Recorded"? Why on earth would it need to be "recorded"? How would it be recorded? For what purpose? A creditors' meeting is attended by - and only by - CREDITORS. There's a clue in the phrase "creditors meeting". Your curious theory is just weird.

Again, nuts. How can there be any dispute as to how much distribution was paid to the Bulls? Unless you think it was paid in cash? The RFL was in fact (and very simply) claiming to be a creditor of OKB on the basis that it claimed OKB having gone into admin, had to pay the distribution money back. If the RFL was right, then it would be a debt. Owed by OKB. To the RFL. It is zero to do with any guarantee. If the RFL wanted to claim any money from OK personally then that would (obviously) be a matter purely between them and him. It would be nothing whatsoever to do with OKB and much less with the administrator of OKB. Either they could prove OK owed them money, or they couldn't. Either way, even you must realise that a creditors meeting of a company in administration is not the forum for a dispute between the RFL and a private individual about a claimed personal debt.

How do you suggest he was "Playing silly buggers"? He was either a creditor or he wasn't. What has that issue got to do with the RFL?

No , Sherlock. I have an equally profound revelation: Bradford Council is a council.

I've got fa slightly ahead on points here but Jim Watt's scorecard favours league dweeb.

I'm waiting for a Froch right hander.